€692 12820 19/1 ¢

INU OUI

AUVUEBI 393 T1059 3ddITIOAM

Gheological Collection.
of the

JOHN WO. GRAHAM

Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https ://archive.org/details/acommentaryontheOOeadiuoft

A COMMENTARY

ON THE

GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL

THE EPHESIANS.

BY THE LATE

JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.,

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO THE UNITED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,

Third Lvition.

EpITeD BY Rev. W. YOUNG, M.A., GLascow.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1883,

TIATAOS—6 ehy cixovutyny cradiedous, xu co wee) xlertms decum rey
ROTMov mixesy a@oPrves.—BAXIA, ZEAEYTK, Oar. II.

‘Tynrov cPoden vives rav vonudrwr xal vaieoyxwy. 2 yee pndapov
oxsdovigbiylare, raira ivraid« dnro1,—TOY XPYXOZTOMOT ; ‘TIO@EXIz
tis civ wens "EQecious tmiororny,

Quantis difficultatibus et quam profundis questionibus involuta
sit.—H1ERonyMus, Proem. in Comment. in Epist. ad Ephesios.

Hoc ago, ut membrorum ordinem ostendam, et moneam, ne abjiciatur
nativa significatio verborum, et jubeo ab ipso Paulo sententiam peti ;
‘on gigno aliud genus doctrine.—MELANcHTHON, Epistole ad Rom.
Enarratio, Prefat.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.

Tue following pages are an attempt to give a concise
but full Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the
Ephesians. My object has been to exhibit the mind
and meaning of the apostle, not only by a scientific
analysis of his language, but also by a careful delinea-
tion of the logical connection and sequence of his
thoughts. Mere verbal criticism or detached annota-
tion upon the various words by themselves and in
succession is a defective course, inasmuch as it may
leave the process of mental operation on the part of
the inspired writer wholly untraced in its links and
involutions. On the other hand, the sense is not to be
lazily or abruptly grasped at, but to be patiently
detected in its most delicate shades and aspects, by the
precise investigation of every vocable. As the smaller
lines of the countenance give to its larger features their
special and distinctive expression, so the minuter
particles and prepositions give an individuality of
shape and complexion to the more prominent terms of
a sentence or paragraph. In this spirit philology has
been kept in subordination to exegesis, and gram-
matical inquiry has been made subservient to the

development of idea and argument.
a

vi PREFACE.

At the same time, and so far as I am aware, I have
neglected no available help from any quarter or in
any language. The Greek Fathers have been often
referred to, the Syriac, Coptic, and Gothic versions
are occasionally quoted, and the most recent German
commentators have been examined without partiality
or prejudice. Though agreeing in so many views with
Olshausen, Meyer, Harless, Stier, and Tischendorf, yet
there are many points in connection with the text,
literature, exegesis, and theology of the epistle, on
which I am forced to differ from one or all of them,
and in such cases I have always endeavoured to
‘render a reason.” Perhaps some may think that too
many authorities are now and then adduced, but the
method has at least this advantage, that if names be of
any value at all, they receive their full complement in
such an enumeration; and should the opinion of any
of them be adopted, it is seen at once that I do not
claim the paternity, but avoid equally the charge of
plagiarism, and disavow the awkward honour of origin-
ality for a borrowed or repeated interpretation. On
many an important and doubtful clause the various
opinions are arranged under distinct and separate
heads, showing at once what had been done
already for its elucidation, and what is attempted in
the present volume. Not that I have merely com-
piled a synopsis, for it is humbly hoped that the
reader will find everywhere the living fruits of,
personal and independent thought and _ research.
Sometimes when the truth, which I suppose to
have been delivered by the apostle, is one which has
been either misunderstood or rejected, a few paragraphs

PREFACE. vii

have been added, more for illustration than defence.
Perhaps, indeed, I may not be wholly free from the
same weakness which I have found in others; yet I
fondly trust that my own theological system has not
led me to seek polemical assistance by any inordinate
strain or pressure on peculiar idioms or expressions. It
is error and impiety too, to seek to take more out of
Scripture than the Holy Spirit has put into it. As the
commentator neither creates nor invents the grammar
of the language which he is expounding, I have invari-
ably quoted the best authorities, when any special
usage is concerned, so that no linguistic canon or
principle is left to the support of mere assertion. The
lamps which have guided me I[ have thus left burning,
for the benefit of those who may come after me in the
hope of finding additional ore in the same precious and
unexhausted mine. Will it bespeak any indulgence
simply to hint that the work has been composed amidst
the continuous and absorbing duties of a numerous city
charge, and will it be thought out of place to add, that
the Christian ministry has a relation to all the churches,
as well as to an individual congregation? In the hope,
in fine, that it may contribute in some degree to the
study and enjoyment of one of the great apostle’s
richest letters, the book is humbly commended to the
Divine blessing.

CAMBRIDGE Street, GLAsGow,
October 1853.

i en lll

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

In preparing this second Edition, the entire matter of
the first has been very thoroughly revised, in many
parts curtailed, and in many sections altered and
enlarged. Some opinions have been modified, a few
revoked, and others defended. Grammatical investi-
gations have been more accurately, because more
formally stated, and that with uniform care and pre-
cision. While the main features of the work remain
the same, the minor improvements and changes may be
found on almost every page. No pains have been
spared and no time has been grudged in remedying the
unavoidable defects of a first edition, which was also
a first attempt in exegetical authorship. I have
refused no light from any quarter, and have always
cheerfully yielded to superior argument. For I have
no desire but, with all the helps in my power, and ever
in dependence on Him who guides into all truth, to
gain a clear insight into the apostle’s mind, and to give
an honest and full exposition of it. Whether, or to
what extent, my desires have been realized, others
must judge. My best thanks are due to Robert Black,
M.A., student of Theology, for his care in reading the
sheets, and his labour in compiling the index.

13 LANSDOWNE CreEscENT, GLAsGow,
February 1861.

-~ - . Ss eS =

TRUSTEES’ NOTE.

eee

Tue Trustees on Dr. Eadie’s Estate have resolved to
issue a new edition of his Commentaries on the
Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and
Colossians, three of which are out of print. They
believe the republication to be called for, as the dis-
tinctive place which these Commentaries hold has not
yet been filled by other expository works. They also
feel it to be due to the memory of the distinguished
author, who, by his rare ability, extensive learning, and
remarkable acquirements, all of which, through Divine
grace, were consecrated to the study and interpretation
of sacred Scripture, was enabled to bequeath a legacy
so valuable to the Church of Christ. Few exegetical
works will be found to equal these Commentaries in
exact scholarship, while there are none, it may be truly
said, that excel them in spiritual insight, in clear and
masterly exhibition of the mind of the Divine Spirit,
and in thorough sympathy with evangelical truth. The
use of them will prove especially helpful in the study
of the Divine word.

The Rev. William Young, M.A., of Parkhead Church,
Glasgow, at the request of the Trustees, has kindly
engaged to edit the volumes. In his qualifications for

Xil TRUSTEES’ NOTE.

this work, which requires both scholarship and ability,
they have the fullest confidence. While he has applied
a careful scrutiny to all the references, and suggested
such corrections and additions as he felt to be
necessary, he has made no alteration on the text,
which is wholly as it came from the hand of the
author.

The Trustees are gratified to add, that the repub-
lication of the Commentaries has been undertaken by
the Firm of Messrs. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, to
whose enterprise in the publication of valuable theo-
logical works, the Christian Church is so much
indebted.

The issue commences with the Commentary on the
Epistle to the Ephesians, which was the first of the
author’s exegetical works.

GEORGE JEFFREY.

DENNISTOUN, GLASGOW,
October 1st, 1883.

ee ES ee el rm lhl

Ee

”

ad fp es

THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

I.—EPHESUS, AND THE PLANTING OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH
IN. IT.

Epuesus, constituted the capital of proconsular Asia’ in
B.C. 129, had been the scene of successful labour on the part
of the apostle. On his first and hurried visit to it, during his
second missionary tour, his earnest efforts among his country-
men made such an impression and created such a spirit of
inquiry, that they besought him to prolong his sojourn. Acts
xviii. 19-21. But the pressing obligation of a religious vow
compelled his departure, and he “ sailed from Ephesus” under
the promise of a speedy return, but left behind him Priscilla
and Aquila, with whom the Alexandrian Apollos was soon
associated. On his second visit, during his third missionary
circuit, he stayed for at least two years and three months, or
three years, as he himself names the term in his parting
address at Miletus. Acts xx. 31. The apostle felt that
Ephesus was a centre of vast influence—a key to the western
provinces of Asia Minor. In writing from this city to the
church at Corinth, when he speaks of his resolution to remain
in it, he gives as his reason—‘ for a great door and effectual
is opened unto me.” 1 Cor xvi. 9. The gospel seems to have
spread with rapidity, not only among the native citizens of
Ephesus, but among the numerous strangers who landed on
the quays of the Panormus and crowded its streets. It was
the highway into Asia from Rome; its ships traded with the
ports of Greece, Egypt, and the Levant;? and the Ionian
cities poured their inquisitive population into it at its great
annual festival in honour of Diana. Ephesus had been visited

1 Linquantur Phrygii—ad claras Asia volemus urbes. Catullus, Zpig. xlvi.
? Strabo, xiv. vol. iii. ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1848 ; Cellarius, Notitia, ii. 80.

xiv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

by many illustrious men, and on very different errands. It
had passed through many vicissitudes in earlier times, and —
had through its own capricious vacillations been pillaged by
the armies of rival conquerors in succession ; but it was now
to experience a greater revolution, for no blood was spilt, and
at the hands of a mightier hero, for truth was his only weapon.
Cicero is profuse in his compliments to the Ephesians for the
welcome which they gave him as he landed at their harbour
on his progress to his government of Cilicia (Zp. ad Att. v. 13);
but the Christian herald met with no such ovation when he
entered their city. So truculent and unscrupulous was the
opposition which he at last encountered, that he tersely styles
it “fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus,” and a tumultuous
and violent outrage which endangered his life hastened his
ultimate departure. Scipio, on the eve of the battle of Phar-
salia, had threatened to take possession of the vast sums
hoarded up in the temple of Diana, and Mark Antony had
exacted a nine years’ tax in a two years’ payment ;* but Paul
and his colleagues were declared on high authority “not to be
robbers of churches:” for their object was to give and not to
extort, yea, as he affirms, to circulate among the Gentiles “the
unsearchable riches of Christ.” The Ephesians had prided
themselves in Alexander, a philosopher and mathematician,
and they fondly surnamed him the “ Light;” but his teaching
had left the city in such spiritual gloom, that the apostle was
obliged to say to them——“‘ ye were sometimes darkness ;” and
himself was the first unshaded luminary that rose on the
benighted province. The poet Hipponax was born at Ephesus,
but his caustic style led men to call him o quxpos, “ the bitter,”
and one of his envenomed sayings was, “ There are two happy
days in a man’s life, the one when he gets his wife, and the
other when he buries her.” How unlike the genial soul of
him of Tarsus, whose spirit so often dissolved in tears, and
who has in “the well-couched words” of this epistle honoured,
hallowed, and blessed the nuptial bond! The famed painter
Parrhasius, another boast of the Ionian capital, has indeed

1 Article ‘‘ Ephesus,” Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography ;
Perry, De Rebus Ephesiorum, Gottingen, 1837 ; or the full and interesting work
of Guhl—£phesiaca ; Scripsit Ernestus Guhl, Phil. Dr. Berolini, 1843 ; Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible, Art. ‘* Ephesus,”

4

THE APOSTLE’S SUCCESS. xv

received the high praises of Pliny (Hist. Nat. 35, 9) and
Quintilian, for his works suggested “certain canons of
proportion,” and he has been hailed as a lawgiver in his art;
but his voluptuous and self-indulgent habits were only equalled
by his proverbial arrogance and conceit, for he claimed to be
the recipient of Divine communications. Institut. xii. 10.
On the other hand, the apostle possessed a genuine revelation
from on high—no dim and dreary impressions, but lofty,
glorious, and distinct intuitions; nay, his writings contain the
germs of ethics and legislation for the world: but all the
while he rated himself so low, that his self-denial was on a
level with his humility, for he styles himself, in his letter to
the townsmen of Parrhasius, “less than the least of all saints.”

During his abode at Ephesus, the apostle prosecuted his
work with peculiar skill and tact. The heathen forms of
worship were not vulgarly attacked and abused, but the truth
in Jesus was earnestly and successfully demonstrated and
carried to many hearts; so that when the triumph of the
gospel was so soon felt in the diminished sale of silver shrines,
the preachers of a spiritual creed were formally absolved from
the political crime of being “blasphemers of the goddess.”
The toil of the preacher was incessant. He taught “ publicly
and from house to house.” Acts xx. 20. He went forth
“bearing precious seed, weeping;” for “day and night” he
warned them “with tears.” Acts xx. 31. What ardour,
earnestness, and intense aspiration; what a profound agitation
of regrets and longings stirred him when “ with many tears”
he testified “ both to the Jews and also to the Greeks repent-
ance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”!
By his assiduous labours the apostle founded and built up a
large and prosperous church. ‘The fierce and prolonged oppo-
sition which he encountered from “ many adversaries ” (1 Cor.
xvi. 9), and the trials which befell him through “the lying in
wait of the Jews” (Acts xx. 19), grieved, but did not alarm,

his dauntless heart. The school of Tyrannus! became the

scene of daily instruction and argument, and amidst the bitter
railing and maledictions of the Jews, the masses of the heathen
1 For various opinions about Tyrannus, see Witsius, AMfeletemeta Leidensia, §

viii. 8 ; Suidas, sub voce ; Neander, Pflanzung, i. 359; Vitringa, de Vet. Synag.
p- 137.

xvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

population were reached, excited, and brought within the circle
of evangelical influence. During this interval the new religion
was also carried through the province, the outlying hamlets
were visited, and the Ionian towns along the banks of the
Cayster, over the defiles of Mount Tmolus, and up the valley
of the Meander, felt the power of the gospel; the rest of the
“seven churches” were planted or watered, and “all they
which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus.”
Demetrius excited the alarm of his guild by the constrained
admission—* Moreover, ye see and hear that not alone at
Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia—oyeddv raons Tis
"Acias—this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much
people.” Acts xix. 26.

The eloquence of the apostle was powerfully aided at this
crisis by his miracles—duvdpers ov tas Tuyovoas. Surprising
results sprang from the slightest contact with the wonder-
worker; diseases fled at the approach of light articles of
dress as the symbols or conductors of Divine power; and the
evil spirits, formally acknowledging his supremacy, quailed
before him, and were ejected from the possessed. These
miracles, as has been well remarked, were of a kind cal-
culated to suppress and bring into contempt the magical
pretensions for which Ephesus was so famous. None of the
Ephesian arts were employed. No charm was needed; no
mystic scroll or engraven hieroglyph ; there was no repetition
of uncouth syllables, no elaborate initiation into any occult
and intricate science by means of expensive books; but shawls
and aprons—oovddpia 1 o1txivOca—were the easy and expe-
ditious vehicles of healing agency. The superstitious “ cha-
racters "—’Edéova ypdupata, so famous as popular amulets in
the Eastern world, and which the Megalobyzi (Hesychius, sub
voce) and Melissz, the priests and priestesses of Artemis, had
so carefully patronized—were shown by the contrast to be
the most useless and stupid empiricism. Some wandering
Jewish exorcists—a class which was common among the
“dispersion ’—attempted an imitation of one of the miracles,
and used the name of Jesus as acharm. But the demoniac
regarded such arrogant quackery as an insult, and took
immediate vengeance on the impostors. This sudden and
signal defeat of the seven sons of Sceva produced a deep and

——— CUCU

THE GOSPEL IN CONFLICT WITH SUPERSTITION. xvii

general sensation among the Jews and Greeks, and “the
name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Nay more, the
followers of magic felt themselves so utterly exposed and out-
done, that they “confessed and showed their deeds.” They
were forced to bow to a higher power, and acknowledge that
their “curious arts ”—7ra wep/epya—were mere pretence and
delusion. Books containing the description of the secret power
and application of such a talisman, must have been eagerly
sought and highly prized. Those who possessed them now
felt their entire worthlessness, and, convinced of the inutility
and sin of studying them or even keeping them, gathered them
and burnt them “ before all men ”—an open act of homage to
the new and mighty power which Christianity had established
among them. The smoke and flame of those rolls were a
sacrificial desecration to Artemis—worse and more alarming
than the previous burning of her temple by the madman
Herostratus. The numerous and costly books were then reck-
oned up in price, and their aggregate value was found to be
above two thousand pounds sterling—dpyupiouv pupiddas trévte.
The sacred historian, after recording so decided a triumph,
adds with hearty emphasis—‘“ so mightily grew the word of
God and prevailed.” Acts xix. 20.

But “no small stir ”—tapayos ov« odyos—was made by
the progress of Christianity and its victorious hostility to magic
and idolatry. The temple of Diana or the oriental Artemis
had long been regarded as one of the wonders of the world.
The city claimed the title of vewxopos, a title which, meaning
originally “ temple-sweeper,” was regarded at length as the
highest honour, and often engraved on the current coinage.
Guhl, p. 124; Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 76. The
town-clerk artfully introduced the mention of this dignity
into the commencement of his speech, for though all the
Tonic Hellenes claimed an interest in the temple, and it was
often named o tis ’Aclas vaos, yet Ephesus enjoyed the
special function of being the guardian or sacristan of the
edifice. The Ephesians were quite fanatical in their admira-
tion and wardenship of the magnificent Ionic colonnades."
The quarries of Mount Prion had supplied the marble; the

1 The asylum afforded by the temple—impunitas asyla statuendi—led to great
abuses—interfering with the regular course of justice; and in the reign of

XVili THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

art and wealth of Ephesian citizens and the jewellery of
Ephesian ladies had been plentifully contributed for its
adornment; its hundred and twenty-seven graceful columns,
some of them richly carved and coloured, were each the gift
of a king; its doors, ceiling, and staircase were formed
respectively of cypress, cedar, and vine-wood; it had an altar
by Praxiteles and a picture by Apelles; and in its coffers
reposed no little of the opulence of Western Asia. Thus
Xenophon deposited in it the tithe—rjv dexatnv—which had
been set apart at Athens from the sale of slaves at Cerasus.
Anab. v. 34. A many-breasted idol of wood,’ rude as an
African fetich, was worshipped in its shrine, in some portion
of which a meteoric stone may have been inserted, the token of
its being “ the image that fell from Jupiter ’—rod dcozrerods.”
Still further, a flourishing trade was carried on in the manu-
facture of silver shrines—vaoi—or models of a portion of
the temple. These are often referred to by ancient writers,
and as few strangers seem to have left Ephesus without such
a memorial of their visit, this artistic “ business brought no
small gain to the craftsmen.” But the spread of Christianity
was fast destroying such gross and material superstition and
idolatry, for one of its first lessons was, as Demetrius rightly
declared—‘“ they be no gods which are made with hands.”
The shrewd craftsman summoned together his brethren of the
same occupation—teyvirat, épyatai—laid the matter before
them, represented the certain ruin of their manufacture, and
the speedy extinction of the worship of Diana of Ephesus.
The trade was seized with a panic, and raised the uproarious
shout—* Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” “The whole
city was filled with confusion.” A mob was gathered and
seemed on the eve of effecting what Demetrius contemplated,
the expulsion or assassination of the apostle and his coadjutors
by lawless violence, so that no one could be singled out or
punished for the outrage. It would seem, too, that this tumult
took place at that season of the year—the month of May,

Tiberius that city was heard by its delegates—legati—before the Roman senate
in defence of the sacredness of the edifice. —Tacitus, Anna. iii. 60.

1 Torvuarror—multimammiam, Jerome, Prom. in Ep. ad Ephes.

2 Creuz-r, Symbolik, ii. 113; Euripides, Jphig. in Taur. 977; Ovid, Fasti,
iii. 72; Dionys. Halicar. ii. 71.

CIVIC UPROAR. xix

sacred to Diana, the period of the Pan-Ionic games—when
a vast concourse of strangers had crowded into Ephesus, so
that the masses were the more easily alarmed and collected.
The émeute was so sudden, that “the most part knew not
wherefore they had come together.” As usual on such occa-
sions in the Greek cities, the rush was to the theatre, to re-
ceive information of the cause and character of the outbreak.
(Theatrum ubi consultare mos est. Tacitus, Hist, ii. 80.) Two
of Paul’s companions were seized by the crowd, and the apostle,
who had escaped, would himself have very willingly gone
in—eis Tov 5j40ov—and faced the angry and clamorous rabble,
if the disciples, seconded by some of the Asiarchs or presidents
of the games, who befriended him, had not prevented him. A
Jew named Alexander, probably the “coppersmith,” and, as
a Jew, well known to be an opponent of idolatry, strove to
address the meeting—dodoyeicOat tH Syuq~—probably to
vindicate his own race, who had been long settled in Ephesus,
from being the cause of the disturbance, and to cast all the
blame upon the Christians. But his appearance was the signal
for renewed clamour, and for two hours the theatre resounded
with the fanatical yell—“ Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”
The town-clerk or recorder—ypappatevs—a magistrate of high
standing and multifarious and responsible functions in these
cities, had the dexterity to pacify and dismiss the rioters, first,
by an ingenious admixture of flattery, and then by sound legal
advice, telling them that the law was open, that the great
Ephesian assize was going on—ayopaios dyovrar—and that all
charges might be formally determined before the sitting tri-
bunal—“ and there are deputies—xal av@vatoi eiow; while
other matters might be determined—év 7@ évvou éxxAno’a—
in the lawful assembly.” Such a scene could not fail to excite
more inquiry into the principles of the new religion, and bring
more converts within its pale. The Divine traveller imme-
diately afterwards left the city. After visiting Greece, he sailed
for Jerusalem, and touching at Miletus, he sent for the presby-
ters of the Ephesian church, and delivered to them the solemn
parting charge recorded in Acts xx. 18-35.
1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii, pp. 80, 81.

xx THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

Il.—TITLE AND DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE.

It can surely be no matter of wonder that the apostle should
afterwards correspond with a community which had such an
origin and history as the church of Christ in Ephesus."
We cannot sympathize with Conybeare in his remark, that
it “is a mysterious dispensation of Providence” that Paul’s
epistle to the metropolitan church at Ephesus “should not
have been preserved to us.”” For we believe that it has been
preserved, and that we have it rightly named in the present
canon of the New Testament. And such is the general testi-
mony of the early church.

Great stress cannot be laid on the evidence of Ignatius.
In the twelfth chapter of his own epistle to the Ephesians,
according to the longer reading, there is no distinct reference
to the Pauline epistle, though there is a high probability of it;
but there is an allusion to the apostle, and an intimation that
€v Tdon eTtaToAH—“ in the whole epistle,’ he makes mention
of them. JBut in the briefer form of the Ignatian composition
—that found in a Syriac version—the entire chapter, with the
one before and after it, is left out, and, according to the high
authority of Bunsen * and Cureton,’ they are all three decidedly
spurious. Yet even in the Syriac version the diction is taken,
to a great extent, from the canonical book. It abounds in
such resemblances, that one cannot help thinking that Igna-
tius, writing to Ephesus, thought it an appropriate beauty to
enrich his letter with numerous forms of thought, style, and
imagery, from that epistle which an inspired correspondent
had once sent to the church in the same city. According to
one recension, we have allusions to Eph. i. 1 in cap. ix., and
to iv. 4 in cap. vi.

Irenzeus, in the second century, has numerous references to
the epistle, and prefaces a quotation from Eph. v. 30 by these
words—xaOws o waxdpios Iladdos pynow, év tH pos “Edecious
émicToAn—‘“as the blessed Paul says in his epistle to the

1 Gude, Comment. de Eccles. Ephes. Statu, Leips. 1732.

2 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 404, note.

3 Ignatius von Antiochien und Seine Zeit, p. 23, Hamburg, 1847.

* Corpus Ignatianum, etc., by William Cureton, M.A., F.R.S., London, 1849.

EEE

ie ee

AUTHORITIES, xxi

Ephesians.” Again, quoting Eph. i. 7, ii. 13-15, he begins
by affirming—gquomodo apostolus Ephesiis dicit ; and similarly
does he characterize Eph. i. 13—in epistola que ad Ephesios
est, dicens. Again, referring to v. 13, he says, rodro 8& Kal 6
TTabnos reyer. Adversus Herres., lib. v. pp. 104, 718, 734, 756.

Nor is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, later in the
same century, less decisive; for, in the fourth book of his
Stromata, quoting Eph. v. 21, he says—&0 «al év tH pds
’"Edeaious ypader; and in his Padagogue he introduces a cita-
tion from Eph. iv. 13, 14, by a similar formula—’Edeoias
ypapwv. Opera, pp. 499, 88, Colon. 1688. His numerous
other allusions refer it plainly to the Apostle Paul.

In the next century we find Origen, in his book against
Celsus, referring to the Epistle to the Ephesians, as first in order,
and then to the Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians,
Philippians, and Romans, and speaking of all these composi-
tions as the words of Paul—rovs TavAov doyous. Contra
Celsum, lib. iii. p. 122, ed. Spencer, Cantabrigiw, 1677.
Again, in his tract On Prayer, he expressly refers to a state-
ment—éev TH mpos 'Edecious.

The witness of Tertullian is in perfect agreement. For
example, in his book De Monogamia, cap. v., he says—Dicit
apostolus, ad Ephesios scribens, quoting Eph. 1.10. Again, in
the thirty-sixth chapter of his De Prascriptionibus, his appeal
is in the following terms—Age jam, qui voles curiositatem melius
exercere in negotio salutis tua, percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud
guas tps adhuc cathedra apostolorum suis locis president, apud
quas ipse authentica: litter@ eorum recitantur . . . st potes tn
Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Lastly, in lib. iv. cap. 5 of his
work against Marcion, we find him saying—Videamus, quid
legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii. Opera, vol. i. p.
767, vol. ii. pp. 33, 165, ed. Oehler, 1854.

Cyprian, in the next age, is no less lucid; for, in the
seventh chapter of the third book of his Testimonies, he uses
this language—Paulus apostolus ad Ephesios ; quoting iv. 30,
31, and in his seventy-fifth epistle he records his opinion thus
—sed et Paulus apostolus hoc idem adhuc apertius et clarius
manifestans ad Ephesios scribit et dicit, Christus dilexit eccle-
siam ; v. 25. Opera, pp. 280 and 133, ed. Paris, 1836.

Such is the verdict of the ancient church. But though its

b

Xxil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

testimony is so decisive, it is not unanimous. Still, this
diversity of opinion only confirms the evidence of the vast
majority. In consequence, however, of this exception, the
question whether the common title to this epistle be the
correct one, has been matter of prolonged controversy, and a
variety of opinion still exists among expositors and critics.
Apart from the evidence already adduced, the settlement of
the question depends, to a great extent, on the idea formed of
the genuineness of the words év "Edéow in the first verse.
The old versions are unanimous in their favour, and among
existing MSS. only three throw any doubt upon them. “But
what are these among so many?” In Codex 67, they have
been deleted by some later correctionist. In Codex B they
stand on the margin, as an apparent supplement of the
discovered omission by the original copyist, according to Hug ;?
but according to Tischendorf, on whose critical acumen and
experience we place a higher confidence, they are an evident
emendation from a second and subsequent hand.? In the
Codex Sinaiticus yet unpublished, they are absent, but supplied
in like manner by a later hand.’

Origen, as quoted in Cramer’s Catena, says—éri povev
"Edeciwv etipomey Kelwevov, To “Tois ayiows Tois ovau” Kal
Enrovmev eb pn TapéAKer TpocKelpevov TO “ Tos aylols ToIS
ovat,” TL Svvatat onpatvery. 6pa odv eb pn W@oTep év TH EE0So
évona dnow éavtod o xpnyatif~ov Macei 70 wv, oTws of
HETEXOVTES TOU SvTOS, yivovTaL dvTES, KANOUMEVOL OlovEl eK TOU

_1 “Juxta tantum in margine a prima manu, pari elegantia et assiduitate ac
reliqua pars operis . . . sed charactere paullo exiliori.”—De Antig. Cod. Vat.
Commentatio, 1810.

2 “Manu altera posteriore in margine ista suppleta sunt.” —Novum Test. in loc.
seventh ed. Also more fully in Studien und Kritiken, 1846, p. 133.

3 Tischendorf says—‘‘ Multi sunt qui codicem post ipsum scriptorem attigerunt.
Alii certos tantum libros, alii totum codicem vel certe pleraque recensuerunt,
rursus alii non tam recensendo textui quam supplementis quibusdam studuerunt,
ut Ammonii Eusebiique numeris addendis. Qua de re accuratiora in Prolegomenis
dabimus. Is quih. 1. sv s?sew supplevit, item ad finem evang. Luce xa: avegeg,
sis cov oveavov, totum N. T. recensuit. Seculo vixisse videtur sexto exeunte vel
septimo atque in numero correctorum eorum qui imprimis in censum veniunt
quartum locum occupat. In brevi adnotatione critica textui paginarum
duodeviginti addita nobis dicitur corr. Ex re enim esse visum est ut correctores
et etate et scriptura et indole cognati uno eodemque numero comprehendantur,
nec nisi ubi certo distingui possunt singulatim indicentur.” Notitia Hditionis
Codicis Bibliorwm Sinaitici, page 19, Lipsiz, 1860. ,

|
|
|
3
|

ORIGEN AND BASIL. xxiii

pa elvas eis TO elvar “ eeXeEato yap 0 eds Ta ph byra,”
dnaolv 6 abtos IladXos, “ iva ta bvta Katapyijon.”—* We found
the phrase ‘to the saints that are,’ occurring only in the case
of the Ephesians, and we inquire what its meaning may be.
Observe then whether, as He who revealed His name to Moses
in Exodus calls His name I aM, so they who are partakers of
the I am, are those who be, being called out of non-existence
into existence—for God, as Paul himself says, chose the things
that are not that He might destroy the things that are.”
This, however, must be compared with the references in Origen
previously given by us.

The declaration of Basil of Cappadocia, not unlike that of
Origen, has often been quoted and discussed. The object of
Basil is to show that the Son of God cannot be said to be
€E ov dvtwr, because He is évtws oy ; for while the Gentiles
who know Him not are called ov« évta, His own people are
expressly named ot édvres. The following is his proof from
Scripture, and he must have been sadly in lack of argument
when he could resort to it:’ "Adda Kal tois "Edeciou
eTLCTEAXRWY OS YVNTiws HYwpEevolsS TO OvTL Ot EeTrvyVMCEDS,
ivtas avTovs idcalovtTws wvopacer, eitTwv' Tois aylois Tots ovat
Kal miotois €v Xpist@ ‘Inood' ottw yap Kai of mpo nov
mapabedwxact, Kai nels (v TOs TadaLlois TaY ayTLypadwy
evpnxayev. “ But also writing to the Ephesians, as being
truly united by knowledge to Him wuo Is; he called them
in a special sense THOSE WHO ARE, saying, To the saints
Tots ovoL, WHO ARE, and the faithful in Christ Jesus. For thus
those before us have transmitted it, and we have found it in
the ancient copies.” No little refinement and subtlety have
been employed in the analysis of these words. It does not
much concern the critical fact which Basil states, whether,
with L’Enfant, Wolf, and Lardner, we understand him as
basing his argument on the article tots; or whether, with
Wiggers, we regard him as discovering his mystical exegesis
in the participle odow; or whether, with Michaelis and
Koppe, we hold that tots odo« is the phrase on which the
absurd emphasis is placed. The fact is plain, that in ancient
MSS. handed down from previous centuries, he had found the
first verse without the words év ’Edéow, and thus—rois obc«
4 Contra Funomium, lib. ii. cap. 19 ; Opera, ed. Garnier, tom. i. pp. 254, 255.

XXiv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

kat miotois. Had the phrase év "Edéow occurred in the
clause, Basil’s ingenuity could have found neither impulse
nor pabulum; and there is no proof that it ever stood in the
verse in any other position than that occupied by it in the
majority of Codices. Saints, says the father, are there called
oi évres—they who are—that is, persons in actual posses-
sion of spiritual existence ; and they receive this appellation
after Him wHO IsS—o #v—the Being of pure and underived
essence. The omission of the words év "Edéow could only
warrant such a phantasy, for otherwise the statement might
have been founded as well on the initial verses of the Epistles
to Rome or Philippi The sum of Basil’s statement is, that
in the early copies which he had consulted, év ’Edeow was
wanting; but the inference is, that the words existed in the
copies then in common circulation, nay, that the father him-
self looked upon the epistle as inscribed to the church in
Ephesus. At the same time, Basil does not state how many
old copies he saw, nor in what countries they originated, nor
what was their general character for accuracy. The corrobora-
tive assertion that he himself had seen them, would seem to
indicate that they were neither numerous nor of easy access.
He does not appeal to the received and ordinary reading of the
verse, but prides himself on a various reading which he had dis-
covered in ancient copies, and which does not seem to have been
commonly known, and he finally interposes his own personal
inspection and veracity as the only vouchers of his declaration.

The statement of Jerome is not dissimilar. In his Com-
mentary on Eph. i. 1, he says— Quidam curiosius quam
necesse est, putant ex e0, quod Moysi dictum sit: Hac dices
filiis Israel, qui est misit me, etiam eos, qui Ephesi sunt, sancte
et fideles essentie vocabulo nuncupatos, ut ab eo qui est, hi qui
sunt appellentur. Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos qui sunt,
sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, seriptum arbitrantur..
Opera, ed. Vallarsius, tom. vil. p. 543. “Some, with an
excessive refinement, think from what was said to Moses—
‘These words shalt thou say to the children of Israel, HE WHO
1s, has sent me ’—that the saints and faithful at Ephesus are
addressed by a term descriptive of essence, as if from him WHO
Is, they had been named THEY WHO ARE. Others, indeed,
suppose that the epistle was written not simply to those WHO

ee SS eee ree rl errr

JEROME. xxv

ARE, but to those WHO ARE AT EPHESUS, saints and faithful.”
The language of Jerome does not warrant, so explicitly as that
of Basil, the supposition that he found any copies wanting the
words, in Ephesus. At the same time, it is a strange mis-
apprehension of Bottger (Bettrdge, etc. iii. p. 37) and Olshausen
to imagine, that Jerome did not himself adopt the common
reading, when he expressly delivers his opinion in the very
quotation. One would almost think, with Meyer, that Jerome
speaks of persons who gave ovo« a pregnant sense, though
it stood in connection with é€v 'Edéow; but the origination
of such an exegesis in this verse only, and in none others of
identical phraseology, surpasses our comprehension for its
absurdity and caprice. Probably Jerome records the mere
fact or existence of such an interpretation, though he might
not have seen, and certainly does not mention, any MSS. on
whose peculiar omission it might have been founded. He
would, in all likelihood, have pointed out the origin of the
quaint exegesis from the absence of the local designation, if he
had known it; and the apparent curiositas of the explanation
lay in the fact, that rots ovow had an evident and natural
connection with év ’Edeow. Such a hypothesis appears to be
warranted by the order in which he arranges the words in his
Latin version—qui Ephest sunt sancti et fideles—as if in order
to give countenance to the alleged interpretation, the words
év 'Edéow had, in construing the sentence, been dislodged
from their proper position. The probability is, however, that
Jerome refers to the passage from Origen already quoted; for
in his preface he says—Jllud quoque in prefatione commonco
ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hane epistolam conscripsisse,
quem et nos ex parte sequuti swmus.

The general unanimity of the ancient church is also seen in
the peculiar and offensive prominence which was given to
Marcion’s fabrication. This heresiarch, among his other inter-
polations, altered the title of the epistle, and addressed it to
the Laodiceans—zpds Aaodixéas. One of the most acute and
vigorous of the ancient fathers thus describes and brands the
forgery —Pratereo hic et de alid epistola quam nos ad Ephesios
prescriptam habemus, heretici vero ad Laodicenos.
Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus
emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando

XXvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.
Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scrip-
serit, dwm ad quosdam—*“I pass by in this place another
epistle in our possession addressed to the Ephesians, but the
heretics have inscribed it to the Laodiceans. . . . According
to the true testimony of the church, we hold this epistle to
have been sent to the Ephesians. But Marcion sometimes
had a strong itching to change the title, as if in that matter
he had been a very diligent inquirer. The question about
titles is of no great moment, since the apostle wrote to all
when he wrote to some.” Advers. Marcion, lib. v. cap. 11, 17 ;
Opera, ed. Oehler, vol. i. pp. 309, 323. We think ita strained
inference on the part of Meyer, that Tertullian did not read
év "Edéocw in his copies, since in such a case he would have
appealed not to the testimony of the church, but to the words
of the sacred text. But the testimony of the church and the
testimony of the text were really identical, for it was only on
the text as preserved by the church that her testimony could
be intelligently based. By “title” in the preceding extract
we understand, in accordance with Tertullian’s wsus loquendt,
the superscription prefixed to the epistle, not the address con-
tained in ver. 1. But if Marcion changed the extra-textual
title, consistency must soon have obliged him also to alter the
reading of the salutation, and change év ’E¢éo@ into év
Aaoéixeig. Tertullian, then, means to say, that Marcion in
his critical tamperings had interfered with the constant and
universal title of this epistle, and that he did this as the
avowed result of minute inquiry and antiquarian research
(quasi diligentissimus explorator). We know not on what
his judgment was founded. He may have found the epistle
in circulation at Laodicea, or, as Pamelius conjectures in his
notes on Tertullian, it was the interpretation he attached to
Col. iv. 16—“ And when this epistle is read among you,
cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans ;
and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” Mar-
cion’s view was not only in contradiction of the whole church,
but his other literary misdemeanours throw a suspicion at
once on the motives of his procedure, and on the sobriety and
trustworthiness of his judgment. .

The result of the whole inquiry is, that in some ancient

th el tl el i le i

EPHESUS OR LAODICEA. ~ Xxvii

copies the words év "E¢éow did not exist, and that some
theologians built a doctrine upon the words of the clause as
read with the omission ; that the omission was not justified by
the current MSS. in the third and fourth centuries; that the
judgment of the ancient church, with such slight exceptions,
regarded the epistle as inscribed to the Ephesians; and that
one noted heretic imagined that the current title should be
changed, and the inspired letter inscribed to the Laodiceans.

It seems strange indeed that this last opinion should have
been adopted by any succeeding writers. Yet we find that
several critics hold the view that the epistle was meant for
the church at Laodicea, among whom are Grotius, Mill, du Pin,
Wall, Archbishop Wake, the younger Vitringa,’ Venema,
Crellius, Wetstein, Pierce, Benson, Whiston, Paley,? Gres-
well,> Huth,* Holzhausen, Ribiger,? and Constable.® The
only plausible argument for the theory is, that there are no
personal references or salutations in the epistle—a circumstance
supposed to be scarcely compatible with the idea of its being
sent to Ephesus, a city in which Paul had lived and laboured,
but quite in harmony with the notion of an epistle to the
church in Laodicea, in which the apostle is supposed to have
been a stranger. But such a hypothesis cannot set aside the
all but unanimous voice of Christian antiquity. And how
came it that out of all copies Laodicea has dropt, and that it
is found in no early MS. or version, and that no ancient critic
but Marcion ever dreamed of exchanging the local terms ?
Again, if Col. iv. 16 be appealed to in the phrase “the Epistle
from Laodicea,” then if that is to be identified with the present
Ephesian letter, it must have been written long prior to the
epistle to Colosse—a conjecture at variance with many internal
proofs and allusions; for the so-called epistle to Ephesus and
that to Colosse were composed about the same period, and
despatched by the same trusty messenger, Tychicus. And
how should the apostle command the Colossian church to

1 Dissertatio de genuino titulo epistole D. P. que vulgo inseribitur ad
Ephesios, pp. 247-379. Franequere, 1731.

* Hore Pauline, c. vi.

3 Dissertations upon a Harmony of the Gospels, vol. iv. pp. 208, 217, sec.

‘ Epistola ex Laodicea in encyclica ad Ephesios asservata, Erlang. 1751.

* De Christologia Paulina, p. 47. Vratislavie, 1852.

Essays Critical and Theological, p. 77. London, 1852.

XXVIili THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

salute in his name the brethren of Laodicea, if the Laodiceans
had received such a communication by the very same mes-
senger who carried the letter to Colosse, and who was charged
to give them all minute particulars as to the apostle’s welfare
and thus comfort their hearts ?

It is also to be borne in mind, that Marcion does not fully
bear out this theory usually traced to him; for according to
Epiphanius, while he had some parts, népy, of an epistle to the
Laodiceans, he put into his canon as the seventh of Paul’s
epistles that to the Ephesians—é@dopun mpos’Edectous. Heres.,
xlii. cap. 9, p. 310, ed. Petavius; Paris, 1662. Whatever
may be meant, in Col. iv. 16, by the epistle from Laodicea,
it is plain that it cannot, as Stier supposes, be the epistle
before us; and plainer still, that it cannot be the brief and
tasteless forgery which now passes under the name of an
Epistle to the Laodiceans.

‘Another hypothesis which has received a very large support
is, that the epistle is an encyclical letter—a species of inspired
circular not meant for any special church, but for a variety of
connected communities. The idea was originated by Usher,
in his Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, under the year 64
A.D.—Ulhi notandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus (ut ex
Basilia libro i. adversts EHunomium, et Hieronymi in hune
Apostolt locum commentario, apparet) generatim inscriptam
Suisse hane epistolam tois ayiou, tois ovat, Kal TioTots év
Xpiot@ Incod, vel (ut in litterarwm encyclicarum descriptione
fiert solebat) sanctis qui sunt ... . et fidelibus in Christo
Jesu, ac si Ephesum primo, ut precipuam Asie metropolim,
missa ea fursset; transmittenda inde ad reliquas (intersertis
singularum nominibus) ejusdem provincie ecclesias: ad quarum
aliquas, quas Paulus ipse nunquam viderat, illa ipsius verba
potissimum spectaverint. His idea has been followed by a
whole host of scholars and critics, by Garnier in his note to
the place cited in Basil,’ by Ziegler,? Hinlein,? Justi,* and
Schmid, by such writers of “Introductions” as Michaelis,

1 The treatises by the most of these authors are well known: some of them
may be noted.

? In Henke’s Magazin, iv. 2, p. 225.

3 Commentat. de lectoribus, quibus epistola Pauli que ad Ephesios missa

traditur, vere scripta esse videatur. Erlang. 1797.
* Vermischte Behandlungen, vol. ii. p. 81.

——_ se ————S Oo hl ell eel.

<<;
.

THEORY OF USHER. xxix

Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Credner, Schneckenburger, Hug, Feilmoser,
Cellerier, Guerike, Horne, Bottger, Schott, and Neudecker, also
by Neander, Hemsen, Schrader, Liinemann, Anger,’ Wiggers,

’ Conybeare, and Burton, and by the commentators Bengel,

Harless, Boehmer, Zachariae, Ruckert, Matthies, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Meier, Macknight, Stier, and
Bisping. These authors agree generally that Ephesus was not
the exclusive recipient of the epistle, and the majority of them
incline, in the face of all evidence, to hold the words év 'Edéow
as a spurious interpolation. Others, such as Beza, Turner,
Harless, Boehmer, Schott, Liinemann,? Wiggers,’ Schrader,
Ellicott, Schaff* and Hodge, reject this line of proof, and
build their argument on another foundation—believing that
Ephesus received the epistle, but that some daughter-churches
in the immediate vicinity were associated with it. To such
an opinion there is less objection, though, while it seems to
solve some difficulties, it suggests others. The advocates of
the encyclical character of the epistle are not agreed among
themselves. Many suppose that the apostle left a blank
space—tols ovow . . . Kai miorois, and that the name of the
intended place was filled in either by Paul himself in the
several copies ere they were despatched, or by Tychicus as
opportunity prompted, or that copies were transcribed in
Ephesus with the proper address inserted in each. Each of
these hypotheses is shaped to serve an end—to explain why
so many Codices have év ’Edéow, and none év Aaodixeca.
There are some who believe that no blank room was originally
left at all, but that the sentence is in itself complete. With
such an extraordinary view, the meaning differs according as
ovauy is joined to the preceding ayiocs or the following tea tots.
Meier and Credner join ovow to meotois, and render den
Heiligen, die auch getreu sind—* the saints who are also faith-
ful,” an interpretation which cannot be sustained. See under
i. 1, pp. 3,4. Credner propounds a worse view, and regards
marois as signifying genuine Pauline Christians. Schnecken-

1 Uber den Laodicenerbrief, Leipz. 1843, replied to in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrbuch
for 1844, p. 199. ade

2 De epistole quam Paulus ad Ephesios dedisse perhibetur authentia, primis
lectoribus, argumento summo ac consilio, Gotting. 1842.

3 Studien und Kritiken, 1841-42, p. 423.
* History of the Apostolic Church, vol. ii. p, 880. Edinburgh, 1854.

XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

burger and Matthies connect odow with drylois, the latter
giving a sense—welche da sind—which Bengel had already
advanced — gut presto sunt—that is, as he explains it, in
the places which Tychicus was under commission to visit.
Schneckenburger renders to the saints who are really so—
den Heiligen die es in der That sind. Gresswell holds a
similar view; but the numerous so-called similar Greek
formule which he adduces are not in point. Now the usual
-exordiums of the apostle are fatal to these hypotheses, for in
them not only is the place of destination named, even though,
as in the case of Galatia, it include a province or circuit of
churches, but the participle is simply used along with the
local name and without pregnant emphasis.

How the words év "E¢éow came to be dropt out of the
text, as Basil affirms, we know not. Perhaps some early
copyist, seeing the general nature of the epistle, left out the
formula, to give it the aspect of universal applicability. Or,
the churches “in Asia” claiming an interest in the apostle
and his letters might have copies without the special local
designation; or, as Wieseler suggests, the tendency of the
second century to take away personal reference out of the
New Testament, may have led to the omission, just as the
words év ‘Pawn are left out in several MSS. of the Epistle to
the Romans, i. 7.

External evidence is thus wholly against the notion that
either Laodicea by itself, or Ephesus with a noted cluster of
sister communities, was the designed and formal recipient of
this epistle. Nor is the result of internal proof more in favour
of such hypotheses. It is argued that the apostle sends no
greetings to Ephesus—a very strange omission, as he had
laboured there three years, and must have known personally
the majority of the members of the church. But the argument
is two-edged, for Paul’s long years of labour at Ephesus must
have made him acquainted with so many Christian people
there, that their very number may have prevented him from
sending any salutation. A roll far longer than the epistle
itself might have been filled, and yet the list would have by
no means been exhausted. Omissions might have given offence,
and Tychicus, who was from the same province, seems to have
been charged with all such private business. In churches

ELL Ce ee

NOT AN ENCYCLICAL LETTER. Xxxi

where the apostles knew only a few prominent individuals,
they are greeted, as in Philippi, Colosse, Rome, and Corinth.
It is also objected that an air of distance pervades the epistle,
and that it indicates nothing of that familiarity which the
previous three years’ residence must certainly have induced.
This idea is no novelty. Theodoret, in the preface to his
Exposition, refers to some who were led to suppose from such
language that Paul wrote this letter before he had visited the
Ephesians at all. Euthalius’ and the author of the Synopsis
of sacred Scripture found in the works of Athanasius,’ express
a similar opinion. To such statements, either in their simple
or more exaggerated form, we certainly demur, as the proofs
adduced in their behalf do by no means sustain them. The
expression in i. 15 has been usually fixed on—* Wherefore I
also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love
unto all the saints.” But this statement is no proof that Paul
was a stranger. It rather indicates the reverse, as may be seen
by consulting our comment on the place. Dr. Davidson and
others instance the similar use of dxovcas in the letter to
Philemon, so that the inference based on the use of the term
in Ephesians cannot be justified. The same remarks apply to
other passages commonly adduced to prove the encyclical
nature of the Ephesian epistle. In iii. 2 the apostle says—
elye nxovoate, rendered by some—“if ye have heard of the
dispensation of grace committed to me for you.” But the
phraseology does not express doubt. Constable maintains
that eye everywhere has the idea of doubt attached to it.
Essays, p. 90. But the statement is unguarded, as the particle

_ puts the matter in a hypothetical shape, and by its use and

position takes for granted the truth of what is stated or assumed.
Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 308. Constable also refers to the
commendation given to Tychicus, vi. 21, as if that implied
that he was a stranger. But Tychicus might be of Asia, and
yet not of Ephesus—while the eulogy pronounced upon him
is a species of warrant, that whatever he said about the apostle
and his private affairs to them might be absolutely credited ;
for he was intimate with the apostle—‘“beloved”—and he
was trusty. On the other hand, there are not a few distinct

1 Zacagnii, Collectanea Monumentorum Vet. Eccles. etc. p. 524. Paris, 1698.
- * Athanasius, Opera, tom. iii. p. 191, ed. Benedict. Paris, 1698.

Xxxil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

intimations of the writer’s personal knowledge of those whom
he addressed. He writes to them as persons whom he knew
as sealed with the Spirit, as exhibiting the possession of faith
and love—the Gentile portion of them as one with the believing
Jews—as so well acquainted with him that they were prone
to faint at his sufferings, as having enjoyed distinet and
plenary instruction, and as taking such a deep interest in
his personal affairs, that they would be comforted by the
appearance of Tychicus. And these statements are also direct
language, pointedly addressed to one community, and not
vaguely to an assemblage of churches, unless they were regarded
as one with it. In short, the letter is intended for advanced
Christians ; and such surely were those, so many of whom had
for so long a period enjoyed instruction from the apostle’s
own lips. Some years had elapsed since he had been at
Ephesus, and perhaps on that account personal reminiscences
were not inserted into the communication. “ Nothing,” as
Dr. Davidson says, “is more unjust than to restrict the apostle
of the Gentiles, in his writings, to one unvarying method.”
The opinion of Wetstein, Liinemann, and de Wette, that this
epistle is written to Gentile converts, while the church at
Ephesus was composed principally of Jews, is not according
to the facts of the history, nor according to the language of
the epistle. It is true that the first members of that church
were Jews, and that the twelve converted disciples of John
seem to have formed its nucleus. But was not Paul forced
to leave the synagogue? and what raised the ferment about
the falling off in the sale of shrines? Still we cannot accede
to some commentators and Dr. Davidson, that when Paul, in
the first chapter, uses ets he means himself and the Jewish
converts; but when he employs vets, the Gentile disciples
are alone intended. There is no hint that such is the case;
and is it solely for the Gentile Christians that the magnificent
prayer in the first chapter is presented? There is nothing so
distinctive about “ we” as to confine it to Jews, or about “ye”
as to restrict it to heathens, save where, as in ii. 11, the apostle
marks the limitation himself.

Timothy indeed is mentioned in the salutation to the Colos-
sians, but not in that to the Ephesians. But this fact affords
no argument against us; for no matter in what form the

DESIGNED FOR EPHESUS. xxxili

solution is offered, whether Timothy be supposed to have been
absent from Rome, or to have been in Ephesus, or to have
been a stranger at the time to the Ephesian church—no
matter which hypothesis is adopted, the absence of the name
does not prove the encyclical character of the epistle. There
may be many reasons unknown to us why Timothy’s name
was left out. If Timothy came to Ephesus soon after the
arrival of the epistle, Tychicus might have private information
to communicate about him, or have a letter from himself. So
that as his personal teaching was so soon to be enjoyed, this
epistle emanates solely from the great apostle.

We are therefore brought to the conclusion that the epistle
was really meant for and originally entituled to the church
at Ephesus. The strong external evidence is not weakened
by internal proof or statement ; the seal and the superscription
are not contradicted by the contents. Such was the opinion of
the ancient church as a body, as seen in its MSS., quotations,
commentaries, and all its versions; of the medieval church ;
and in more modern times of the commentators Calvin, Bucer,
Wolf, Estius, Crocius, Piscator, Cocceius, Witsius, Zanchius,
Bodius, Rollock, Aretius, Van Til, Roell, Quandt, Fergusson,
Dickson, Chandler, Whitby, Lardner, and more recently of
Cramer, Morus, Meyer, Davidson, Stuart,) Alexander,’ Rinck,’
Wurm,’ Wieseler,? Alford, Newland, and Wordsworth.

I1I.—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

The proofs that the Apostle Paul wrote this letter are
stronger still than those which vouch for the correctness of its
present title. It may be doubted, with Meyer, whether at
least the first of the two citations usually adduced from the
twelfth chapter of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians be one

‘Notes to Fosdick’s English Translation of Hug’s Introduction, p. 757,
Andover, 1836.

2In Kitto’s dia, art. Epistle to the Ephesians. ;

3 Studien ing pra 1849, 946—under tha title Kann der Epheserbrif
an die Gemeinde zu Ephesus gerichtet seyn? von W. Fr. Rinck, Pfarrer Zu
Grenzbach in Badischen Oberlande.

* Tiibin. Streitschriften, 1833, p. 97.

* Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalt. p. 442, etc.

XXXiV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

from this epistle, since it may be regarded as taken from the
Old Testament; and perhaps the formula introducing both is
more usually employed in reference to the Old Testament
than the New. Patres Apostolici, ed. Jacobson, vol. ii. p. 487.
In the first chapter of the same letter there is a quotation from
Eph. ii. 8, 9—6rte yapuiti éore cecwopévor, ovx €& Epywv. Tad.
vol. i. p. 466. Besides the authorities already given, we
might refer to Origen, who, in his Commentary on John, says
—IT@s 6 Iladdos dyci ov, cai pucOa téexva hice opyns.
Again, in his Commentary on Matthew, he refers to Eph. v. 32,
under the same heading—as IIavxos gyciv. Commentaria,
ed. Huet. vol. i. p. 497, ii. p.315. From Polycarp downwards,
through the succession of patristic correspondents, apologists,
and commentators, the evidence is unanimous, and even Mar-
cion did not secede from this catholic unity, nor apparently
did the Valentinians. Irenzus, Adv. Heres. § i. 8,5. The
heretics, as well as the orthodox, agreed in acknowledging the
Pauline authorship. The quotations already adduced in
reference to the title, are, at the same time, a sample of the
overwhelming evidence. But de Wette, Usteri, Baur, and
Schwegler, have risen up against this confronting host of
authorities, and cast suspicion on the Pauline origin. Ewald,
too, in his die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, etc., omits the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and regards the salutations in the
last chapter of Romans as a fragment of an epistle sent to
Ephesus. Not that there is any external fact in their favour ;
nor that any ancient writer falters in his belief, or hints that
any of his predecessors or contemporaries had the least hesita-
tion. Nay, the evidence may be traced back to the first link:
for the Apostle John lived long at Ephesus, and there Polycarp
must have learned from him that Paul was the author; while
Trenzus, who is so decided in his testimony, enjoyed the tuition
of Polycarp. And what shall we say of the additional witness
of Ignatius and Origen, of Clement and Tertullian, Basil and
Cyprian? But these German critics have a test of their own,
and they apply it at once, not to the external history or chain
of proof, but to the contents of the epistle. So thoroughly do
they believe themselves imbued with the spirit and idiom of
the inspired writer, that they can feel at once, and by an
infallible sense, whether any composition ascribed to him be

——

ee ee

*

OBJECTIONS OF DE WETTE. XXXV

genuine or spurious. They may not be able to detail the
reasons of their critical feeling, but they rely with calm self-
possession on their esthetical instincts.

De Wette adduces against the genuineness of this epistle,
its dependency (Abhdngigkeit) on that to the Colossians—a
thing, he says, without example, except in the case of the
First Epistle to Timothy, which is also spurious. This epistle
is only a mere “ verbose expansion "—wortreiche Erweiterung
—of that to the Colossians, and besides there are against it the
employment of unusual words, phrases, parentheses, digres-
sions, and pleonasms, and an indefinite un-Pauline colour and

complexion, both in doctrine and diction.

§ 146.
chapters of both epistles :—

EPHESIANS.

bad -~ ,
L 4.—elvae jas dylous kai dpw-
pous KaTevwmov avTov.

1. 7.—’Ev © éxopev tiv drodv-
tpwow dua TOU alparos avrou, TV
ddecw Tov TapartTwpatuv.

i 10. — Eis oixovopiay rod
mANpwpaTos TOV Kalpov, dvaKxeda-
Aawoar ba Ta ravra ev THXpiote,
Ta év TOS OVpavois Kal Ta éxi y7Ns,
év avo.

i. 21.—‘Yxepavw zaons dpyxis
kal éfovotas kal duvdpews Kal Kupto-
THTOS Kal TavTos dvoparos dvopalo-
pévov ov povov ev TO aioe TovTw

GANG Kai év TO péAXovTe.

Einleit. in N. T.

Take a sample of the resemblances from the first

COLOSSIANS.

1. 22.—Tlapaorioat ipas d&ylous
Kal duwpous Kal dveyxAyrous kare-
VwrLoV avToU.

i. 14.—Ev © €yopev rH drroAv-
Tpwo, THY ade TOV dpapTiov.

i. 20.—Kai di atirod droxarad-
Aagat ta wavta cis adbrov, eipynvo-
Tomoas Sua TOU aiparos ToOUTTavpou
avrov, 5: atrov, cire ra éxi rs ys
eire Ta ev TOLS Ovpavois.

i. 16-18 —Ore &v ato éxrioby
Ta TavTa Ta ev TOS Olpavois Kai TA
eri THS ys, TA dpara Kai Ta ddpara,
cite Opovor cite KupLoryTes cite dpyxai
cire e£ovaola Ta ravra be abrov Kai
els abtov Exrirrat. \7 Kai atros corey
7po jwavTwy Kal Ta wavTa éy avT@
ouvéeotynxev. 18Kai avros €or 7) Ke
adi TOU guHparos, THS éxxAnTLas’
os éorw dpxy, TpwTOTOKOS éx Tov
vexpov, iva yévyntae €v Taw avTos
Tpwrevwv.

These resemblances are not so strong as to warrant the idea

of imitation. The thought and connection are different in
both epistles. Thus in Eph. i. 4 perfection is presented as
the end or ideal of the eternal choice; but in Col. i. 22 it is
held out as the result of Christ’s death. The forgiveness of

XXXxvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

sins in Eph. i. 7 is introduced differently from Col. i. 14,
though in both places it is in natural connection with Christ ;
in the first as a sequence of predestination, but in the second
as an element of redemption, and as introductory to a de-
scription of the Redeemer’s person. The references to the final
effects of Christ’s death, in the two epistles, are also different, both
in introduction and aspect; it is recapitulation in Eph. i. 10,
and reconciliation in Col. i. 20. In Eph. i. 21 the apostle
pictures Christ’s official exaltation over all the heavenly hosts,
but in Col. i. 16,18 he represents Christ as Creator, and
therefore Head or Governor by essential and personal right.
In both epistles Christ is xedady, and the church is copa;
but the accompanying illustration is different.

Other similar terms are selected by de Wette—Arnpana,
Eph. i. 23, Col. i. 19, ii. 9; puotypiov, Eph. i. 9, Col. i. 26;
Kal tas ovtas, Eph. ii. 1, Col. i: 13. Then come such
phrases as qepitouy xetpotrointos, Eph. ii. 11 — repetoun
ayetpotrointos, Col. ii. 11; amnddotpiwpévos, Eph. ii. 12 and
Col. i. 21; év Soypacow, Eph. ii. 15, and in Col. ii 14;
atoxatavdAd£a, Eph. ii. 16 and Col. i. 20. These resemblances,
like the previous ones, are however in connections so different
that they are proofs of originality, and not of imitation.

De Wette finds many other parallels, both in the thoughts
of the general sections, and also in particular phrases; those
in Ephesians being moulded from those in Colossians. Thus
the paragraph, ui. 1-21, is said to be from Col. i. 24—29, and
the practical section, Eph. iv. 17-vi. 20, is alleged to be
from Col. ui. 5-iv. 4. Still these and many other similari-
ties adduced by the objector are by no means close; some of
them are not even striking parallels, and they have no tame or
servile air about them. The passages in Ephesians are as bold,
free, and natural, as they are in Colossians. There is nothing
about them betraying imitation; nothing like a cautious or
artistic selection of Pauline phrases, and setting them anew,
as if to disguise the theft and trick out a spurious letter.
Even Baur, who denies the Pauline authority of both epistles,
admits that both may have had the same author. Paulus, p.
455—Dass der Epheserbrief in einem secunddren Verhdltniss
zum Colosserbrief steht, geht aus allem klar hervor, ob er aber
viel spiter geschreiben ist und einen andern zum Verfasser hat

OBJECTIONS OF DE WETTE, XXxvii

kann bezweifelt werden. Sollten nicht beide Briefe zusammen als
Briiderpaar in die Welt ausgegangen seyn? Besides, as Meyer
has remarked, so far from Ephesians being a verbose expan-
sion of Colossians, as de Wette asserts, it shows in several
places a brevity of allusion where there is fuller statement in
Colossians. Compare Eph. i. 15, 17—Col. i. 3-6; Eph. iv.
32—Col. ili. 12-14. The apostle’s use of the quotation
from the 68th Psalm, in iv. 8, is brought against him by de
Wette, and, if so, what then shall we say of Rom. x. 6 and
x. 18? The quotation in v. 14 is said by de Wette to be from
an unbiblical writing, and therefore unapostolic in manner ;
but it is rather a free quotation from Isa. lx. 1, and is not
without parallel even in the Gospels. Matt. ii. 15, 23.
Objections are also taken to the demonology, ii. 2, vi. 12, that
it is exceptional ; and to the characteristic epithets or clauses
connected with the name of God, that they are singular,
as in i. 17, ii 9, 15, etc. Other peculiarities, as the
prohibition of stealing and the comparison of Christ to
a bridegroom, are brought forward for the same end. We
may reply that not only are such representations apostolic,
but that they are also Pauline, for in other Pauline
writings, in some form or other, they find a place. The
Epistle to the Ephesians has certainly no system of
dogmas or circle of allusions peculiar to itself. It does in
some points resemble that to the Colossians—but surely if
two letters are written by the same person, about the same
period, and upon kindred subjects, similarity of diction will
inevitably occur. It would be the merest affectation to seek
to avoid it, nor do the strictest notions of inspiration forbid it.
The mind insensibly vibrates under the influence of former

themes, and the earlier language unconsciously intrudes itself.

And if the topics, though generally similar, are specifically
different, we expect in the style generic resemblances, but
specific variations. De Wette edited the correspondence of
Luther, but he has not rejected any letter, which, written in
the same month with a previous one upon some similar themes,
is not unlike it in spirit and phrase. Such a phenomenon
occurs in this epistle, for many of its verses contain diction
somewhat similar to correspondent passages in Colossians. It
is like that to the Colossians, and yet unlike it—not with the
c

XXXVI1il THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

tawdry and dull similarity of imitation, disguised by the
artful sprinkling of a few discrepancies; but it has that like-
ness which springs from unity of contemporaneous origin and
theme, and that difference which results, at the same time,
from living independent thought. And if it do contain un-
Pauline thoughts and diction, how came it to be received? —
how was the forgery not detected? The reasoning against its
genuineness seems to be on this wise.—It is so like Colossians
that it cannot be an original document; but it is also so
unlike other Pauline letters, that it cannot be ascribed to
Paul. The statement neutralizes itself. If usual words prove
it an imitation, what do the unusual words prove? Does not
rather the natural combination of the so-called usual and
unusual phrases mark it as a document akin to the other
production, and having a purpose, at the same time, peculiar
to itself ? Every original composition on a distinct topic pre-
sents those very characteristics and affinities. But the whole
is Pauline in spirit and form. As in the other acknowledged
writings of Paul, so you have here the same easy connection
of thought, by means of a series of participles—the same
delight in compound terms, especially formed with d7ép, and
in words that border on pleonasm—the same tendency to go
off at a word, and strike into a parenthesis—the same
recurrence of ydp and 67v introducing a reason, and of wa
pointing to a high and final cause—the same culmination of
an argument, in the triumphant insertion of od povoy and
parrov 5é—the same favourite formula of a conclusion or
deduction in dpa ody—the same fondness for abstract terms,
with the accumulation of exhaustive epithets—the same familiar
appeal to the Old Testament, and striking illustrations drawn
from it—the same occasional recurrence to personal authority
and inspired warrant, in a mighty and irresistible éyé or dnt
—the same irregular and inconsequent syntax, as if thought
jostled thought—the same rich and distinctive terminology
that calls the gospel vorypiov, and prefixes wdovdTos to so
many of its blessings; that includes dccacocvvn, riotis, KAHoLS,
Katadrayn, and fw among its distinctive doctrines; that
places viobecia, oixoSoun, avaxalvwors, and tpocaywyy amont
its choicest privileges ; that gives Jesus the undivided honour
of owtyp, Kepary, KUpios, and xpiTys; and in its ethics

ITS PAULINE SPIRIT AND STYLE. Xxxix

opposes mvedpa to cap, finds its standard in voyos, its power
in aya7n, and its reward in éA7is with its rich and eternal
«Anpovopla. The style and theology of Paul are the same
here as elsewhere; and we are struck with the same lofty
genius and .fervid eloquence; the same elevated and self-

- denying temperament; the same throbbings of a noble and

yearning heart; the same masses of thought, luminous and
many-tinted, like the cloud which glows under the reflected
splendours of the setting sun; the same vigorous mental grasp
which, amidst numerous digressions, is ever easily connecting
truths with first principles—all these, the results of a master
mind into which nature and grace had poured in royal pro-
fusion their rarest and richest endowments.

If, therefore, there be generic sameness in the two epistles
to Ephesus and Colosse, it is only in keeping; but if there be
specific difference, it is only additional resemblance. If there

should be thirty-eight Graf Xeydpeva in this epistle, there are

forty in the first two chapters of Colossians, above a hundred
in Romans, and no less than two hundred and thirty in the
1st Epistle to the Corinthians. (See our Introduction to
Colossians.) The writer does use some peculiar terms, but
why not? Might there not be many reasons in the modes of

- thought and speech peculiar to Ephesus, and perfectly familiar

to the apostle, that led him to use in this epistle such words
and phrases as év Tois érrovpavioss, i. 3, 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, vi. 12 ;
Ta Tvevpatixa, Vi. 12; diadBonros, iv. 27, vi. 11; Koopoxpdtwp,

vi. 12; cwrnproy, vi. 16 ; oixovopla, i. 10, iii. 2,9; puornpror,

v.32; mrnpwpa, i. 23; evroyia, i. 3; alwy, ii. 2; meperroinacs,
i. 14; apOapoia, vi. 24; pavOdver, iv. 20; dwrlSer, iii. 9 ;
mdnpovabar ev, v. 18; and es, iii, 19; Baoireia tod Oeod

Kal Xpiotod, v.5; 7o OéAnpa tod Kuplov, v.17. The forms

of construction excepted against are without any difficulty,

such as fa with the optative, i. 17, iii. 16; tore ryiv@a KOVTES,
_v. 5; and ta goBfra, v. 33. Nor is there any stronger

proof of spuriousness in the want of the article in the instances

adduced by the objector. Any forger who had studied the
apostle’s style, could easily have avoided such little singu-

latities. In fine, what de Wette calls pleonasms (Breite und

Pleonasmus), as in i. 19, vi. 10, are clauses where each word

has its distinctive meaning ; various relations and aspects of

xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

one great idea being set out in their connection or develop-
ment. And if the epistle be a forgery, it is a base one, for
the author of it distinctly and frequently personates the apostle
—“TI Paul”—“TI Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ,” ete.
Indeed, the imitation is so good, that de Wette ascribes it
to the first century, and to a pupil of the apostle’s. We can
scarcely suppose that an imposition so gross could be associated
with a genius so lofty as that which has composed such a letter.
Nor can we imagine that the Ephesian church would not detect
the plagiarism. This “discerning of spirits” was one of their
special gifts, for the keen and honest exercise of which the
Saviour eulogizes them when he says: “Thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles and are not, but hast found them
liars.” Rev. ii. 2.

There is, as we have said, that natural difference of style
which arises from difference of subject and situation, in itself
a proof of Pauline authorship. But we deny that there is any
inferiority, such as de Wette complains of, or any of that
verbosity, tedious and imperfect illustration, or superfluity of
terms which are adduced by him as objections. The style
betokens fulness of thought and a rich mind. There is order
without system, reasoning without technical argument, pro-
gress without syllogistic landmarks, the connection free and
pliant as in a familiar letter—all converging on one great end,
and yet with a definite aim in the several parts. The imme-
diate terms are clear and precise, and yet the thoughts are
superposed—

‘* With many a winding bout
In linked sweetness long-drawn out.”
Each surge may be gauged, but the advancing tide is beyond
measurement.

Therefore the attack of de Wette, faintly responded to by
Usteri in his preface to his Pawlin. Lehrbegriff, is wholly
unwarranted. It is based upon critical caprice, and upon a
restless subjectivity which gives its mere tastes the authority
of argument. Though so often self-deceived and exposed, it
still deludes itself with a consciousness of immense superi-
ority, as if in possession of a second and subtle inspiration.
We place in opposition to de Wette’s opinion the following
testimonies :—

J a i li i! a

o

ANSWER TO DE WETTE. . xii

Chrysostom, no mean judge of a Greek style, says in his
preface to his Commentary, that as Ephesus was a place of
intellectual eminence—rtadra 6é jyiv oy ads elpntas, ddr’
@orte SeiEat, bts trordHs eer TH Tlavrw orrovdijs pos éxelvous
ypadhovts. Aéyerar 5é cal ta Babvtepa tev vonuatwv avTois
eurristedaar ate On KaTnynpévos. “Eats 5€ vonuatwy peor

n émiatorAn iynrav cal Soypdtwov .. . Kai invnrav ododpa
yénet TOV vonudTwv Kal brepoyxwov. “A yap undapod cyedov
ébbeyEato taita évtavOa Syrot. “Paul would necessarily

take great pains and trouble in writing to the Christians
there. He is said to have intrusted them with his profoundest
conceptions, as they had been already so highly instructed,
and the epistle is full of lofty conceptions and doctrines,” ete.
Jerome says in his preface—Nune ad Ephesios transeundum
est, mediam apostoli epistolam, ut ordine ita et sensibus. Mediam
autem dico, non quo primas sequens, extremis major sit, sed
quomodo cor animalis in medio est, ut ex hoc intelligatis quantis
difficultatibus, et quam profundis quastionibus involuta sit.
Erasmus testifies—Jdem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, eadem
profunditas, idem omnino spiritus ac pectus. Passing Luther
and others, we refer to Witsius, who adds in his Meletemata
Leidensia (p. 192), in higher phraseology—Ita vero universam
religionis Christiane summam divina hac epistola expontt,
ut exuberantem quandam non sermonis tantum LEvangelici
mappnaiay, sed et Spiritus Sancti vim et sensum, et charitatis
Christiane flammam quandam ex electo illo pectore emicantem,
et lucis divine fulgorem quendam admirabilem inde elucentem,
et fontem aque vive inde scaturientem, aut ebullientem potius,
animadvertere liceat: idque tantd copia, ut superabundans ila
cordis plenitudo, ipsa animi sensa intimosque conceptus, con-
ceptus autem verba prolata, verba denique priora quaque
subsequentia, premant, urgeant, obruant. Grotius, too, no enthu-
siast, thus describes it—Rerum sublimitatem adaquans verbis
sublimioribus quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana, “In
this,” says Coleridge, “the divinest composition of man, is
every doctrine of Christianity, first, those doctrines peculiar
to Christianity, and secondly, those precepts common to it

with natural religion.” able Talk, p. 82: London, 1851.

Similar testimonies might be taken from Eichhorn’s Einleitung,
and from the prefaces of several of the commentators.

xlil. THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

The attack upon the genuineness of this epistle (or rather
both epistles, for Colossians is set aside as well as Ephesians)
by the Tiibingen school of criticism is of a different nature.
Their idea is, that the epistle is a composition of the second cen-
tury, and that it had its origin in the Valentinian Gnosticism.
Baur,’ the Corypheus of the party, has openly maintained
the extraordinary hypothesis. Schwegler,? Zeller, and
Schneckenburger have gone beyond their master in extrava-
gance; while Bruno Bauer® has surpassed them all in anti-
Pauline bitterness and absurdity.

This hypothesis has its origin in the leading error of the
Tiibingen school, viz., that the original type of Christianity
was nothing more than Ebionitism, and that its expansion by
the apostle of the Gentiles was in direct antagonism to Peter,
James, and the rest of the apostolical college. In proof, it is
maintained that John, in speaking of only twelve apostles, in
the Apocalypse, xxi. 14, excludes Paul from the sacred number,
and that he praises these very Ephesians for having sifted
and rejected his claims, when he says: “Thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles, and are not, but hast found them
liars.” It is surely needless to dwell on the refutation of
such an uncritical statement. An excellent reply to the whole
delusion will be found in a recent work of Lechler, Das
Apostolische und Nachapostolische Zeitalter, etc., 2nd ed.
Stuttgart, 1857.

In fact, the entire theory is a huge anachronism. The
Gnosticism of the second century was not wholly unchristian
either in idea or nomenclature, but it took from Scripture
whatever in thought or expression suited its specious theosophy,
and borrowed such materials toa large extent from the epistles
of the New Testament.* Such a procedure may be plainly
proved. The same process has been repeated in various forms,
and in more recent times in Germany itself. The inference
is not, as the critics hold, that the Epistles to Colosse and

1 Der Apostel Paulus, sein Leben und Wirken, etc., p. 420, etc., Stuttgart,
1845; or his Kritische Miscellen zum Epheserbrief, in Zeller’s Theolog. Jahrb.
1844, p. 378. Baur died in December 1860.

* Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, etc. ii, 325, 326. Tiibingen, 1846, passim.

® Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, iii. p. 101. Berlin, 1852.

* De Origine Ep. ad Coloss, et Eph. acriticis Tubingensibus e Gnosi Valentiniana
deducta. Scripsit Albertus Kloepper, Theol. Lic. Gryphie, 1853.

ev ft ~~ =

OBJECTIONS OF BAUR. xiiii

Ephesus are the product of Gnosticism in array against
Ebionitism, but only that the Gnostic sophists gilded their
speculations with biblical phraseology. As well, were it not
for the long interval of centuries, might we infer that the
pantheism of Strauss originated no little of the language of
the Apostle John, rather than was copied from it ; or that the
Book of Mormon was the source of the original Scripture, and
not, as it is, a clumsy and recent caricature. We may well
ask—How could a document so distinctly Gnostic be accepted
by the church, which was ever in conflict with Gnosticism ?
Baur and his followers hold that this epistle is a Gnostic
effusion, because of its exalted views of the person and reign
of Christ, its allusions to various ranks in the heavenly
hierarchy, its repeated employment of the term 7Anpwpa and
its allied verb, and its doctrine of the re-capitulation of all
things in Christ, as if such teaching and even diction were not
common in Paul’s acknowledged epistles addressed to European
churches." Thus the Christology is offensive to Baur, Eph.
i, 20, though the idea is found in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Why
should not the apostle develop his ideas more fully on some
points, in addressing churches in a region where errors on the
same point might soon intrude? What connection have
Gnostic zons—shadowy and impalpable emanations from the
Bythos or from one another—with those thrones and dominions,
principalities and powers, over which Christ Jesus presides as
Governor. Nay, the Gnostics distinguished Christ and Jesus
as wons; the former having, in fact, sent the latter as Saviour.
The theosophic speculations of the Valentinians are applied
by Baur to the term mArpwpya, in a way that is wholly
unwarranted by its occurrence in both epistles. In this
epistle the term is applied to time, as marked out by God,
and so fulfilled or filled up; to the church as filled by Christ,
and to God as denoting His spiritually perfect nature; and
to Christ in the phrase, “the stature of the fulness of Christ.”
But in such phrases there is no allusion to any metaphysical
notion of the Absolute, either to what contains it or what is
contained in it. Most certainly in the nuptial illustrations,
v. 25, ete. there is no reference to male and female #ons, or
to the Suzygies of the Valentinian system—such as that of
1 Rabiger, De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium. Vratislavim, 1852.

xliv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE,

the Aoyos with fw7 from whom were generated advOpw7ros and
exxAnola, as if the relation of Christ to His church were
a similar relation—absolute essence realizing and developing
itself in a concrete Being, as the wife is the complement of
the man—x«ara ovfvylav. One may indeed wonder how Baur
could dream that in iii. 10——“ that now unto the principalities
and powers in the heavenly places might be made known by
the church the manifold wisdom of God ”—was contained the
Gnostic idea of the won codia struggling to be united with
Bu@os, and her final return to the 7Ajpwpa through the cvfvyia
between Christ and His éxxAnoia. Or who besides Baur
could imagine that in the phrases—xarta tov aid@va Tov
KOGMLOU TOUTOU ; Eis TaTAaS TAS YEvEasS TOD aidvos TAY al@vwn ;
mpoleots THY aiwvwv—there is a reference to the relation
which the Gnostic eons sustained to God, as the primal extra-
temporal unity of time individualizing Himself in them as
periods, or to their relation to another in sexual union and
development? Nay more, in the phrases—“ as is now revealed
unto His holy apostles and prophets—ye are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets”—the quick eye of
Baur discovers traces of Montanism—because in it prophets
had a high and honoured place as the organs of divine com-
munication. So that in his opinion the man who wrote those
phrases must have lived at a period when so-called prophets
enjoyed apostolic honour, and thus unconsciously betrays
himself and the lateness of his time. As if in Acts, Romans,
and 1st Corinthians there were no allusion to this class of men,
or as if all those documents too had a post-apostolic origin !
And then Baur would require to tell us how two systems so
opposed as Montanism and Gnosticism could thus coalesce in
the same epistle. The epithet dyios applied to the apostles
and prophets, betrays, according to de Wette also, a late origin,
and the writer manifests his lateness by his anxiety to
identify himself and exalt himself—as an apostle, a prisoner
for the Gentiles—a minister, less than the least of all saints
—and ambassador in chains. What is this objection but
dictating to the apostle how he shall write when an old man
in a prison, what amount of personal reference shall go into
his letters, or how large or small shall be the subjective
elements in his communication to any particular community,

———EE———

REFUTATION OF BAUR. xlv

and through it to all churches and for all time? The
expression—“ less than the least of all saints "—is in no way
inconsistent with such an exalted assertion as—* by revelation
he made known unto me the mystery;” for this refers to
official function, and that only to personal emotion. A more
decided contrast is found in 1 Cor. xv. 9—“the least of the
apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle;” and
2 Cor. xi. 5—“I was not a whit behind the very chiefest
apostles.” Surely, then, the resemblance which the subsequent
Gnosticism bears to these doctrines in its theosophy and
angelology, isa proof that it borrowed the shadowy likeness,
but no proof that out of it were manufactured the apostolic
documents. In fine, the whole scheme has been overwhelmed
with confusion; for it has been proved by citations from
Hippolytus,’ that some books of the New Testament are
quoted by him more than half a century before these Tiibingen
critics dated or allowed of their existence.

I1V.—RELATIONSHIP OF THE EPISTLES TO EPHESUS AND
COLOSSE.,

The letters of the apostle are the fervent outburst of
pastoral zeal and attachment, written without reserve and
in unaffected simplicity. Sentiments come warm from the
heart without the shaping out, pruning, and punctilious
arrangement of a formal discourse. There is such a fresh
and familiar transcription of feeling, and so much of con-
versational frankness and vivacity, that the reader associates
the image of the writer with every paragraph, and his ear
seems to catch and recognize the very tones of oral address,
These impressions must have been deepened by the thought
that the letter came from “such an one as Paul the aged,”
often a sufferer, and now a prisoner. If he could not speak,
he wrote ; if he could not see them in person, he despatched
to them those silent messengers of love. Is it then any
matter of amazement that one letter should resemble another,
or that two written about the same time should have so much
in common, and each at the same time so much that is

1 Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. i. Pref. London, 1852.

xlvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

peculiar? The close relationship between the epistles to.
Colosse and Ephesus must strike every reader, and the
question has been raised, which of them is the earlier pro-
duction. The answer is one very much of critical taste, and
therefore different decisions have been given. A great host
of names, which the reader will find in Davidson’s Introdue-
tion, are in favour of the letter to Ephesus; but others, and
these including Meyer, Harless, Wieseler, and Olshausen,
declare for that to Colosse.

Neander says—Und daraus erhellt auch, dass er den Brief
an die Colosser zuerst unter diesen beiden geschreiben hat ; denn
in demselben zeigen sich uns diese Gedanken in threr urspriing-
lichen Entstehung und Beziehung, wie sie durch den Gegensatz
gegen gene in diesem Briefe von thm bekiimpfte Sekte hervor-
gerufen wurden. Creschichte der Pflanzung, etc., vol. i. p. 524,
4th ed. That is—*In the epistle to the Colossians the
apostle’s thoughts exhibit themselves in their original form
and connection, as they were called forth by his opposition to
the sect (of Judaizing Gnostics) whose sentiments and prac- |
tices he combats in that epistle.” Little stress can be laid on
such an argument, for whenever the mind assumes an
agonistic attitude, its thoughts have always more vigour
and specialty, more pith and keenness, than when in calm-
ness and peace it discusses any ordinary and impersonal topic.
Harless and Wiggers have fixed upon Eph. vi. 21, com-
pared with Col. iv. 8. In Colossians the apostle says of
Tychicus, “Whom I have sent unto you that he might know
your estate.” But in Ephesians he adds—xai, “that ye also
may know my affairs, and what I am doing, Tychicus, a
beloved brother, shall make known to you all things.” In
using the word “ also,” the apostle seems to refer to what he
had said to the Colossians. Naturally he first says to the
Colossians, “that ye may know,” but in a second letter to the
Ephesians, “ that ye also may know.” This hypothesis takes
for granted that the Ephesians would know what was con-
tained in the letter to Colosse, or at least that Tychicus would
inform them of its existence, and of its reference to himself as
the bearer of personal and private tidings of the apostle. The
kat, however, may refer not to the Colossians, but to the
apostle himself—as Alford puts it—*“I have been going at

QUESTION OF PRIORITY. xlvii

length into the matters concerning you, so if you also on your
part wish to know my matters,” etc. The argument from
«ai, therefore, cannot be conclusively relied on. On the other
hand, it is contended by Hug and others, that the absence of
Timothy’s name in the beginning of the Epistle to the
Ephesians is a strong proof in favour of its priority. Various
solutions have been given; one probability is, that Timothy
was absent on some important embassy. These critics
suppose that he had not by this time come to Rome, but did
arrive ere Paul composed the Epistle to Colosse. This circum-
stance is too precarious for an argument to be founded upon it.

Efforts have been also made to demonstrate the priority of

_ the Epistle to the Ephesians, from its containing no expression

of any hopes of deliverance, and no reference to the success of
the gospel, whereas these occur in the Epistle to the Philip-
pians, written about the same time. But neither in Colossians
are there any such intimations, and in the letter to Philemon,
which Onesimus carried to him, as both he and Tychicus
carried theirs to the Colossians, he says, generally—‘“I trust
that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.” The
question can scarce be solved on such data. It may be tried
by another criterion. Supposing Paul to be in imprisonment,
which of these two churches would he most probably write
to, which of them stood most in need of an epistle, which of
them was in circumstances most likely to attract the
immediate attention of the prisoner—that of Ephesus or that
of Colosse? Lardner has virtually laid down such a test.
There might be many considerations inducing the apostle to
write to the Ephesians soon after his arrival at Rome.
Ephesus was a place of great importance and traffic, and in it
Paul had stayed longer than in any other city, except Antioch.
Here also he had wrought many and special miracles, and had
enjoyed great success in his preaching. He had on a previous
occasion determined to sail by Ephesus, and when he came to
Miletus “he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the
church.” These things may have induced him to write first
to Ephesus on his coming to Rome, and having liberty of
correspondence. But we might thus reply to these state-
ments. The Ephesian church had preserved its faith
unsullied, for no reproof or warning is contained in the

xlviii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

epistle. They stood in no immediate need of apostolic
correspondence. No difficulty pressed them, for none is
solved. No heresy had crept in among them, for none is
refuted. But Colosse was threatened by a false system,
which would corrupt the simplicity of the gospel, which had
in it the elements of discord and ruin, but which had a
peculiar charm for the contemplative inhabitants of Phrygia,
so prone to mysticism, and therefore would be the more
seductive to the church of Colosse, and the more calculated to
work havoc among its members. This being known to the
apostle, such a jeopardy being set before him, would he not
at once write to Colosse, expose the false system, warn against
it, and exhort the adherents of Christianity to a stedfast
profession? Would he not feel an immediate necessity for
his interference, would not the case appear to his mind more
urgent, and having more claim on his labour than the church
of Ephesus, where truth was yet kept pure, and the fire on
the altar ascended with a steady brilliancy? Thus, of such
an argument as that of Lardner no advantage can be taken.
Still, balancing probabilities in a matter where facts cannot be
fully ascertained, we may incline to the opinion that the
earlier epistle is that to the Colossians.

The following table will point out the similarities between
the two epistles :—

Eph. i. 1, with Col. i. 1. Eph. iv. 15, with Col. ii. 19.
a S ie sean So wive tory | 5 it, 1
— i. 3, — —i.3. — iv.22, — — iii. 8.
eee te er ots ah tS Saye 2b, Pe
— 1.10, — — i. 20. — iv. 29, — — iii.8;iv.6.
— 115-17, — — i. 3, 4. — iv.31, — — iii. 8.
oe a | a ee op Save ats) ae en
— i. 21, — — i. 16. — v.3, — — iii.
— i, 22, — — i 18. —- v. 4, — — iil. 8.
— it 1,12, — — i. 21. — v.5, — — iii. 5,
—- ii. 5, — — ii 13 — v. 6, — — iii. 6.
— i. 15, — — ii. 14, — v.15, — — iv. 5.
— ii. 16, — — i. 20. — v.19, — — iii. 16.
ee | ae ee eee ee cod Seed = ces een AS
— iii. 2, — — iL 25. — v. 25, — — iii. 19,
— iii. 3, — — i, 26. — vil, — — iii. 20.
— iii. 7, — — i, 23, 25. — vi. 4, — — iii, 21.
— iii. 8, — — i, 27. — vi. 5, — — iii. 22.
— iv.l, — — i. 10. — vi. 9, — — iv. 1,
— iv. 2, — — iii. 12. — vi.l8, — — iv. 2
— iv. 3, — — iii. 14. — vii21— — iv. 7.

|

PLACE AND DATE. xlix

Not a few of these similarities are but accidental, and those
which really deserve the name are corroborative proofs of
genuineness.

V.—PLACE AND DATE OF ITS COMPOSITION.

The usual opinion has been that the epistle was written
in Rome. Some of the later German critics, however, have
concluded that Ceesarea was the place of composition. Schulz
in the Studien und Kritiken, 1829, p. 612, first broached this
hypothesis, and he has been followed by Schneckenburger,
Bottger, Reuss,’ Wiggers, and even by Schott, Thiersch,? and
Meyer.

We find that Paul when in Cesarea was subjected to very
rigorous confinement. His own countrymen were bigoted and
violent, and only his friends might come and minister unto
him. Intercourse with other churches seems to have been
entirely prohibited. On the other hand, in Rome the watch
and ward, unstimulated by Jewish malice, were not so strict.
The apostle might preach, and labour to some extent in his
spiritual vocation. Again, Onesimus was with the apostle, a
fugitive slave who would rather run and hide himself in the
crowds of Rome, than flee to Csarea where he might be
more easily detected. Aristarchus and Luke were at Rome
too, but there is no proof of their being with Paul at Caesarea.
Besides, we have mention of the palace and “ Czesar’s house-
hold.” We cannot be brought to believe by all Bottger's
reasoning, that such an expression might apply to Herod's
royal dwelling in Caesarea. Surely Herod’s house could never
receive the lofty appellation of Cesar’s. Antiquity, with the
probability of fact, supports the notion that Rome was the
place where the epistle was composed. Those who contend
for Cesarea lay stress on the distance of Asia Minor from
Rome, and on the omission of the name of Onesimus in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, as if, setting out from Casarea, the
bearer of the letter would arrive at Colosse first, and Onesimus
delivering himself up to his master, would not proceed with
Tychicus onward to Ephesus. But there were peculiar

" Geschichte d. Heil. Schrift. Novi Testamenti, § 114.
2 Die Kirche in der Apostolischen Zeitalter, etc., p. 17. Frankfart, 1852.

] THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

reasons for commending Onesimus to the Colossian church.
His flight and conversion would make him notorious and
suspected. Besides, as Paul says, he was one of themselves,
and if he touched at Ephesus first, he needed no formal
introduction, being in the society of Tychicus. Emphasis is
laid on the phrase pos #pav, “for a season,” as if it signified
“soon,” and referred to the period elapsing between the flight
of the slave and his reaching Paul, as if such brevity would
be realized more likely at Cesarea than Rome. But, as has
been answered, the phrase qualifies éywpic@n, and denotes
that his separation from his master was only temporary. On
the whole, the argument preponderates in favour of Rome as
the place whence this epistle was despatched, and probably
about the year 62.’ From the metropolis of the world, where
luxury was added to ambition, and licentiousness bathed in
blood, an obscure and imprisoned foreigner composes this
sublime treatise, on a subject beyond the mental range of the
wisest of Western sages, and dictates a brief system of ethics,
which in purity, fulness, and symmetry eclipses the boasted
“Morals” of Seneca, and the more laboured and rhetorical
disquisitions of Cicero.

VI.—OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

The design of the apostle in writing to the Ephesian church
was not polemical. In Colossians, theosophic error is pointedly
and firmly refuted; but in Ephesians, principles are laid
down which might prove a barrier to its introduction. The
apostle indeed, in his farewell address at Miletus, had a sad
presentiment of coming danger. Acts xx. 29, 30—“For I
know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter
in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them.” But the epistle has no distinct allusion
to such spiritual mischief and disturbance. In 2nd Timothy,
too, the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus is referred to,
while Phygellus and Hermogenes are said to have deserted the

1Graul, De Sententia scripsisse Paulum suas ad Ephes. Coloss. Philem.
Epistolas, in Cesareensi Captivitate. Lipsie, 1836.

OBJECT AND CONTENTS. li

apostle at Rome. In the apocalyptic missive addressed to
Ephesus as the first of the seven churches, no error is
specified ; but the grave and general charge is one of spiritual
declension. The epistle before us may therefore be regarded
as prophylactic more than corrective in its nature. What the
immediate occasion was, we know not; possibly it was
gratifying intelligence from Ephesus. It seems as if the heart
of the apostle, fatigued aud dispirited with the polemical
argument and warning to the Colossians, enjoyed a cordial
relief and satisfaction in pouring out its inmost thoughts on the
higher relations and transcendental doctrines of the gospel.
The epistle may be thus divided :—

I. The salutation, i 1, 2. II. A general description of
Divine blessing enjoyed by the church in its source, means,
purpose, and final result; wound up with a prayer for further
spiritual gifts, and a richer and more penetrating Christian
experience, and concluding with an expanded view of the
original condition and present honours and privileges of the
Ephesian church, i. 3—23, and ii. 1-11. III. A record of
that marked change in spiritual position which the Gentile
believers now possessed, ending with an account of the writer's
selection to and qualification for the apostolate of heathendom,
a fact so considered as to keep them from being dispirited, and
to lead him to pray for enlarged spiritual benefactions on his
absent sympathizers, ii. 12-22, and iii. 1-21. IV. A chapter
on the unity of the church in its foundation and doctrine, a
unity undisturbed by diversity of gifts, iv. 1-17. V. Special
injunctions variously enjoined, and bearing upon ordinary
life, iv. 17-32, v. 1-33, vi. 1-10. VI. The image of a
spiritual warfare, mission of Tychicus, and valedictory bless-
ing, vi 11-24. The paragraphs of this epistle could be sent
to no church partially enlightened, and but recently emerged
from heathendom. The church at Ephesus was, however, able
to appreciate its exalted views. And therefore are those rich
primary truths presented to it, tracing back all to the Father's
eternal and benignant will as the one origin; to the Son's
mediation and blood as the one channel, union with Him
being the one sphere; and to the Spirit’s abiding work and
influence as the one inner power; while the grand end of the
provision of salvation and the organization and blessing of the

lii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

church is His own glory in all the elements of its fulness,
The purpose of the apostle seems to be—to refresh the con-
sciousness of the church by the retrospect which he gives of
their past state and God’s past sovereign mercy, and by the
prospect which he sets out of spiritual development crowned
with perfection in Him in whom all things are re-gathered—
as well as by the vivid and continual appeal to present grace
and blessing which edges all the paragraphs.

Whatever emotions the church of Ephesus felt on receiving
such a communication, the effects produced were not perma-
nent. Though warned by its Lord, it did not return to its
“first love,” but gradually languished and died. The candle-
stick was at length removed out of his place, and Mahometan
gloom overspread the city. The spot has also become one
of external desolation. The sea has retired from the harbour,
and left behind it a pestilential morass. Fragments of
columns, arches, and porticos are strewn about, and the wreck
and rubbish of the great temple can scarcely be distinguished.
The brood of the partridge nestles on the site of the theatre,
the streets are ploughed by the Ottoman serf, and the heights
of Coressus are only visited by wandering flocks of goats.
The best of the ruins—columns of green jasper—were trans-
planted by Justinian to Constantinople, to adorn the dome of
the great church of Sancta Sophia, and some are said to have
been carried into Italy. A straggling village of the name of
Ayasaluk, or Asalook, is the wretched representative of the
great commercial metropolis of Ionia. While thousands in
every portion of Christendom read this epistle with delight,
there is no one now to read it in the place to which it was
originally addressed. Truly the threatened blight has fallen
on Ephesus.’

VII.—WORKS ON THE EPISTLE.

The principal writers on the literature of the epistle have
already been mentioned in the course of the previous pages.
Several ancient expositions of the epistle have been lost; for
Jerome makes mention of one by Origen, of another by Apol-

1 On the present state of Ephesus, the travels of Ainsworth and Fellowes, and
the work of Arundel On the Seven Churches, may be read with advantage.

ee

—_s + — Ss - - -—

COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. liii

linaris of Laodicea, and of a third by Didymus of Alexandria.
Among the Fathers we have the twenty-four homilies of Chry-
sostom, and the commentaries of his followers Theodoret,
(Ecumenius, and Theophylact. We have often referred to
these, and to others in Cramer’s Catena, as presenting the
earliest specimens of Greek commentary. The commentaries
of Jerome, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster’ belong to the Latin
church. Exposition was not the work of medieval times,
though we have found some good notes in Anselm, Thomas
Aquinas, and Peter Lombard, and in the Postills of Nicolas
de Lyra of the fourteenth century. The expositors of the
Reformation period follow: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Musculus,
Bucer, and Bullinger; somewhat later among the Catholics,
Kstius and a-Lapide; and among the Protestants, Zanchius,
Calovius, Calixtus, Crocius, Cocceius, Piscator, Hunnius, Tar-
novius, Aretius, Jaspis, Hyperius, Schmid, Roell, and Wolf—
all of whom have written more or less fully on the Epistle to
the Ephesians. Wetstein and Grotius follow, in another era,
with several of the writers in the Critici Sacri. In England
there appeared “An Entire Commentary upon the whole
Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein the text is learnedly and
powerfully opened, etc.—preached by Paul Bayne, sometime
preacher of God’s Word at St. Andrew’s, Cambridge;” London,
1643: and “An Exposition of the First and part of the
Second Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, by Thomas
Goodwin, D.D., sometime President of Magdalen College in
Oxford,” was published in London in 1681. In Scotland we
have the Latin folio of Principal Boyd (Bodius), published at
London in 1652; the Latin duodecimo of Principal Rollock,
reprinted at Geneva, 1593; the Expositio Analytica of Dick-
son (Professor of Theology in the University of Glasgow) on
this and the other Epistles, published at Glasgow, 1645, and
dedicated to the Marquis of Argyle, because his Grace had
urged that the Professor should devote some portion of his
course to biblical exegesis. Fergusson of Kilwinning also
sent out a Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the
Galatians and Ephesians, at Edinburgh, 1659. The Com-

An unknown writer, so called to distinguish him from Ambrose, to whom
his Commentaries were long ascribed, and with whose works they are still bound
up. Many suppose him to have been Hilary the deacon.

d

liv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

mentaries of the Socinian Crellius and Slichtingius are con-
tained in the Fratres Polont. We have also the eloquent
French work of Du Bosc on a portion of the epistle, and a
similar and smaller Méditation by Gauthey, published in 1852.
Lardner mentions an exposition by a Dutch minister of
Rotterdam, Peter Dinant, of which a flattering review
appeared in the Bibliotheca Bremensis, 1721. He opposed
both the theory of Grotius and Usher. We pass over the
various editors of the New Testament, such as Slade, Burton,
Trollope, Valpy, Grinfield, and Bloomfield ; and the numerous
annotators and collectors of illustrations, such as Elsner,
Kypke, Krebs, Knatchbull, Loesner, Kiittner, Raphelius,
Palairet, Bos, Heinsius, Alberti, Keuchenius, Dougtzeus, and
Cameron, pronounced by Bishop Hall, the most learned man
that Scotland ever produced. We have not space to charac-
terize Hammond, Chandler, Whitby, Callander, Locke, Dod-
dridge, A. Clarke, Macknight, Peile, and Barnes, and the
more popular works on this epistle by Lathrop, M‘Ghee,
Evans, Eastbourne, and Pridham. We hasten to specify the
recent German commentaries. From that prolific nation of
scholars and critics we have not only such works as those of
Morus, Flatt, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, von Gerlach, Kiihler, and
others, but we have the following formal and specific exposi-
tions on this epistle. Simply mentioning the comments of
Spener (1730), of Baumgarten (Halle, 1767), of Schutz
(Leipzig, 1778), of Miiller (Heidelberg, 1793), and of Krause
(Leipzig, 1789), we refer especially to the following: Cramer,
neue Uebersetzung des Briefes an die Epheser nebst einer Ausle-
gung desselben. Kiel, 1782. MHolzhausen, der Brief des
Apostels Paulus an die Epheser tibersett und erklirt. Han-
nover, 1833. Riickert, der Brief Pauli an die Epheser erléutert
und vertheidigt. Leipzig, 1834.. Matthies, Lrkldrung des
Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. Greifsvald, 1834. Meier,
Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. Berlin, 1834.
Harless, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser.
Erlangen, 2nd ed. 1860. Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar,
vol.iv. Konigsberg, 1840. Meyer, Kritisch exegetischer Com-
mentar tiber das N. T.; Achte Abtheilung Kritisch Ezxegetisches
Handbuch iiber den Brief an die Epheser. Gottingen, 1859,
De Wette, Exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. vol. ii, Leipzig,

COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. lv

1843. Passavant, Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des
Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. Basel, 1836. Catena in Sancti
Pauli Epist. in Gal. Ephesios, ete., ed. Cramer. Oxon. 1842.
Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser, von 1. F. O.
Baumgarten-Crusius, ed. Kimmel and Schauer. Jena, 1847.
Stier, Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. Berlin, 1848.1
Bisping, Erkldrung der Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, ete.
Miinster, 1855. To these must be added the following recent
English and American writers :— Turner, The Epistle to the
Ephesians in Greek and English. New York, 1856. Alford,
Greek Testament, vol. iii. London, 1856. Hodge, A Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. New York, 1856.
Ellicott, A Criticul and Grammatical Commentary on St.
Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2d ed. London, 1859. Words-
worth, Greek Testament, part iii. London, 1859. Newland, A
New Catena on St. Paul’s Epistles—a Practical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians,
Oxford and London, 1860.

NOTE.

In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthia, Kiihner,
Madvig, Kriiger, Bernhardy, Schmalfeld, Scheuerlein, Donald-
son, Jelf, Winer, Rost, Alt, Stuart, Green, and Trollope are
simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek
grammars; and when Suidas, Hesychius, Passow (ed. Rost
Palm, etc.), Robinson, Pape, Wilke, Wahl, Bretschneider,
Liddell and Scott, are named, the reference is to their respec-
tive lexicons. If Hartung be found without any addition,
we mean his Lehre von den Partikeln der Griechischen Sprache,
2 vols. Erlangen, 1832. The majority of the other names are
those of the commentators or philologists enumerated in the
previous chapter, or authors whose works are specified. The
references to Tischendorf’s New Testament are to the seventh
edition.

1 In Tholuck’s Anzeiger for 1838 occurs a series of reviews of the commentaries

of Matthies, Meier, Riickert, Holzhausen, and Harless, written, we believe, by
Prof. Baumgarten, late of Rostock.

COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER I.

THE first paragraph of the epistle introduces, according to
ancient usage, the name and title or office of the writer, and
concludes with a salutation to the persons addressed, and for
whom the communication is intended.!

(Ver. 1.) IIabndos, arroctoros Xpictod 'Inood,—* Paul, an
apostle of Christ Jesus.” The signification of the term ade-
todos will be found under chap. iv. 11. While the genitive
Xpictod ’Incod is that of possession, and not of ablation, yet
naturally, and from its historical significance, it indicates the
source, dignity, and functions of the apostolical commission,
Acts xxvii. 23. Though, as Harless suggests, the idea of

- authorization often depends on some following clause, yet the

genitive apparently includes it—the idea of authority being
involved in such possession, This formal mention of his
official relation to Jesus Christ is designed to certify the truth
and claims of the following chapters. On similar occasions he
sometimes designates himself by a term which has in it an
allusion to the special labours which his apostleship involved,
for he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ,’ Rom. i. 1;
Phil. i. 1; Tit. i 1. See under Col. i. 1; and especially
under Phil. i. 1 :—

Sia Oernpatos Ocodv—“ by the will of God.” The prepo-

_ sition cd points out the efficient cause. The apostle is fond

of recurring to the truth expressed in this clause, 1 and 2 Cor.

i.1; CoLi.1; 2 Tim. i. 1. Sometimes the idea is varied, as

kat’ éritayiv Qeov, in 1 Tim. i. 1; and to give it intensity

other adjuncts are occasionally employed, such as «Antdés in

l"Apy ator ibog ed imiororais weorritivas vd xaigur,—Suidas,
A

2 EPHESIANS I. 1.

tom. 1. 1; 1 Cor.i.1. The notion of Alford, hinted at by
Bengel in his reference to vers. 5, 9, 11, that the phrase may
have been suggested “by the great subject of which he is
about to treat,” is not sustained by analogous instances. It is
added by the apostle generally, as the source and the seal of
his office, and not inserted as an anticipative thought, prompted
by the truth on which his mind was revolving. For his was
no daring or impious arrogation of the name and honours of
the apostolate; and that “will” according to which Paul
became an apostle, had signally and suddenly evinced its
origin and power. The great and extraordinary fact of his
conversion involved in it both a qualification for the apostle-
ship and a consecration to it—ets ods éyo oe atmooTédAw, Acts
xxvi. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8. It was by no deferred or cir-
cuitous process that he came at length to learn and believe
that God had ordained him as an apostle; but his convictions
upon this point were based from the first on his own startled
and instructive experience, which, among other elements of
self-assurance, included in it the memory of that blinding
splendour which enveloped him as he approached Damascus
on an errand of cruelty and blood; of the tenderness and
majesty of that voice which at once reached and subdued his
heart ; of the surprising agony which seized and held him till
Ananias brought him spiritual relief; and of the subsequent
theological tuition which he enjoyed in no earthly school.
Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i 11-13. So that writing to the
churches of Galatia, where his apostleship had been under-
rated if not denied, he says, with peculiar edge and precision,
“ Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Christ
Jesus and God the Father.” Gal. i, 1. This epistle is
addressed —

Tos aylous Tois ovow év "Edéow—“ to the saints that are
in Ephesus.” “Aros, as a characteristic appellation of the
Christian church, occurs first in Acts ix. 13. The word,
rarely used by the Attic writers, who employ the kindred
adjective dyvos, is allied to dfouat and dyapar, and signifies
one devoted or set apart to God. Porson, Adversaria, p. 139 ;
Buttmann, Levilogus, sub voce. This radical meaning is
clearly seen in the related ayudfw, in such passages as Matt.
xxiii, 17; John x. 36, xvii. 17. It is not, however, to classic

EPHESIANS I. 1. 3

usage that we are to trace the special meaning of &y:os in the
New Testament, but to its employment in the Septuagint as
the Greek representative of the Hebrew wp, Deut. xxxiii. 3.
This notion of consecration is not, as Robinson seems to
intimate, founded on holiness; for persons or things became
holy in being set apart to God, and, from this association
of ideas, holiness was ascribed to the tabernacle, with its
furniture, its worshippers, and its periods of service. The idea
of inner sanctity contained in the expressive epithet originates,
therefore, in the primary sense of unreserved and exclusive
devotement to Jehovah. Nor, on the other hand, can we
accede to the opinion of Locke and Harless, that the word has
no reference in itself to internal character, for consecration to
God not only implied that the best of its kind was both claimed
by Him and given to Him, but it also demanded that the hal-
lowed gift be kept free from sacrilegious stain and debasement.
So that, by the natural operation of this conservative element,
holiness, in the common theological sense of the term, springs
from consecration, and the “saints” do acquire personal and
internal holiness from their near relation to God; the con-
sciousness of their consecration having an invincible tendency
to deepen and sustain spiritual purity within them. When
Harless says that the notion of holiness which cannot be
disjoined from a Christian G@y.os, is not got from the word,
but from our knowledge of the essence of that Christian com-
munity to which such a @yvos belongs, he seems to confound
source and result; for one may reply that it is the @y:oe who,
as such, originate the character of the Christian community,
and not it which gives a character to them. The appella-
tion Gyo. thus exhibits the Christian church in its normal
aspect—a community of men self-devoted to God and His
service. Nor does it ever seem to lose this meaning,
even when used as a general epithet or in a local sense,
as in Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10; Rom. xv. 25. The words ois

_ ovaw év ’Edéoe, which simply indicate locality, have been

already analyzed in the Prolegomena. The saints are further

_ characterized—

kal muotois év Xpiote@ ’Inooo—“ and believers in Christ

Jesus.” These words contain an additional element of
description, and the two clauses mark out the same society

4 EPHESIANS I. 1,

in two special characteristics. But the meaning of miotds
in this connection must first be determined. There are two
classes of interpreters:—1. Such as give the adjective the
sense of /idelis, “faithful,” in the modern acceptation of the
English term—that is, true to their profession. Such is the
view of Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Meier, and Stier. But were
such a sense adopted, we must suppose the apostle either to
make a distinction between two classes of persons who were
or had been members of the Ephesian church, or to affirm
that all of them were trusty—-were, in his judgment, persons
of genuine and of untainted integrity. Did he then suppose
that all the professed dyvoc were faithful? Or among the
aytot did he distinguish and compliment such of them as were
blessed with fidelity? The word in itself is not very deter-
minate, though generally in New Testament usage muoros in
the sense of faithful—jidelits—is accompanied by an accusative
with é7i, or a dative with év, in reference to things over
which trust has been exercised, and by the dative when the
person is referred to toward whom the faithfulness is cherished.
The idea of “ faithful to Christ” would have required but the
simple dative, as in Heb. iii, 2. We have indeed the phrase
in 1 Cor. iv. 17—ayarntov Kai mictov év Kupi¢, but there the
formula, “in the Lord,” qualifies both adjectives. 2. Some
give the term its active sense of “ believers,” faithful, in its
original and old English meaning, faith-full—full of faith—
migtos being equivalent to muctedwy, save that the adjective
points to condition rather than act. Many old interpreters,
such as Roell, Cocceius, Vatablus, Crellius, and Calovius, with
the majority of modern interpreters, take the word in this
signification. For a like use of the word in classical writers
—a use common to similar verbal adjectives—see Kiihner,
§ 409, 3. The term motos has often this meaning, and is
so rendered in our version, John xx. 27; Acts x. 45, xvi. 1;
2 Cor, vi. 15; 1 Tim. iv. 3, 10, 12, v, 16, vi. 2. It should
have been so translated in other places, as Gal. iii. 9; Acts
xvi. 15; Tit. i 6. The Syriac version also renders it by
the participle [:S8a,owwo—believing. Hesychius defines it
by ev7revO7s. The phrase is thus a second and appropriate
epithet, more distinctive than the preceding, while the article
is not repeated. It is a weak supposition of Morus and

|
,
°
;

EPHESIANS I. 1. 5

Macknight, that these words were added merely for the sake
of distinction, because the epithet “saints” had but the
simple force of a common title in the apostolical letters.
Neither do we conceive that the full force and meaning are
brought out, if with some, as Beza, Bodius, a-Lapide, Calovius,
and Vorstius, we take the «ai as epexegetical, and reduce the
clause into a mere explanation of the preceding title, as if it
stood thus—*“ To the saints in Ephesus, to wit, the believers
in Christ Jesus.” For the salient point of their profession
was faith in Christ Jesus, belief in the man Jesus as the
Messiah, the anointed Saviour, the commissioned and success-
ful deliverer of the world from all the penal effects of the fall.
It was its faith specifically and definitely in Christ Jesus that
distinguished the church in Ephesus from the fane of Artemis
and the synagogue of the sons of Abraham. JIicros' is here
followed by év referring to the object in which faith terminates
and reposes ; e/s is sometimes employed, but év is found with
the noun in this chapter, ver. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Col i. 4; see
also Mark i. 15. The same usage is found in the Septuagint,
Ps. lxxviii. 22, Jer. xii. 6, based perhaps on the Hebrew for-
mula “2 fox.” Though the verbal adjective be used here in its
active sense, it may therefore be followed by this preposition.
If, when eés is employed, faith is usually represented as going
out and leaning on its object, and if éwé expresses the additional
idea of the trustworthiness of him whom we credit, then éy in
the formula before us gives prominence to the notion of placid
exercise, especially as é€v is not so closely attached to the ad-
jective as it would be to the verb or participle if it followed
either of them. Fritzsche, Comment in Marc. p. 25. The faith
of the Ephesian converts rested in Jesus, in calm and _ per-

1 The disputed signification of this word affords a peculiar and curious instance
of the hazard of extreme opinions. H. Stephens had affirmed in his Thesaurus
that wierés is never used in an active sense, and never seems to signify one qué
Jidem habet, aut etiam qui credulus est. N. Fuller in his Miscellanea Sacra,
lib. i. ch. 19, maintains, in opposition to the great lexicographer, that whenever
the term is applied to a Christian man—pro homine Christiano seu pio usurpatur,
it invariably denotes a believer, qui credit aut fidem adhibet Deo, The usage
of the New Testament in at least nineteen places, shows that it has this latter
or active sense ; still, in some clauses, even when applied to Christians, it seems
to bear the sense of fidelis—1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Col. iv. 9; 1 Pet. v.
12; Rev. ii. 10. Among the Greek Fathers, the word is used in both senses,
as the examples adduced by Suicer, sub voce, abundantly testify.

6 EPHESIANS I. 2.

manent repose. It was nota mere extended dependence placed
on Him, but it had convinced itself of His power and love,
of His sympathy and merits; it not only knew the strength
of His arm, it had also penetrated and felt the throbbing
tenderness of His heart—it was therefore in Him. There
might have been agitation, anxiety, and terrible perturbation
of spirit when the claims of Christ were first presented and
brought into sharp conflict with previous convictions and
traditionary prepossessions ; but the turmoil had subsided into
quiescent and immoveable confidence in the Son of God.

But does év Xpicv@ “Incod simply qualify mucrots ? or does
it not also qualify ay/ous? Storr renders it—Qui Christo sacra
sunt et in eum credunt. (Opuscula, ii. 121.) The phrase
“saints in Christ Jesus” occurs in Phil. i. 1, and the meaning
is apparent—saints in spiritual fellowship with Christ. In
Col. i. 2 we have “saints and believing brethren in Christ,”
where the words in question may not only qualify “ saints,”
but also describe the essence and circle of the spiritual
brotherhood. But we are inclined, with Jerome, Meyer, de
Wette, and Ellicott, in opposition to Harless, Meier, and
Baumgarten-Crusius, to restrict the words év Xpict@ Incod
to muatois. The previous epithet is complete without such
an addition, but this second one is not so distinctive without
the supplement. The intervention of the words Tots otvow
év ’Edéow separates the two phrases, and seems to mark them
as independent appellations. But though grammatically they
may be separate names of the same Christian community,
they are essentially and theologically connected. “Nemo
fidelis,” says Calvin, “nisi qui sanctus; et nemo rursum
sanctus, nisi qui fidelis.” The more powerful and pervading
such faith is, the more the whole inner nature is brought
under its controlling and assimilating influence; the more
deeply and vividly it realizes Christ in authority, example,
and proprietary interest in “ the church which He has purchased
with His own blood,” then the more cordial, entire, and
unreserved will be the consecration.

(Ver. 2.) Xdpis tpiv cal eipnrn—“Grace to you and
peace.” The apostolical salutation is cordial and comprehen-
sive. “Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor, greet-
ing”—Paul to the Ephesians, “grace and peace.” It is far

é

Ip

EPHESIANS I. 2. 7

more expressive than the tyaive, yaipew, or ed wpdrtew

_ of the ancient classic formula. The same or similar phrase-

. ology occurs in the beginning of most of the epistles. Xadpis,

allied to yaipew and the Latin gratia, signifies favour, and,
especially in the New Testament, divine favour — that
goodwill on God’s part which not only provides and applies
salvation, but blesses, cheers, and assists believers. As a
wish expressed for the Ephesian church, it does not denote
mercy in its general aspect, but that many-sided favour
that comes in the form of hope to saints in despondency,
of joy to them in sorrow, of patience to them in suffering, of
victory to them under assault, and of final triumph to them
in the hour of death. And so the apostle calls it yapu ets
evxatpov Bonfevav—grace in order to well-timed assistance.
Heb. iv. 16.

Eipnvn — Peace, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
pibvi_a term of familiar and beautiful significance. It includes
every blessing—being and wellbeing. It was the formula of
ordinary courtesy at meeting and parting. “Peace I leave
with you,” said our Lord; but the term was no symbol of cold
and formal politeness—‘ not as the world giveth, give I unto
you.” John xiv. 27. The word in this connection denotes
that form of spiritual blessing which keeps the heart in a state
of happy repose. It is therefore but another phase, or rather
it is the result, of the previous ydpes. Stier distinguishes
these two blessings, as if they corresponded to the previous
epithets dyios Kal muotois, grace being appropriate to the
“saints,” as the first basis of their sanctification; and peace
to the “faithful,” as the last aim or effect of their confidence
in God. But “grace and peace” are often employed in saluta-
tions where the two epithets of saints and believers in Christ
Jesus do not occur, so that it would be an excess of refinement
either to introduce such a distinction in this place, or to say,
with the same author, that the two expressions foreshadow
the dualism of the epistle—first, the grace of God toward the
church, and then its faith toward Him. Nor can we, as
Jerome hints, ascribe grace to the Father and peace to the Son
as their separate and respective sources, A conscious posses-
sion of the divine favour can alone create and sustain mental
tranquillity. To use an impressive figure of Scripture, the

8 EPHESIANS I. 2.

unsanctified heart resembles “the troubled sea,” in constant
uproar and agitation—dark, muddy, and tempestuous; but
the storm subsides, for a voice of power has cried, “ Peace, be
still,’ and there is “a great calm:” the lowering clouds are
dispelled, and the azure sky smiles on its own reflection in the
bosom of the quiet and glassy deep. The favour of God and
the felt enjoyment of it, the apostle wishes to the members of
the Ephesian church in this salutation ; yea, grace and peace—

amo Ocod tatpos Hwav Kai Kupiov ’Incod Xpiotoov—* from
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The source of
these spiritual blessings is now stated. Erasmus, Morus, and
some Socinian interpreters, would understand the connection
as if xupiov were governed by matpos, and not by amo—
“From God our Father, the Father, too, of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” This interpretation would sever Jesus from the
bestowment of these blessings, as, in such an exegesis, they
are supposed to descend from God, who is our Father, and
who is at the same time designated as Christ’s Father. This
construction is wholly unwarranted. Father and Son are both
specified as the sources of grace and peace. Grace and peace
are not earth-born blessings ; they descend from heaven, from
God on His glorious throne, whose high prerogative it is to
send down those special influences; and from Christ at His
right hand, who has provided these blessed gifts by His suffer-
ings and death—who died to secure, and is exalted to bestow
them, and whose constant living sympathy with His people
enables Him to appreciate their wants, and prompts Him out
of His own fulness to supply them. God is described as our
Father—juov. Our sonship will be illustrated under ver. 5.
The universal Governor being the parent of believers, who
have a common fatherhood in Him, grace and peace are
viewed as paternal gifts.

The Saviour is characterized as Lord Jesus Christ ; “ Lord,”
Master, or Proprietor. ‘O «vpios is often applied to Jesus in
the Pauline writings. It corresponds to the theocratic intima-
tions of a king—a great king—to preside over the spiritual
Sion. Ps.cx.1. Gabler, in his New Theological Journal, iv.
p- 11, has affirmed, that in the New Testament «vpuos, without
the article, refers to God, and that o xvpsos is the uniform
appellation of Christ—a distinction which cannot be main-

EPHESIANS I. 2. 9

tained, as may be seen by a reference to Rom. xv. 11; 1 Cor.
x. 26; Heb. viii. 2; for in all those passages the reference
is to God, and yet the article is prefixed. Winer, § 19, 1.
Like @eds in many places, it is often used without the article
when it refers to Christ. In about two hundred and twenty
instances in the writings of Paul, «vpsos denotes the Saviour,
and in about a hundred instances it is joined to His other
names, as in the phrase before us. Perhaps in not more than
three places, which are not quotations or based on quotations,
does Paul apply xvpsos to God.’ It was a familiar and
favourite designation—the exalted Jesus is “Lord of all”—“He
has made Him both Lord and Christ.” He has won this Lord-
ship by His blood. Phil. ii. 8,11. “ He has been exalted,”
that every tongue should salute Him as Lord. 1 Cor. xii. 3.
While the title may belong to Him as Creator and Preserver,
it is especially given Him as the enthroned God-man, for His
sceptre controls the universe. The range of that Lordship has
infinitude for its extent, and eternity for its duration. The
term, as Suicer quaintly remarks, refers not to ovc/a, but to
éfovcla, And as He is Head of the Church, and “ Head over
all things to the Church ”—its Proprietor, Organizer, Governor,
Guardian, Blesser, and Judge—whose law it obeys, whose
ordinances it hallows, whose spirit it cherishes, whose truth it
conserves, and whose welcome to glory it anticipates and pre-
pares for; therefore may He, sustaining such a relation to His
spiritual kingdom, be so often and so fondly named as Lord.
The apostle invokes upon the Ephesians grace and peace from
the Lord Jesus Christ, whose supreme administration was
designed to secure, and does actually confer, those lordly gifts.

The mention of spiritual blessing fills the susceptible mind
of the apostle with ardent gratitude, and incites him to praise.
In his writings argument often rises into doxology—logic
swells into lyrics. The Divine Source of these glorious gifts,
He who gives them so richly and so constantly, is worthy of
rapturous homage. They who get all must surely adore Him
who gives all. With the third verse begins a sentence which
terminates only at the end of the 14th verse, a sentence which

_ enumerates the various and multiplied grounds of praise.

These are :—holiness as the result and purpose of God's eternal
1 Stuart's Essay, Biblical Repository, vol. iv.

10 EPHESIANS I. 3.

choice—adoption with its fruits, springing from the good
pleasure of His will with the profuse bestowment of grace—all
tracing themselves to the Father: pardon of sin by the blood
of Christ—the summation of all things in Him—the interest
of believers in Him—these in special connection with the
Son: and the united privilege of hearing, and trusting, and
being sealed, with their possession of the Earnest of future
felicity—a sphere of blessing specially belonging to the Holy
Ghost. Such are the leading ideas of a magnificent anthem
—not bound together in philosophical precision, but each
suggesting the other by a law of powerful association. The
one truth instinctively gives birth to the other, and the con-
nection is indicated chiefly by a series of participles.

(Ver. 3.) EvAoyntos 0 Oeds xal watnp tod Kupiov nuov
*Inood: Xpictod— Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ.” The verb is usually omitted. The
adjective in the doxology is placed before the substantive,
because being used as a predicate, and representing an
abstract quality, the emphasis lies on it. Such is the invariable
usage in the Old Testament—not God is blessed, but, from
the position of the words—Blessed be God, 717 772. At least
thirty times does the formula occur. Ps. lxviii. 19, in the
Septuagint being a mistranslation or doubled version of the
Hebrew, is only an apparent exception, and the phrase,
Rom. ix. 5, we do not regard as a doxology. In all the passages
quoted by Ellicott after Fritzsche—Rom. ix. 5, as if they
were exceptions to this rule, it is evAoynuévos and not
evdoyntcs which is employed, and there is a shade of difference
between the participle and the adjective—for while in the
Septuagint evAoynuévos is applied to God, edvAoynrés is never
applied to man. Thus in 1 Kings x. 9,2 Chron. ix. 8, which
are parallel passages—ryévorro being employed in the first
instance, and éotw in the second; and in Job i. 21, Ps. exii. 2,
in both of which dvoua xvpiov with ein occurs, the verbs, as
might be expected, are followed immediately by their nomi-
natives. Evdoyntds in the New Testament is applied only
to God—His is perpetual and unchanging blessedness, per-
petual and unchanging claim on the homage of His creatures.
Evxroynpévos is used of such as are blessed of God, and on
whom blessing is invoked from Him. Matt. xxi 9; Luke i 28.

EPHESIANS I. 3. 11

But the blessedness we ascribe to God comes from no foreign
source; it is already in Himself, an innate and joyous
possession. Paul’s epistles usually begin with a similar
ascription of praise (2 Cor. i. 3). But in many cases—the
majority of cases—he does not utter a formal ascription: he
expresses the fact in such phrases as “I thank,” “ We thank,”
“We are bound to thank ”—*“ God.”

One would think that there is little dubiety in a formula so
plain; for Oeds and zarnp are in apposition, and both govern
the following genitive—Blessed be the God of, and the Father
of, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Divine Being is both God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet there are many
who sever the two nouns—disjoining Oecs from «vpiov—and
so render it, Blessed be God, who is the Father of our Lord
_ Jesus Christ. Theodoret, the Peschito, Whitby, and Bodius,
with Harless, Meyer, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping,
and Ellicott, are in favour of this opinion. But Jerome, Theo-
phylact, Koppe, Michaelis, Riickert, Stier, Olshausen, and
Alford, adhere to the former view, which we are disposed to
_ adopt. The words of themselves would bear either construction,
though Olshausen remarks that, to bring out the first opinion,
the Greek should run evAoyntds Oeos o watyp. Theodoret
capriciously inserts the adjective av in his note upon Oeos.
He represents the apostle as showing—énrar, @s nuav pév
€ott Oeos, tod b€ xupiov nuav matnyp, as if Paul meant to
describe the Divine Being as our God and Christ’s Father. To
say with Meyer that only zarnp requires a genitive and not
@ecos, is mere assertion. The statement of Harless, too, that
re should have been inserted before «ai, if @eos governed xupiou,
appears to us to be wholly groundless, nor do the investigations
of Hartung, to which ,he refers, at all sustain him. Lehre
von den Partikeln der Griech. Sprache, vol. i. 125. Compare
1 Pet. ii. 25. Had the article occurred before tratnp, this
particle might have been necessary; but its omission shows
that the relation of @eos and wartnp is one of peculiar unity.
Distinct and independent prominence is not assigned to each
term. ‘Winer, § 19,3, note. Nor is there any impropriety of
thought in joining Oeds with xvpfov—the God of our Lord
Jesus Christ. @eds uév, says Theophylact, ws capxwOévros,
matip dé ws Geod Adyou. The diction of the Greek Father,

12 EPHESIANS I. 3.

in the last clause, is not strictly correct, for the correlative
terms are Father, Son, aatyp, vios: God, Word, Qeos, Adyos.
“The God of our Lord Jesus Christ” is a phrase which occurs
also in the 17th verse of this chapter. On the cross, in the
depth of His agony, the mysterious complaint of Jesus expressed
the same relationship, “My God, my God.” “I ascend,” said
He to Mary, “to my God and your God.” Rev. iii.12. The
phrase is therefore one of scriptural use. As man, Jesus
owned Himself to be the servant of God. God’s commission
He came to execute, God’s law He obeyed, and God’s will was
His constant Guide. As a pious and perfect man He served
God, prayed to God, and trusted in God. And God, as God,
stands in no distant relation to Christ—He is also His Father.
The two characters are blended—‘* God and Father.”—See
under ver. 17. Sonship cannot indeed imply on Christ’s part
posteriority of existence or derivation of essence, for such
a notion is plainly inconsistent with His supreme Divinity.
The name seems to mark identity of nature and prerogative,
with infinite, eternal, unchanging, and reciprocal love. Since
this God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ sent Him into
the world, prescribed His service of suffering and death, and
accepted it as a complete atonement, it is therefore His pre-
rogative to dispense the blessings so secured—

0 evAoynaas 7)}4as—* who blessed us ”—“ us,” not the apostle
simply, as Koppe supposes from the contrast of dmezs in ver. 14.
The persons blessed are the apostle and the members of that
church addressed by him—he and they were alike recipients of
divine favour. The evAoyjoas stands in ideal contrast to the
evrAoyntos—God blessed us, and we bless God; but His bless-
ing of us is one of deed, our blessing of Him is only in word.
He makes us blessed, we pronounce Him blessed. He confers
on us wellbeing, we ascribe to Him wellbeing. Ours is
benedicere, His is benefacere. The participle here, as in many
places, has virtually a causal significance. Kiihner, § 667, a.
We bless Him because He has blessed us. As the word
expresses that divine beneficence which excites our gratitude,

1 For a spirited view of the doctrine of the @sdvépwaos in the hymnology of the
early Church, the reader may consult Dorner, die Lehre von der Person Christi,
second edition, vol. i: p. 294. See also Thomasius, Christi Persona, etc.,
§ 41 (1857).

|

EPHESIANS I. 3. 13

it must in a doxology have its widest significance. The en-
raptured mind selects in such a case the most powerful and

_ intense term, to express its sense of the divine generosity.

As Fergusson in his own Doric says, “The apostle does not
propound the causes of salvation warshly, and in a cauldrife
manner : ”—

év Tacn evroyia Tvevpatix7— with all spiritual blessing.”
’Ev is used in an instrumental sense, and similar phraseology
in reference to God occurs in Tob. viii. 15, Jas. iii 9.
evAoyia is not verbal wish expressed, but actual blessing con-
ferred. The reader will notice the peculiar collocation of the
three allied terms, ev-AoynTos-Aoynoas-Aoyia, a repetition not
uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures, and found occasionally
among the Greek classics.

The blessings are designated as spiritual, but in what sense ?
1. Chrysostom, Grotius, Aretius, Holzhausen, and Macknight
suppose that the apostle intends a special and marked contrast
between the spiritual blessings of the new dispensation, and
the material and temporal blessings of the old economy.
Temporal blessings, indeed, were of frequent promise in the
Mosaic dispensation—dew of heaven, fatness of the earth,
abundance of corn, wine, and oil, peace, longevity, and a
flourishing household. It is true that such gifts are not now
bestowed as the immediate fruits of Christ’s mediation, though,
at the same time, godliness has “the promise of the life that
now is.’ But mere worldly blessings have sunk into their
subordinate place. When the sun rises, the stars that sparkled
during night are eclipsed by the flood of superior brilliance
and disappear, though they still keep their places; so the
blessings of this world may now be conferred, and may now
be enjoyed by believers, but under the new dispensation their
lustre is altogether dimmed and absorbed by those spiritual
gifts which are its profuse and distinctive endowments. If
there be any reference to the temporal blessings of the Jewish
covenant, it can only, as Calvin says, be “ tacita antithesis.”
2. Others regard the adjective as referring to the mind or soul
of man, such as Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, Wahl, and Wilke ;
while Koppe, Riickert, and Baumgarten-Crusius express &
doubtful acquiescence in this opinion. This interpretation
yields a good meaning, inasmuch as these gifts are adapted to

14 EPHESIANS I. 3.

our inner or higher nature, and it is upon our spi7i¢ that the
Holy Ghost operates. But this is not the ruling sense of the
epithet in the New Testament. It is, indeed, in a generic
sense opposed to capxixos in 1 Cor. ix. 11, and in Rom. xv.
27; while in 1 Cor. xv. 44-46 it is employed in contrast
with wWuyveos—the one term descriptive of an animal body,
and the other of a body elevated above animal functions and
organization, with which believers shall be clothed at the last
day. Similar usage obtains in Eph. vi. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 5;
1 Cor. x. 3,4. 3. But in all other passages where, as in this
clause, the word is used to qualify Christian men, or Christian
blessings, its ruling reference is plainly to the Holy Spirit.
Thus—spiritual gifts, Rom. i, 11; a special endowment of the
Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 1, xiv. 1, etc.; spiritual men, that is, men
enjoying in an eminent degree the Spirit, 1 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 37;
and also in Gal. vi. 1; Rom. vii. 14; Eph. v.19; Col. iii. 16;
and in 1 Cor. ii. 13, “spiritual” means produced by or
belonging to the Holy Spirit. Therefore the prevailing usage
of the New Testament warrants us in saying, that these blessings
are termed spiritual from their connection with the Holy
Spirit. In this opinion we have the authority of the old
Syriac version, which reads wso5»—“ of the Spirit;” and the
concurrence of Cocceius, Harless, de Wette, Olshausen, Meier,
Meyer, and Stier. The Pauline wsus loqguendi is decidedly in
its favour.

IIaon—“ All.” The circle is complete. No needed blessing
is wanted—nothing that God has promised, or Christ has
secured, or that is indispensable to the symmetry and _ perfec-
tion of the Christian character. And those blessings are all
in the hand of the Spirit. Christianity is the dispensation of
the Spirit, and as its graces are inwrought by Him, they are
all named “ spiritual” after Him.

It certainly narrows and weakens the doxology to confine
those “blessings” wholly or chiefly to the charismata, or
extraordinary gifts of the primitive Church, as Wells and
Whitby do. Those gifts were brilliant manifestations of
divine power, but they have long since passed away, and are
therefore inferior to the permanent graces—faith, hope, and
love. They were not given to all, like the ordinary donations
of the Holy Ghost. Theodoret, with juster appreciation, long

|
|
|

EPHESIANS I. 3. 15

ago said, that in addition to such endowments, wxe riyy
errida tis avactdcews, Tas Tis ad0avacias érayyeXias, Thy
vrocxeow Tis Bacirelas Tov olpavar, Td Tis vioberias akiopa
—*“the blessings referred to here are, the hope of the resur-
rection, the promises of immortality, the kingdom of heaven in
reversion, and the dignity of adoption.” The blessings are
stated by the apostle in the subsequent verses, and neither
gifts, tongues, nor prophecy occupy a place in the succinct
and glowing enumeration :—

év Tois émrovpaviots €v Xpiot@—“ in the heavenly places, in
Christ ’””—a peculiar idiom, the meaning of which has been
greatly disputed. What shall be supplied —mpdaypace or
toro, things or places? The translation, “In heavenly
things,” is supported by Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius,
Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Holzhausen, Matthies, and Meier.
This view makes the phrase a more definite characterization
of the spiritual blessings. But the construction is against it,
for the insertion of tots seems to show that it is neither a
mere prolonged specification, nor, as in Homberg’s view, a
mere parallel definition to é€v mdon evdXoyia. The sentence,
with such an explanation, even though the article should be
supposed to designate a class, appears confused and weakened
with somewhat of tautology. Nor can we suppose, with Van
Til, that there is simply a designed contrast to the terrestrial
blessings of the Old Testament. The other supplement, to7rocs,
appears preferable, and such is the opinion of the Syriac trans-
lator—who renders it simply Laka, in heaven—of Jerome,
Drusius, Beza, Bengel, Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette,
Meyer, Stier, and Bisping. The phrase occurs four times
besides—i. 20; ii. 6; iii. 10; vi. 12. In all these places in
this one epistle, the idea of locality is expressly implied, and
there is no reason why this clause should be an exception.
Harless remarks that the adjective, as éwi would suggest, has
in the Pauline writings a local signification.

But among such as hold this view there are some differ-
ences of opinion. Jerome, Beza, Bodius, and Riickert would
connect the phrase directly with evAoyjcas ; but the position
of the words forbids the exegesis, and the participle must in
such a case be taken with a proleptic or future signification.
Beza alternates between two interpretations. According to

16 EPHESIANS I. 3.

his double view, men may be said to be blessed “in heaven,”
either because God the Blesser is in heaven, or because the
blessings received are those which are characteristic of heaven
—such blessings as are enjoyed by its blessed inhabitants.
Calvin, Grotius, and Koppe argue that the term points out the
special designation of the spiritual blessings; that they are to
be enjoyed in heaven. Grotius says these spiritual blessings
place us in heaven—“spe et jure.” The sweeping view of
Calovius comprehends all these interpretations; the spiritual
blessings are év Tots €mrovpaviows—ratione et originis, qualitatis,
et finis.. The opinion of Slichtingius, Zanchius, and Olshausen
is almost identical. _The latter calls it “ the spiritual bless-
ing which is in heaven, and so carries in it a heavenly
nature.” ?

We have seen that the idea of locality is distinctly implied
in the phrase év rots évrovpavio.s. Olshausen is in error when
he says that “heavenly places” in Paul’s writings signify
heaven absolutely, for the phrase sometimes refers to a lower
and nearer spiritual sphere of it; “ He hath raised us up, and
made us sit together with Christ in the heavenly places.” Our
session with Christ is surely a present elevation—an honour
and happiness even now enjoyed. “We wrestle against prin-
cipalities, against powers—against spiritual wickedness in
heavenly places,” vi. 12. These dark spirits are not in heaven,
for they are exiles from it, and our struggle with them is in
the present life. There are, therefore, beyond a doubt,
“heavenly places” on earth. Now the gospel, or the Media-
torial reign, is “the kingdom of heaven.” That kingdom or
reign of God is “in us,” or among us. Heaven is brought
near to man through Christ Jesus. Those spiritual blessings
conferred on us create heaven within us, and the scenes of
Divine benefaction are “heavenly places ;” for wherever the

1 While we heartily admire the enterprise of M. Pacho and Archdeacon
Tattam, and the critical erudition of Mr. Cureton in reference to the literary
remains of Ignatius, we may be allowed to refer in a matter of philology to two
of his so-called epistles. Mention is made of c& twoupavia xal 4 d0fn cay ayytrwy,
the heavenly regions and the glory of the angels. Hp. ad Smyrn. vi. and also
Ep. ad Trall.—r& iwovpavia nai ras romebscing ras ayytdinds—where rorebsola
stands in apposition to ra iwoupavia,

2«* Der geistliche Segen welcher in Himmel ist, also auch himmlische Natur
an sich triigt.”

a

EPHESIANS I. 3. 17

light and love of God’s presence are to be enjoyed, there is
heaven. If such blessings are the one Spirit’s inworking—
that Spirit who in God’s name “takes of the things that are
Christ’s and shows them unto us,”—then His influence diffuses
the atmosphere of heaven around us, “Our country is in
heaven,” and we enjoy its immunities and prerogatives on
earth. We would not vaguely say, with Ernesti, Teller, and
Schutze, that the expression simply means the church. True,
in the church men are blessed, but the scenes of blessing here
depicted represent the church in a special and glorious aspect,
as a spot so like heaven, and so replete with the Spirit in the
possession and enjoyment of His gifts—so filled with Christ
and united to Him—so much of His love pervading it, and
so much of His glory resting upon it, that it may be called
Ta é€moupaua, The phrase may have been suggested, as Stier
observes, by the region of Old Testament blessing—Canaan
being given to the chosen people of God as the God of Abraham.

The words év Xpiot@ might be viewed as connected with
Ta emoupaa, and their position at the end of the verse might
warrant such an exegesis. Christ at once creates and includes
heaven. But they are better connected with the preceding
participle, and in that connection they do not signify, as
Chrysostom and Luther suppose, “through Christ” as an
external cause of blessing, but “in Him.” Castalio supposing
év to be superfluous, affectedly renders—in rebus Christi cales-
tibus, and Schoettgen erroneously takes the noun for the dativus
commodi—in laudem Christi. The words are reserved to the
last with special emphasis. The apostle writes of blessing—
spiritual blessing—all spiritual blessing—all spiritual blessing
in the heavenly places; but adds at length the one sphere in
which they are enjoyed—in Christ—in living union with the
personal Redeemer. God blesses us: if the question be, When?
the aorist solves it; if it be, With what sort of gifts? the
ready answer is, “ With all spiritual blessings ”"—éy; and if
it be, Where? the response is, “ In the heavenly places "—év ;
and if it be, How? the last words show it, “in Christ "—éy,
the one preposition being used thrice, to point out varied but
allied relations, If Christians are blessed, and so blessed with
unsparing liberality and universal benefaction in Christ through
the Spirit’s influence upon them; and if the scenes of such

B

18 EPHESIANS I. 4. *

transcendent enjoyment may be named without exaggeration
“heavenly places ”—may they not deeply and loudly bless the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? And so the triune
operation of the triune God is introduced: the Father who
blesses—the Son, in whom those blessings are conferred—and
the Spirit, by whose inner work they are enjoyed, and from
whom they receive their distinctive epithet.

(Ver. 4.) Kadas é€eréEato nuads év abt@—“ According as He
chose us in Him.” The adverb xaOws defines the connection
of this verse with the preceding. That connection is modal
rather than causal; xaOds, like xaOors, may signify sometimes
“ because,” but the cause specified involves the idea of manner.
Kaus, in classic Greek xa@d, is the later form (Phrynichus,
ed. Lobeck, p. 426), and denotes, as its composition indicates,
“according as.” These spiritual blessings are conferred on us,
not merely because God chose us, but they are given to us in
perfect harmony with His eternal purpose. Their number,
variety, adaptation, and fulness, with the shape and the mode
of their bestowment, are all in exact unison with God’s pre-
temporal and gracious resolution; they are given after the
model of that pure and eternal archetype which was formed in
the Divine mind—

é&eréEato.—1 Cor. i. 27. The action belongs wholly
to the past, as the aorist indicates. Kriiger, § 53, 5, 1;
Scheuerlein, § 32, 2. The idea involved in this word lay at
the basis of the old theocracy, and it also pervades the New
Testament. The Greek term corresponds to the Hebrew 173
of the Old Testament, which is applied so often to God’s
selection of Abraham’s seed to be His peculiar people. Deut.
iv; 37; vit. 6, 7* Isa: xl. Ss Ps. xxxit 12, xlvii: 4, ete.
Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 271. The verb before us, with
its cognate forms, is used frequently to indicate the origin of
that peculiar relation which believers sustain to God, and it
also assigns the reason of that distinction which subsists
between them aud the world around them. Whatever the
precise nature of this choice may be, the general doctrine is,
that the change of relation is not of man’s achievement, but
of God’s, and the aorist points to it as past; that man does
not unite himself to God, but that God unites man to Himself,
for there is no attractive power in man’s heart to collect and

EPHESIANS I. 4. 19

gather in upon it those spiritual blessings. But there is not
merely this palpable right of initiation on the part of God;
there is also the prerogative of sovereign bestowment, as is
indicated by the composition of the verb and by the following
pronoun, )uas—*us”—we have; others want. The apostle
speaks of himself and his fellow-saints at Ephesus. If God
had not chosen them, they would never have chosen God.
Hofmann (Schriftb. p. 223, etc., 2nd ed. 1857) denies that
the verb contains the idea of choice in its theological use.
Admitting that it does mean to “choose,” as in Josh. viii. 3,
and to prefer, as in Gen. xiii. 11, Luke x. 42, he abjures in
this place all notion of selection—they are chosen not out of
others, but chosen for a certain end—/iir etwas. The supposi-
tion is ingenious, but it is contrary to the meaning of the
compound verb, even in the passages selected by him, as
Ex. xviii. 25, Acts vi. 5, in which there is formal selection
expressed—judges out of the people by Moses; deacons out
from the membership of the early church. The phrase oi
éxdexTol ayyedXot in 1 Tim. v. 21, may, for aught we know,
have a meaning quite in harmony with the literal significa-
tion, or éxXexros may bear a secondary sense, based on its
primary meaning, such as Hofmann finds in Luke xxiii. 35,
and according to a certain reading, in Luke ix. 35. But
while there is a high destiny set before us, there is a choice
of those who are to enjoy it, and this choice in itself, and
plainly implying a contrast, the apostle describes by é£eXéEaro.,
On the other hand, Ebrard—Christliche Doymatik, § 560, vol.
ii. p. 65, 1851—<denies that the end of election, considered
as individual eternal happiness, is contained in the verb; for
election, according to him, signifies not the choice of individuals,
but of a multitude out of the profane world into the church,
so that é«dextds is synonymous with dyos. Election to
external privilege is true, but it does not exhaust the purpose:
for it would be stopping at the means without realizing the end.
_ Besides, the choice of a multitude is simply the choice of each
individual composing it. That multitude may be regarded as
a unity by God, but to Him it is a unity of definite elements
or members. On the divine side, the elect, whatever their
number, are a unity, and are so described—av & débmxé por,
John vi. 39; wav 6 Sé5wxas ai7@, John xvii. 2—a totality

20 EPHESIANS I, 4.

viewed by Omniscience as one; but on the human side, the elect
are the whole company of believers, but thus individualized—
mas 0 Oewpav Tov viov Kal murtevov—John vi. 40 :—

"Ev avtr@—“ in Him,” for such is the genuine reading, not
€auT@, or in ipso, as the Vulgate has it and some commen-
tators take it; nor “to Himself,’ as the Ethiopic renders it.
The reference is to Christ, but the nature of that reference
has been disputed. Chrysostom says, “He by whom He has
blessed us, is the same as He by whom He has chosen us ;”
but afterwards he interprets the words before us thus—é:a tis
els avtov miotews, and he capriciously ascribes the elective
act to Christ. Many, as a-Lapide, Estius, Bullinger, and
Flatt, translate virtually, “on account of Christ.” But the
apostolical idea is more definite and profound. "Ev aire
seems to point out the position of the nuds. Believers were
looked upon as being in Christ their federal Head, when they
were elected. To the prescient eye of God the entire church
was embodied in Jesus—was looked upon as “in Him.” The
church that was to be appeared to the mind of Him who fills
eternity, as already in being, and that ideal being was in Christ.
It is true that God Himself is in Christ, and in Christ purposes
and performs all that pertains to man’s redemption; but the
thought here is not that God in Christ has chosen us, but that
when He elected us, we were regarded as being in Christ our
representative—like as the human race was in Adam, or the
Jewish nation in Abraham. We were chosen—

mpo KataBorhs Kxoopov,— before the foundation of the
world.”—Similar phraseology occurs in Matt. xiii. 35;
John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 20. The more usual Pauline
expressions are——-7pd Tay aiwvwv, 1 Cor. ii. 7; po
xpovov aiwviwv, 2 Tim. i. 9. KataBod is also used in the
same sense in the classics, and by Philo. Leesner, Observat.
p. 338; Passow, sub voce. Chrysostom, alluding to the
composition of the noun xata-8ony, says fancifully,—* Beau-
tiful is that word, as if he were pointing to the world cast
down from a great height—yes, vast and indescribable is the
height of God, so wide the distance between Creator and
creature.”* The phrase itself declares that this election is no

1 Ka) xarws xaraBorny slaty, ws aro vives Urpous xarnGeBanutyoy Biyadrov abroy
, ‘ ‘ , ,” .@ ~ ~ > ~ ~ » ‘ ~s ,
Besxvis, xo yee urya Xai adaroy To Upos Tou Oso, ov rw Tore, AAR TH KYEKEX WENKOTS

ll

EPHESIANS I. 4. 91

act of time, for time dates from the creation. Prior to the
commencement of time were we chosen in Christ. The
generic idea, therefore, is what Olshausen calls Zeitlosigkeit,
Timelessness, implying of course absolute eternity. The choice
is eternal, and it realizes itself or takes effect in that actual
separation by which the elect, of é«Xexroi, are brought out of
the world into the church, and so become «Anrol, G&y.ot, cal
matot. Before that world which was to be lost in sin and
misery was founded, its guilt and helplessness were present to
the mind of God, and His gracious purposes toward it were
formed. The prospect of its fall coexisted eternally with the
design of its recovery by Christ—

elvas nyuas wyiovs Kal dywpous Katevwriov avToo—“ in
order that we should be holy, and without blame before
Him.” Eilvas is the infinitive of design—*that we should
be.” Winer, § 44, 1; Col. i 22. The two adjectives
express the same idea, with a slight shade of variation.
Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2. The first is inner consecration to God,
or holy principle—the positive aspect ; the latter refers to its
result, the life governed by such a power must be blameless
and without reprehension—the negative aspect, as Alford and
Ellicott term it. Tittmann, Synonym, p. 21. The pulsation
of a holy heart leads to a stainless life, and that is the avowed
purpose of our election.

That the words describe a moral condition is affirmed
rightly by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Matthies, Meier,
Stier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de Wette. Some, however,

_ such as Koppe, Meyer, von Gerlach, Bisping, and Harless,

refer the phrase to that perfect justifying righteousness of
believers to which the apostle alludes in Rom. iii. 21, 22,
v. 1, etc., viii. 1, etc.; 1 Cor. vi. 11. But the terms found here
are different from those used by the apostle in the places
quoted, where men are said to be justified, or fully acquitted
from guilt, by their interest in the righteousness of Christ.
On the other hand, the eternal purpose not only pardons, but
also sanctifies, absolves in order to renew, and purifies in order
to bestow perfection. It is the uniform teaching of Paul, that
vis Qiewws. It is marvellous that Adam Clarke should find any allusion in the

phrase to ‘‘the commencement of the religious system of the Jews,” and that
Rarrington should render it, ‘‘ Before the foundation of the Jewish state.

22 EPHESIANS I. 4. =

holiness is the end of our election, our calling, our pardon and
acceptance. The phrase, “holy and without blame,” is never
once applied to our complete justification before God; and,
indeed, men are not regarded by God as innocent or sinless,
for the fact of their sin remains unaltered; but they are
treated as righteous—they are absolved from the penal con-
sequences of their apostasy. It is no objection to our inter-
pretation, which gives the words a moral, and not a legal or
forensic signification, that men are not perfect in the present
state. We would not say apologetically, with Calixtus—
Quantum fiert potest, per Dei ipsius gratiam et carnis nostra
infirmitatem. We can admit no modification; for though the
purpose begins to take effect here, it is not fully wrought out
here, and we would not identify incipient operation with final
perfection. The proper view, then, is that perfection is
secured for us—that complete restoration to our first purity
is provided for us—that He who chose us before time began,
and when we were not, saw in us the full and final accom-
plishment of His gracious purpose. When He elected us—
He beheld realized in us His own ideal of restored and
redeemed humanity—See under chap. v. 27. Men are
chosen in Christ, in order to be holy and without blame.
1 Thess. iv. 7; Tit. ii 14. Jerome says, Hoc est, gut
sancti et immaculati ante non fuimus, ut postea essemus. The
father vindicates this view, and refutes such objections as
Porphyry was wont to advance, by putting the plain question,
“Why, if there be no sovereignty, have Britain and the Irish
tribes not known Moses and the prophets?” These facts are
as appalling as any doctrine, and the fact must be overturned
ere the doctrine can be impugned. The last lesson deduced
by Jerome is, Concede Deo potentiam sut.

KatevaTiov avtov—* before Him,” IBD, No good end is
gained by reading avrov, with Harless and Scholz, as the
subject is remote. The meaning is, indeed, before Himself,
that is, before God. Winer, § 22, 5; note from Bremi;
Kiihner, § 628. As the middle form of é&ed\é£ato indicates,
they were chosen by God for Himself, and they are to be
holy and blameless before Him. The reference to God is
undoubted, and the phrase denotes the reality or genuineness
of the holy and blameless state. God accounts it so, The

te te

EPHESIANS I. 4, , 23

“elect” are not esteemed righteous “merely before men,” as
Theophylact explains. Their piety is not a brilliant hypocrisy.
It is regarded as genuine, “ before Him” whose glance at
once detects and frowns upon the spurious, however plausible
the disguise in which it may wrap itself. Such is another
or second ground of praise.

The reader may pardon a few digressive illustrations of the
momentous doctrine of this verse. It would be a narrow and
superficial view of these words to imagine that they are meant
to level Jewish pride, and that they describe simply the
choice of the Gentiles to religious privilege. The purpose of
the election is, that its object should be holy, an end that
cannot fail, for they are in Christ; in Him ideally when they
were chosen, and also every man in his own order in Him
actually, personally, and voluntarily, by faith. Yet the
sovereign love of God is strikingly manifested, even in the
bestowment of external advantage. Ephesus enjoyed what
many a city in Asia Minor wanted. The motive that took
Paul to Ephesus, and the wind that sped the bark which
carried him, were alike of God’s creation. It was not because
God chanced to look down from His high throne, and saw the
Ephesians bowing so superstitiously before the shrine of
Diana, that His heart was moved, and He resolved in His
mercy to give them the gospel. Nor was it because its
citizens had a deeper relish for virtue and peace than the
masses of population around them, that He sent among them
the grace of His Spirit. “He is of one mind, and who can

turn Him?” Every purpose is eternal, and awaits an
evolution in the fulness of the time which is neither antedated
nor postponed.

And the same difficulties are involved in this choice to
external blessing, as are found in the election of men to personal
salvation. The whole procedure lies in the domain of pure
sovereignty, and there can therefore be no partiality where
none have any claim. The choice of Abraham is the great
fact which explains and gives name to the doctrine. Why
then should the race of Shem be selected, to the exclusion of
Ham and Japheth? Why of all the families in Shem should
that of Terah be chosen? and why of all the members of
Terah’s house should the individual Abraham be marked

24 EPHESIANS I. 4.

out, and set apart by God to be the father of a new race ?
As well impugn the fact as attempt to upset the doctrine.
Providence presents similar views of the divine procedure.
One is born in Europe with a fair face, and becomes
enlightened and happy; another is born in Africa with a
sable countenance, and is doomed to slavery and wretchedness.
One has his birth from Christian parents, and is trained in
virtue from his earlier years; another has but a heritage of
shame from his father, and the shadow of the gallows looms
over his cradle. One is an heir of genius; another, with
some malformation of brain, is an idiot. Some, under the
enjoyment of Christian privilege, live and die unimpressed ;
others, with but scanty opportunities, believe, and grow
eminent in piety. Does not more seem really to be done by
God externally for the conversion of some who live and die
in impenitence, than for many who believe and are saved ?
And yet the divine prescience and predestination are not
incompatible with human responsibility. Man is free,
perfectly free, for his moral nature is never strained or
violated. We protest, as warmly as Sir William Hamilton,
against any form of Calvinism which affirms “ that man has
no will, agency, or moral personality of his own.” Fore-
knowledge, which is only another phase of electing love, no
more changes the nature of a future incident, than after-
knowledge can affect a historical fact. God’s grace fits men
for heaven, but men by unbelief prepare themselves for hell.
It is not man’s non-election, but his continued sin, that leads
to His eternal ruin. Nor is action impeded by the certainty
of the divine foreknowledge. He who believes that God has
appointed the hour of his death, is not fettered by such a
faith in the earnest use of every means to prolong his life.
And God does not act arbitrarily or capriciously. He has
the best of reasons for His procedure, though He does not
choose to disclose them to us. Sovereignty is but another
name for highest and benignest equity. As Hooker says, “ They
err who think that of the will of God to do this or that, there
is no reason but His will.” ccles. Pol., lib. i. chap. i. 3.
The question of the number of the saved is no element of
the doctrine we are illustrating. There have, alas! been
1 Discussions on Philosophy, Literature, etc., p. 600. Edin. 1852.

—_— =

EPHESIANS I. 4. 25

men, Calvino Calviniores, who have rashly, heartlessly, and
unscripturally spoken of the éxXexrof as a few—a small
minority. God forbid. There are many reasons and hints
in Scripture leading us to the very opposite conclusion. But,
in fine, this is the practical lesson; Christians have no
grounds for self-felicitation in their possession of holiness and
hope, as if with their own hand they had inscribed their
names in the Book of Life. Their possession of “all spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places” is not self-originated. Its
one author is God, and He hath conferred it in harmony with
His own eternal purpose regarding them. His is all the
work, and His is all the glory. And therefore the apostle
rejoices in this eternal election. It is cause of deep and
prolonged thankfulness, not of gloom, distrust, or perplexity.
The very eternity of design clothes the plan of salvation with
a peculiar nobleness. It has its origin in an eternity behind
us, The world was created to be the theatre of redemption.
Kindness, the result of momentary impulse, has not and
cannot have such claim to gratitude as a beneficence which is
the fruit of a matured and predetermined arrangement. The
grace which springs from eternal choice must command the
deepest homage of our nature, as in this doxology —EvAoyntos
6 Ocis—xabas éFeréEaro.

The eternity of the plan suggests another thought, which
we may mention without assuming a polemical aspect, or
entering into the intricacies of the supra- and sub-lapsarian
controversies, It is this—salvation is an original thought
and resolution. It is no novel expedient struck out in the
fertility of divine ingenuity, after God’s first purpose in
regard to man had failed through man’s apostasy. It is no
afterthought, but the embodiment of a design which, foreseeing
our ruin, had made preparation for it. Neander, indeed, says
the object of the apostle in this place is to show that Chris-
tianity was not inferior to Judaism as a new dispensation, but
was in truth the more ancient and original, presupposed even
by Judaism itself. The election in Christ preceded the
election of the Jewish nation in their ancestors. eschichte
der Pflanzung, etc., ii. 443. But to represent this as the
main object of the apostle is to dethrone the principal idea,
and to exalt a mere inferential lesson into its place.

26 _ EPHESIANS I. 4.

Before proceeding to the words év adydmn, we may remark,
that the theory which makes foreseen holiness the ground of
our election, and not its design, is clearly contrary to the
apostolical statement; chosen—in order that we should be
holy. So Augustine says that God chose us not quia futurt
eramus, sed ut essemus sancti et immaculatit. There is no room
for the conditional interjection of Grotius, Si et homines
faciant, quod debent. The dilemma of those who base pre-
destination upon prescience is:* if God foresaw this faith
and holiness, then those qualities were either self-created, or
were to be bestowed by Himself; if the former, the grace of
God is denied; and if the latter, the question turns upon itself
—What prompted God to give them the faith and holiness
which He foresaw they should possess? The doctrine so
clearly taught in this verse was held in its leading element
by the ancient church—by the Roman Clement, Ignatius,
Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Ireneus, before Augustine worked
it into a system, and Jerome armed himself on its behalf. It
is foreign to our purpose to review the theory of Augustine,
the revival of it by Gottschalk, or its reassertion by Calvin
and Janssen; nor can we criticise the assault made upon it
by Pelagius, or describe the keen antagonism of Calixtus and
Julian, followed up in later times by Arminius, Episcopius,
Limborch, and Tomline. Suffice it to say, that many who
imagine that they have explained away a difficulty by deny-
ing one phase of the doctrine, have only achieved the feat of
shifting that difficulty into another position. The various
modifications of what we reckon the truth contained in the
apostolical statement, do not relieve us of the mystery, which
belongs as well to simple Theism as to the evangelical system.”

1 The Chevalier Ramsay and Dr. Adam Clarke deny that God knows the free
actions of moral agents before they take place.

? That prince of thinkers, the late Sir William Hamilton, says of the
‘Philosophy of the Conditioned ”—‘‘ It is here shown to be as irrational as
irreligious, on the ground of human understanding, to deny, either, on the one
hand, the foreknowledge, predestination, and free grace of God, or, on the other,
the free will of man ; that we should believe both, and both in unison, though
unable to comprehend even either apart. This philosophy proclaims with S¢
Augustine, and Augustine in his maturest writings: ‘If there be not free grace
in God, how can He save the world? and if there be not free will in man, how
can the world by God be judged?’ (Ad Valentinum, Epist. 214.) Or, as the
same doctrine is perhaps expressed even better by St. Bernard: ‘Abolish free

,
’

EPHESIANS I. 4. 27

Dr. Whately has, with characteristic candour, admitted that
the difficulty which relates to the character and moral govern-
ment of God, presses as hard on the Arminian as the Calvinist,
and Sir James Mackintosh has shown, with his usual luminous
and dispassionate power, how dangerous it is to reason as to
the moral consequences which the opponents of this and
similar doctrines may impute to them.’ In short, whether
this doctrine be identified with Pagan stoicism or Mahometan
fatalism, and be rudely set aside, and the world placed under
the inspection of an inert omniscience; or whether it be
modified as to its end, and that be declared to be privilege,
and not holiness; or as to its foundation, and that be alleged
to be not gratuitous and irrespective choice, but foreseen merit
and goodness ; or as to its subjects, and they be affirmed to be
not individuals, but communities; or as to its result, and it be
reckoned contingent, and not absolute; or whether the idea of
election be diluted into mere preferential choice: whichever
of these theories be adopted,—and they have been advocated
in some of these aspects not only by some of the early
Fathers,? but by Archbishops Bramhall? Sancroft,‘ King,’
Lawrence,’ Sumner,’ and Whately,® and by Milton,’ Molina,’°

will, and there is nothing to be saved ; abolish free grace, and there is nothing
wherewithal to save.’ (De Gratid et Libero Arbitrio, c. i.— Discussions, etc.,
p. 598.) ”

1 Miscellaneous Works, p. 139.

2 Origen, Philoc. cap. xxv. ; Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. § 141; Clem.
Alex. Strom. vi. See also Wiggers, Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung
des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus. Berlin, 1821.

3 Controversy with Hobbes on Liberty and Necessity. Works, tome iii.
Dublin, 1677.

‘ Fiir Predestinatus, etc., a satire which Lord Macaulay justly styles ‘‘a
hideous caricature.” —History of England, vol. ii. p. 389, 8th ed.

5 Sermon on Predestination, preached before the Irish House of Lords in 1719
—usually annexed to his well-known treatise, On the Origin of Evil, and
reprinted with notes by Dr. Whately in 1821.

* Bampton Lecture, On the Articles of the Church of England improperly
considered Calvinistical. 1826. :

7 Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostolical Preaching Considered, 1826.

* Essays on Some Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, p. 91.

In his treatise De Doctrind Christiand, printed first in 1825, by Dr. Sumner,
now Bishop of Winchester.

10 A Spanish Jesuit of the University of Evora in Portugal, who, in his
advocacy of semipelagian views, first gave currency to the term ecienfia media,

_ in his treatise Liberi arbitrii concordia cum gratia donis, Divina praascientia,
| providentia, predestinatione, et reprobatione. Lisbon, 1588.

28 EPHESIANS I. 4.

Faber,’ Nitzsch,’ Hase,? Lange,‘ Copleston,’ Chandler, Locke,
Watson,’ and many others,—such hypotheses leave the central
difficulty still unsolved, and throw us back on the uncon-
ditioned and undivided sovereignty of Him “of whom, to
whom, and through whom are all things,’”—all whose plans
and purposes wrought out in the church, and designed to
promote His glory, have been conceived in the vast and
incomprehensible solitudes of His own eternity. I can only
say, in conclusion, with the martyr Ridley, when he wrote on
this high theme to Bradford—“In these matters I am so
fearful, that I dare not speak further; yea, almost none other-
wise than the text does, as it were, lead me by the hand.”
The position of the words év dydzrn will so far determine their
meaning, but that position it is difficult to assign. Much may
be said on either side. 1. If the words are kept, as in the
Textus Receptus, at the end of the fourth verse, then some
would join them to é£edé£aro, and others to the adjectives
immediately preceding them. That év dydmn at the end of
the verse should refer to é€eXé£aro at the beginning, is highly
improbable. The construction would be so awkward, that we
wonder how (Ecumenius, Flacius, Olearius, Bucer, and Flatt
could have adopted it. The entire verse would intervene

1 On the Primitive Doctrine of Election. London, 1842.

2 System der Christl. Lehre, § 141, 5th Auflage. 1844.

* Hutterus Redivivus, § 91, 6th Auflage. Leipzig, 1845.

* Von der freien und Allgemeinen Gnade Gottes. Elberfeld, 1831. Written
against Booth’s Reign of Grace. See Payne’s Lectures on Divine Sovereignty,
p- 69.

> An Inquiry into the Doctrine of Necessity and Predestination. 1821.

§ Institutes of Theology, vol. iii. See for opposing arguments the systems
of Hill, Dick, Woods, Chalmers, Wardlaw, and Finney, and of Mastricht,
Turretine, Stapfer, and Pictet. See Reuss, Histoire de la Théologie Chrét., etc.,
vol. ii. 132, Strasbourg 1852. Schmidt’s Dogmatik, part iii. § 30, Dritte
Auflage, Frankfort 1853. Messner, die Lehre der Apostel, etc., p. 252. See
also Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, by J. B. Mozley,
B.D., Oxford. In this volume, with no little argument, he elaborates the
theory that where our conceptions are indistinct, contradictory propositions
may be accepted as equally true—such contradictory propositions as God’s
predestination and man’s free will. But surely we cannot affirm them to be
contradictory unless we fully comprehend them, and though they may appear
contradictory when viewed under human aspects and conditions, we dare not
transfer such contradictions to the domain of theology, for the whole question,
as Mansel says, ‘‘ transcends the limits of human thought.” Bampton Lecture,
p. 412, 2nd ed.

EPHESIANS I. 4, 29

between a reference to the act of election and the motive
which is supposed to prompt to it. 2. Others, such as the
Vulgate and Coptic, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Luther, Beza,
Calvin, Grotius, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
Alford, join the words to the adjectives dy.ot cai dympos, as if
love were represented as the consummation of Christian virtue.
The doctrine itself is a glorious truth—all the Christian graces
at length disappear in love, as the flower is lost in the fruit.
Those who refer the adjectives to justifying righteousness—

Justitia imputata—object to this view that it is not Pauline,
~ but that év wicrec would be the words employed. 3. Though
we are not hampered by such a false exegesis, we prefer to
join é€v aya7n to the following verse, and for these reasons :—
Where @yos is used along with duwpos, as in Eph. v. 27, and
even in Col. i. 22, where a third epithet, avéy«AnTos, is also
employed, there is no such supplementary phrase as év dya7n.
Alford tries to get rid of this objection by saying that év ayamrn
refers not to the epithets alone, but to the entire last clause.
Yet the plea does not avail him, for his exegesis really makes
éy ayatn a qualification of the two adjectives. Olshausen
appeals to other passages, but the reference cannot be sustained ;
for in Jude 24 the additional phrase év dya\X\ace qualifies
not duwpos, but the entire preceding clause—the presentation
of the saved to God. When synonymous epithets are used,
a qualifying formula is sometimes added, as in dyéprrtous,
1 Thess. iii. 13, but blameless in what? the adjective is
proleptic, and évy aywavvy is added. Koch, Comment. p. 272.
The words év e¢pyvy occur also in 2 Pet. iii. 14,in the same clause
With dpuwpntos, but they belong not, as Olshausen supposes,
to the adjective; they rather qualify the verb evpe@jvai—
“found in peace.” If év dydmn belonged to the preceding
adjectives, we should expect it to follow them immediately ;
but the words catevwrtoy avtod intervene. The construction
is not against the Pauline style and usage, as may be seen,
chap. iii. 18, vi. 18, in which places the emphasis is laid on
the preceding phrase. Nor has Alford’s other argument more
force in it—that the verbs and participles in this paragraph
precede these qualifying clauses: for we demur to the
correctness of the statement. 1. We interpret the 8th verse
differently, and make év doy codia xal dpovnoe qualify the

30 EPHESIANS I. 5.

following yvwpicas. 2. The other qualifying clauses following
the verbs and participles in this paragraph are of a different
nature from this, four of them being introduced by catd—
referring to rule or measurement, and not to motive in itself
or its elements. 3. It is more natural, besides, to join the
words to the following verse, where adoption is spoken of;
for the only source of it is the love of God, and it forms no
objection to this view that ¢y aydmn precedes the participle.
Love is implied in predestination. Di-lectio preesupponitur
£-\ectioni, says Thomas Aquinas. And lastly, the spirit of
the paragraph is God’s dealing towards man in its great and
gracious features; and not precisely or definitely the features
or elements of man’s perfection as secured by Him. The
minuter specifications belong to God—His eternal purpose
and His realization of it.

The union of év dydrn with mpoopicas is sanctioned by the
old Syriac version, by the fathers Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Theodoret, and Jerome ; by Zanchius, Crocius, Bengel, Koppe,
Storr, Riickert, Harless, de Wette, Olshausen, Holzhausen,
Stier, Turner, and Ellicott; and by the editors Griesbach,
Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. |

(Ver. 5.) "Ev ayamrn mpoopicas tuas eis viobeclav ’Incod
Xpictod eis avtov — “In love having predestinated us for
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself.” Still
another or third ground of praise. ‘Ev aydrn, noi,
mpoopicas, says Chrysostom, and Jerome renders in charitate
predestinans. Saints enjoy the privilege and heritage of
adoption. The source of this blessing is love, and that love,
unrestrained and self-originated, has developed its power and
attachment—“ according to the good pleasure of His will.”
This verse is, to some extent, only a different phase of the
truth contained in the preceding one. The idea of adoption
was a favourite one with the apostle—Rom. viii. 14, 15, 19,
2a ik, wa 2. COP. Vi Le Gal, Au, 7, 26.iv, 5.6. 7: Heb:
ii, 10, xii, 5-8, etc. In the Old Testament, piety is
denominated by the filial relationship “sons of God.” Gen.
vi. 2. The theocratic connection of Israel with God is also
pictured by the same tender tie. Ex. iv. 22; Jer. iii. 19;
Hos. i, 10. Ylobecia—Oerov viov movetcOai—conveys a
similar idea, with this distinction, that the sonship is not a

a | Se ee

EPHESIANS I. 5. 31

natural but a constituted relationship, for the @erds was quite
distinct from the yvyjovos. The idea here is not merely that
of sonship, as Usteri imagines, but sonship acquired by
adoption. Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 194. Whatever blessings
were implied or shadowed out in the Israelitish adoption,
belong now to Christians. For they possess a likeness to
their Father in the lustrous lineaments of His moral character,
and they have the enjoyment of His special love, the privilege
of near and familiar access, the wholesome and necessary
discipline withheld from the bastard or foundling—Heb. xii. 8
—and a rich provision at the same time out of His glorious
fulness, for they have an inheritance, as is told in ver. 11.
God and all that God is, God and all that God has, is their
boundless and eternal possession—1 Cor. iii. 21-23—to be
enjoyed in that home whose material glories are only
surpassed by its spiritual splendours. Adoption is, therefore,
a combined subjective view of the cardinal blessings of
justification and sanctification.

ITpoopicas—tThe signification of the verb is, “to mark out
beforehand,” and it is the act of God. We were marked out
for adoption—zrpo; not before others, but before time. The
apo does not of itself express this, but the spirit of the con-
text would lead to this conclusion. The general idea is the
same as that involved in é€eAéEaro, though there is a specific
distinction. The end preappointed—zpo, is implied in the
one; the mass out of which choice is made—éx, is glanced at
by the other. In the first case, the Divine mind is supposed
to look forward to the glorious destiny to which believers are
set apart; in the second case, it looks down upon the unde-

_ serving stock out of which it chose them. IIpoopicas may

indicate an action prior to é€edéfato—“ Having foreappointed
us to the adoption of children, He chose us in Christ Jesus.”
Donaldson, § 574; Winer, § 45, 1. Homberg—JVarerga, p.
286—thus paraphrases, Lostguam nos pradestinavit adoptan-
dos, elegit etiam nos, ut simus sancti, But as the action both
of verb and participle belongs to God, we would rather take
the participle as synchronous with the verb. Bernhardy,
p. 383. For though the order of the Divine decrees is «
subject too high for us, as we can neither grasp infinitude nor
span eternity, yet we may say that there is oneness and not

32 | EPHESIANS I. 5.

succession of thought in God’s mind, simultaneous idea and
not consecutive arrangement. See Martensen’s Christliche
Dogmatik, §§ 207, 208, 209; Kiel, 1855. The doctrine
taught is, that our reception of the blessings, prerogatives, and
prospects implied in adoption, is not of our own merit, but is
wholly of God. The returning prodigal does not win his way
back into the paternal mansion. This purpose to accept us
existed ere the fact of our apostasy had manifested itself, and
being without epoch of origin, it comes not within the limits
of chronology. It pre-existed time. It is strange to find the
German psychology attempting to revive out of these words
Origen’s dream of the pre-existence of souls. Surely it forgets
that He whose mind comprises beginning and end, “calls
things that are not, as though they were.”

dia ’Incotd Xpictod—not simply for Christ’s sake, but by
means of His mediation, since but for Him the family had
never been constituted. God’s Son is the “ first-born” of the
vast household, and fraternal relation to Him is filial relation
to God.

eis avtov-— “to Himself.” It matters not much whether
the reading be avrov or attov. The former, coming so closely
after dca I. X., is certainly preferable, while the latter reading
has at least the merit of settling the reference. Griesbach,
Knapp, and Scholz, following Beza, Stephens, and Mill, have
avutrov. Other editors, such as Erasmus, Wetstein, Lachmann,
and Tischendorf, prefer avdrov, and they are supported by
Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. The reference of the word,
however, is plainly to God. To 6é eis avdrov, Tov Tatépa
Aéyec—Theodoret. Some, indeed, refer the pronoun to Christ.
The scholastic interpreters, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, did
this, and they have been followed by Vorstius, Bullinger,
a-Lapide, and Goodwin, who, however, as his manner is, com-
bines both the views; “the Holy Ghost,” he adds, “intended
both.” But these expositors are more or less paraphrastic
and wide of the truth. Others, referring it to God, give it the
signification of a dative, such as Calvin, Beza, and Calixtus,
and join the words with mwpoopicas, and find in the formula
this idea, that the cause of our adoption lies only in God, that
predestination is not caused by any motive or power foreign
to Himself—eztra seipsum. But this exegesis is a capricious

i

Oe il i et ee os

a es Fd

EPHESIANS I. 5, 33

and unwarranted construction of els with its accusative.
Others, again, take it as a dativus commodi for éauTa, as
Grotius, Koppe, Holzhausen, and Meier: “God has made us
His own children,” a meaning which does not bring out the
full force of the word. Not very different is the explanation
of Riickert, who makes it equivalent to avrod in the genitive
—‘“He has predestined us to His own adoption.” The
apostle does not use the preposition where a simple dative
or genitive would have sufficed. Others, retaining the
undoubted meaning of the accusative, would render it in
various ways. Piscator translates—Ad gloriam gratia sua.
Theophylact, with (Ecumenius, explains, ryy eis aitov avd-
yyoucav—adoption leading to Him. Olshausen’s notion is
not dissimilar. De Wette renders simply fiir ihn; that is,
for Him whose glory is the ultimate end of the great work of
redemption. Theodore of Mopsuestia thus expounds it, iva
avtov vioi NeyolueOd Te Kal ypnuartifwuev. Something of the
truth lies in all those modes of explanation, with the excep-
tion of the view of Calvin, and those who think with him.
Eis occurs twice in the verse, first pointing out the nearer
object of mpoopicas, and then the relation of the spiritual
adoption to God. In such a case as the last, eis indicates a
relation different from the simple dative, and one often found
in the theology of the apostle. Winer, -§ 49, a, ¢ (8), § 31, 5.
Adoption has its medium in Christ: but it has its ultimate
enjoyment and blessing in God. MHimself is our Father—
His household we enter—HIs welcome we are saluted with
—His name and dignity we wear—HIs image we possess—
His discipline we receive—and His home, secured and
prepared for us, we hope for ever to dwell in. To HIMsELF
we are adopted. The origin of this privilege and distinction
is the Divine love. That love was not originated by us, nor
is it an essential feeling on the part of God, for it has been
exercised—

Kata Thy edvdoxiav Tod OedrpaTos a’tod— according to the
good pleasure of His will” Kard, as usual, denotes rule or
measure. Winer, § 49, d (a). Evdoxia, according to Jerome a

_ word coined by the Seventy, rebus novis nova verba fingentes,
has two meanings; that of will—it seems good to me—

voluntas liberrima—* mere good pleasure ;” and that of bene-
c

34 EPHESIANS I. 5.

volence or goodwill. The former meaning is held by
Chrysostom (70 ogodpov Oédnua), by Grotius, Calvin, Flatt,
Riickert, de Wette, Ellicott, and Stier, with the Vulgate and
Syriac. The notion of “goodwill,” or benignant purpose, is
advocated by Drusius, Beza, Bodius, Réell, Harless, Olshausen,
and Baumgarten-Crusius. Such is its prevailing accepta-
tion in’ the Septuagint, as representing the Hebrew fix).
The translators gave this rendering on purpose and with
discrimination, for when /i8) signifies will or decree, as it
sometimes does, they render it by @éAnua. Compare Ps.
Six 10, ti 19, Ixxxix. 0S; cy, 4. with sth. 2-8 < Ps,
xxix. 5, xl 8; Dan. viii. 4, xi. 3, 16, ete. The Seventy
render the proper name 7377 (Delight), Cant. vi. 4, by evdoxda,
Symmachus by evdoxnt7. In the New Testament the mean-
ing is not different. Luke ii, 14; Rom. x. 1; Phil. i. 15
li. 13. Matt. xii 26, and the parallel passage, Luke x. 21,
may admit of the other meaning, and yet, as Harless suggests,
the context, with its verb nyaA\doaTo, seems to support the
more common signification. Fritzsche, ad Rom. ii. 369,
note. Ellicott virtually gives up his decision, by admitting
that “goodness is necessarily involved ;” and the philological
and contextual arguments of Hodge for the first view are
utterly inconclusive. We agree with de Wette that the
reference in evdoxia is to be sought, not in the mpowpicpeévor,
but in tpoopicas; but it defines His will as being something
more than a mere decree resting on sovereignty, and there is
on this account all the more reason why praise is due, for the
clause is still connected with evAoyntos. CEcumenius well
defines it, » éx’ evepyecia BovdAnows. Theodoret says, that
the Sacred Scripture understands by evdoxta—ro ayabov tod
@. Oédnpa. The 0énua—not an Attic term (Phrynichus, ed.
Lobeck, p. 7)—in itself simple purpose, has in it an element
of evdoxia. Benignity characterizes His unbiassed will.

And the proof of this statement is plain to a demonstration.
For though adoption among men usually results from child-
lessness, and because no son has a seat on their hearth, they
bring home the orphaned wanderer, no motive of this kind
has place with God. His heart rejoices over myriads of His
unfallen progeny, and His glory would not have been unseen,
nor His praises unsung, though this fallen world had sunk

EPHESIANS I. 6. 35

into endless and hopeless perdition. Again, while men’
adopt a child not merely because they like it, but because
they think it likeable in features or in temper, there was
nothing in us to excite God’s love, nay there was everything
to quench it in such a ruined and self-ruined creature. So
plain is it, that if God love and adopt us, that love has
no assignable reason save “the good pleasure of His will.”
In endeavouring to show that the occurrence of xata tn
evdoxiav after €v aydmy is no tautology, Olshausen says, that
aya7n refers to the proper essence of God, and that evdoxia
brings out the prominent benevolence of the individual act of
His will. The opinion of Harless is similar, that dyd7n is
the general emotion, and that its special expression as the
result of will is contained in eddox/a. Perhaps the apostle’s
meaning is, that while adoption is the correlative fruit of love,
purpose, special and benign, has its peculiar and appropriate
sphere of action in predestination—mpooplcas—xard. There
is “will,” for if God love sinners so as to make them sons, it
is not because His nature necessitates it, but because He wills
‘it. Yet this will clothes itself, not in bare decree, but “in
good pleasure,” and such good pleasure is seen deepening into
love in their actual inbringing. The idea of this clause is
therefore quite different from that of the last clause of v. 11.
(Ver. 6.) Eis érawvov S0&ns tis ydpitos abrov—*“To the
praise of the glory of His grace.” Eis occurs thrice in the
sentence—first pointing out the object of predestination—
then, in immediate sequence, marking the connection of the
adopted with God—and now designating the final end of the
_ process—relations objective, personal, and teleological, different
indeed, yet closely united. 46€ns has not the article, being
defined by the following genitive, which with its pronoun
is that of possession. Winer, § 19, 2, b;' Madvig, § 10, 2.
This verse describes not the mere result, but the final purpose,
‘of God’s mpoopicpds. The proximate end is man’s salvation,
but the ultimate purpose is God’s own glory, the manifestation
of His moral excellence. 2 Cor. i. 20; Phil. i 11, ii 11.
‘It was natural in an ascription of praise to introduce this idea,
‘the apostle’s offering of praise—edAoyntos 6 Beos—being at
at moment a realization of this very purpose, and therefore
1See Moulton’s Winer, p. 155, note 6.

36 EPHESIANS I. 6.

acceptable to Him. Some critical editors read avdrov, but
without valid reason.

The reduction of the phrase to a Hebraism is a feeble
exegesis. That reduction has been attempted in two ways.
Some, like Grotius and Estius, resolve it into eis évrawvov évdo€ov
—to the glorious praise of His grace. Others, as Beza, Koppe,
Winer, Holzhausen, and Meier, construe it as yapis évdo£os.
But it is not generally His glorious grace, but this one special
element of that grace which is to be praised. Winer, § 30, 3,1;
Bernhardy, p. 53. Xdpis is favour, Divine favour, proving
that man has not only no merit, but that, in spite of demerit,
he is saved and blessed by God. (See under chap. ii. 5-8.)
Its glory is its fulness, freeness, and condescension. It shrinks
from no sacrifice, averts itself from no species or amount of
guilt, enriches its objects with the choicest favours, and con-
fers upon them the noblest honours. It has effected what
it purposed—stooping to the depths, it has raised us to the
heights of filial dignity. Still further: this grace, with its
characteristic glory, is a property in God’s nature which
could never have been displayed but for the introduction of
sin, and God’s design to save sinners. This, then, was His
great and ultimate end, that the glory of His grace should be
seen and praised, that this element of His character should
be exhibited in its peculiar splendour, for without it all
conceptions of the Divine nature must have been limited and
unworthy. And as this grace lay in His heart, and as its
exhibition springs from choice, and not from essential obliga-
tion, it is praised by the church, which receives it, and by the
universe, which admires it. Therefore to reveal Himself fully,
to display His full-orbed glory, was an end worthy of God."
The idea of Stier, that the words have a subjective reference,
is far-fetched, as if the apostle had said that we are predestined
to be ourselves the praise of His glory. All that is good in
this interpretation is really comprised in the view already
given. |

év H, or ts éxapitacev jyas.—The former reading has in
its favour D, E, F,G, K, L. The Vulgate and Syriac cannot
be adduced as decided authorities, as they have often charac-

1 No one who has read, can forget, the magnificent tract of Jonathan Edwards—
God’s Chief End in Creation. Works, i. p. 41; ed. 1806, London. |

.

teristic modes of translation in such places. For $s we have
the two old MSS. A and B, and Chrysostom’s first quotation
of the clause. Authorities are pretty nearly balanced, and
editors and critics are therefore divided—Tischendorf and
Ellicott being for the first, Lachmann and Alford for the
second—but the meaning is not affected whichever reading
be adopted. While év 9 is well supported, 45 would seem to
be quite in harmony with Pauline usage, and is the more
difficult of the two readings, tempting a copyist on that
‘account to alter it. It stands so by attraction, Bernhardy,
p. 299; Winer, § 24, 1; Eph. iv. 1; 2 Cor. i. 4; see also
under ver. 8. Two classes of meanings have been assigned
to the verb :—

1. That of Chrysostom, and the Greek fathers, who usually
follow him, Theodoret, Theophylact, and (cumenius; also
of many of the Catholic interpreters, and of Beza, Luther,
Calvin, Piscator, Olshausen, Holzhausen, Passavant, and the
English version. The verb is supposed by them to refer to
the personal or subjective result of grace, which is to give men
acceptance with God—gratos et acceptos reddidit. Men filled
with gratia are gratiost in the eye of God. Luther renders
angenehm gemacht, as in our version, “made _ accepted.”
Chrysostom’s philological argument is, the apostle does not
say js éyapicato add’ éexapitwoev jyas, that is, the apostle
does not say, “which He has graciously given,” but “ with

which He has made us gracious.” He further explains the
term by Kal érepdotous érroujoev—* He has made us objects
of His love;” and He employs this striking and beautiful
figure—“It is as if one were to take a leper, wasted with
malady and disease, with age, destitution, and hunger, and
were to change him all at once into a lovely youth, sur-
passing all men in beauty, shedding a bright lustre from his
“cheeks, and eclipsing the solar beam with the glances of his
eyes, and then were to set him in the flower of his age and
clothe him in purple, and with a diadem, and all the vest-
“ments of royalty. Thus has God arrayed and adorned our
‘soul, and made it an object of beauty, delight, and love.”
But the notion conveyed in this figure appears to us to be
foreign to the meaning of the term. The word occurs, indeed,
with a similar meaning in the Septuagint, Sirach xviii. 17,

EPHESIANS I. 6, 37

38 EPHESIANS I. 6.

where avnp xeyapiTwpévos is a man full of grace and bland-
ness; and the same book, ix. 8, according to Codex A and
Clement’s quotation, has the same participle, as if it were
synonymous with evpoppdos—comely, well-shaped. Opera, p.
257; Colonie, 1688. Such a sense, however, is not in har-
mony with the formation of the verb or the usage of the New
Testament. Yet Mohler, in his Symbolik, § 13, 14, uses the
clause as an argument for the justitia inherens of the Romish
Church.

2. The verb yapitow, a word of the later Greek, signifies,
according to the analogy of its formation—to grace, to bestow
grace upon. So some of the older commentators, as Cocceius,
Roell, and most modern ones. Verbs in ow signify to give
action or existence to the thing or quality specified by the
correlate noun, have what Kiihner appropriately calls eine
factitive Bedeutung, § 368. Thus, mupdo—TI set on fire,
Oavatow—I put to death, that is, I give action to wip and
@avatos. Buttmann, § 119. Xapitow will thus indicate
the communication or bestowment of the ydpis. The grace
spoken of is God’s, and that grace is liberally conferred upon
us. To maintain the alliteration it may be rendered, The
grace with which He graced us, or the favour with which He
favoured us. The Vulgate has gratificavit, and the Syriac
\a.9]3—Wwhich He has poured out. Xdpis has an objective
meaning here, as it usually has in the Pauline writings,
and Keyapitwpévn, applied to the Virgin (Luke i. 28, Valck-
naer, ap. Luc. i. 28), signifies favoured of God, the selected
recipient of His peculiar grace. Test. xii. Patr. p. 698. The
use of a noun with its correlate verb is not uncommon. Eph.
13, 19, 20+ i. 4 iv; ; Donaldson, § 466 ; Winer, § 24, 1.
_ The spirit of the deolaration is—To the praise of the glory of
His grace, which He so liberally conferred upon us—the aorist
referring to past indefinite time and not to present condition.
The liberal bestowment of that grace is its crown and glory.
It was with no stinted hand that God gave it, as the following
. context abundantly shows. This glory of grace which is to
be lauded is not its innate and inoperative greatness, but its
communicated amount. The financial prosperity of a people
is not in useless and treasured bullion, but the coined metal -
in actual circulation. The value is not in the jewel as it—

EPHESIANS I. 7. 39

lies in the depth of the mine, in the midst of unconscious
darkness, but as it is cut, polished, and sparkling in the royal
diadem. So it is not grace as a latent attribute, but grace in
profuse donation, and effecting its high and holy purpose; it
is not grace gazed at in God’s heart, but grace felt in ours,
felt in rich variety and continuous reception—it is “the grace
with which He graced us,” that is to be praised for its glory.
And it is poured out—

év T@ iyyarnuévw— in the Beloved.” Some MSS., such
as D', E, F, G, add vid adrov, an evident gloss followed by
the Vulgate and Latin fathers. The Syriac adds the pronoun,

in his Beloved—.maosaoy. The reference is undoubtedly to

Christ. Matt. iii 17, xvii. 5; John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 9,
10, 11; or Col. i. 13—o vids ris dyamns atrod. Jesus is the
object of the Father’s love—eternal, boundless, and immut-
able; and “in Him” as the one living sphere, not for His
sake only, men are enriched with grace. But what suggested
such an epithet here? 1. The apostle had said, “In love
having predestinated us to the adoption of children.” We,
as adopted children, are indeed loved, but there is another,
the Son, the own beloved Son. It was not, therefore, affec-
tion craving indulgence, or eager for an object on which to
expend itself, that led to our adoption. There was no void
in His bosom, the loved One lay in it. 2. The mediatorial
representative of fallen humanity is the object of special affec-
tion on the part of God, and in Him men are also loved by
God. Bengel suggests that the ydpis we enjoy is different
from this @ya7n. Still the apostle affirms that we share in
love as well as grace. 3. The following verse tells us that
redemption comes to us 5a tov alyatos—by His blood, for
the Beloved One is the sacrifice. What love, therefore, on the
Father's part to deliver Him up—what praise to the glory of
His grace—and what claim has Jesus to be the loved One
also of His church, when His self-sacrificing love for them
has proved and sustained its fervour in the agonies of a violent
and vicarious death! For the next thought is— i’
(Ver. 7.) "Ev & Eyopev tiv dmodvtpwow bia rob aiparor
aitov—"In whom we have redemption by his His blood.
_ The apostle now specifies some fruits of that grace—illustrates

40 a EPHESIANS I. 7.

éyapitwoev. From a recital of past acts of God toward us, he
comes now to our present blessing. Redemption stands out to
his mind as the deliverance—so unique in its nature and so
well known, that it has the article prefixed. It is enshrined
in solitary eminence. The idea fills the Old Testament, for
the blessing which the Levitical ritual embodied and sym-
bolized was redemption—deliverance from evil by means of
sacrifice. Lev.i. 4, 9; iv. 26; xvii.11. Blood was the medium
of expiation and of exemption from penalty. Umbreit, Der
Brief an die Rimer ausgelegt, p. 261: Gotha, 1856. ’Arro-
AUTpwous, as its origin intimates, signifies deliverance by the
payment of a price or ransom—Avtpov. It has been said that
the idea of ransom is sometimes dropped, and that the word
denotes merely rescue. We question this, at least in the New
Testament ; certainly not in Rom. viii. 23, for the redemp-
tion of the body is, equally with that of the soul, the result of
Christ's ransom-work. Even in Heb. xi. 35, and in Luke
xxl. 28, we might say that the notion of ransom is not alto-
gether sunk, though it be of secondary moment; in the one
case it is apostasy, in the other the destruction of the Jewish
state, which is the ideal price. We have the simple noun in
Luke i. 68, ii. 38, Heb. ix. 12; and Avtpody in Luke xxiv.
21, Tit. ii. 14. The human race need deliverance, and they
cannot, either by price or by conquest, effect their own libera-
tion, for the penal evil which sin has entailed upon them
fetters and subdues them. But redemption is not an imme-
diate act of sovereign prerogative; it is represented as the
result of a process which involved and necessitated the death
of Christ. The means of deliverance, or the price paid, was the
blood of Christ—é1a tod aiwaros avtod; as in Acts xx. 28,
where we have 7repievrounoato, and 1 Cor. vi. 20, where we have,
under a different aspect, jryopdaOnre, and similarly in Gal. iii.
13. Blood is the material of expiation. The death of Jesus
was one of blood, for it was a violent death; and that blood—
the blood of a sinless man, on whom the Divine law had no
claim, and could have none—was poured out as a vicarious
offering. The atonement was indispensable to remission of

1 “*Quand donc vous entendez ici parler de son sang, ne vous représentez ni celui
de la Circoncision, quand le couteau de la Loi lui en fit perdre quelques gouttes,
huit jours aprés sa naissance ; ni celui de son agonie, quand |’excés du trouble

EPHESIANS I. 7. 41

sin—it was To Avtpov—the price of infinite value. Matt. xx.
28, xxvi. 28; Mark x. 45; Heb. ix. 22. The law of God
- must be maintained in its purity ere guilty man can be par-
doned. The universal Governor glorifies His law, and by the
same act enables Himself to forgive its transgressors. The
nexus we may not be able to discover fully, but we believe,
in opposition to the view of Schleiermacher, Coleridge, and
others, that the death of Christ has governmental relations,
has an influence on our salvation totally different in nature
and sphere of operation, from its subjective power in subduing
the heart by the love which it presents, and the thrilling
motives which it brings to bear upon it. See Reuss, Hist. de
la Théologie Chrétienne au Siecle Apostolique, tome ii. p. 182.

é€v @—“in whom ;” not as Koppe, Flatt, and others would
have it, “on account of whom.” The é&d points to the instru-
mental connection which the death of Christ has with our
redemption, but €v to the method in which that redemption
becomes ours. Rom. iii. 24. 4a regards the means of pr0-
vision, €v the mode of reception—in Christ the Beloved, in
loving, confiding union with Him as the one sphere —a
thought vitally pervading the paragraph and the entire epistle.
For how can we have safety if we are out of the Saviour?
Rom. viii. 1, 33.

The apostle -places the forgiveness of sins in apposition
with redemption, not as its only element, but as a blessing
immediate, characteristic, and prominent—

Thy adder TaY TapaTTwyatwy— the forgiveness of sins.”
Col. i. 14. TWapdmrrwya—falling aside, offence, differs from
dpapria, not exactly, as Jerome affirms, that the first term
means the lapse toward sin, and the second the completed act
in itself, for mapdwrwpya is expressly applied by Paul in Rom.
x. 15, ete, to the first sin of the first man—that offence
of which dyapria, or a sinful state, is the sad and universal
result. The word, therefore, signifies here that series and
succession of individual sinful acts with which every man is
chargeable, or the actual and numerous results and manifesta-

qu’il ressentoit en son esprit, lui en fit suér des grumeaux dans le jardin des
Olives ; ni celui de sa flagellation, quand les verges des soldats lui en tirerent
des ruisseaux dans le Prétoire. C'est celui de sa mort méme,"—Sermons our
VEpttre de St. Paul aux Ephesiens, par feu M. Du Bose, tome i. p. 277. 1099.

42 EPHESIANS I. 7.

tions of our sinful condition. “Adeovs—sometimes standing
by itself, but generally with aduapt/wy—is release from some-
thing which binds, from the chain which fetters—Luke iv. 19
—or the debt or tribute which oppresses. LEsth. ii, 18. It
frees from the ode/Anua—tfrom debt, as at the year of jubilee.
Ley. xxv. 31, xxvii. 24. It is, therefore, the remission of
that which is due to us on account of offences, so that our
liability to punishment is cancelled. It is surely wrong in
Alford to make a&deouv coextensive with droAvtpwow. In the
New Testament the noun. does not signify “all riddance from
the practice and consequences of our transgression,” but de-
finitely and specially remission of the penalty. Mark iii. 29;
Acts ii. 38 (the gift of the Spirit there succeeding that of
forgiveness) ; Acts xiii. 38, 39, xxvi. 18; Heb. x. 18. But
atroAvTpwors is much wider, being not only man’s deliverance
from all evil—from sin, Satan, and death—but his entrance
into all the good which a redeeming God has provided—peace,
joy, and life—a title to heaven and preparation for it. The
adeois of this verse is not, therefore, “equipollent” with
aToAutpwats, but the following paragraph is; for the azro-
AUTpwors contains the series of blessings described in it, and
among them forgiveness of sins has a first and prominent
place. “Adeous differs from mdpeows (Rom. iii. 25), for the
latter is preetermission, not remission; the suspension of the
penalty, or the forbearing to inflict it, but not its entire
abrogation. Fritzsche, Ad Rom., vol. 1. p. 199; Trench On
Synon., § 33. But the blessing here is remission. And it is
full, all past sin being blotted out, and provision being made
that future guilt shall also be remitted. Permanent dwelling
in Christ (é€y @) secures continued forgiveness. That
forgiveness also is free, because it is the result of His sacrifice
—6ia aiwatos; and it is irreversible, since it is God that
justifies, and who shall impeach His equity? or shall He
revoke His own sentence of absolution ?

_ And the apostle says, éyowev—in the present time; not
like evrAoynoas, é£eXéEato, mpoopicas, éyapitwaev—descriptive
of past acts of God. The meaning is not—We have got it, and
now possess it as a distinct and perfect blessing, but we are
getting it—are in continuous possession of it. We are ever
needing, and so are ever having it, for we are still “in Him,”

EPHESIANS L. 8 43

and the merit of His blood is unexhausted. Forgiveness is
not a blessing complete at any point of time in our human
existence, and therefore we are still receiving it. See under
Col. i. 14.

But those rapartwpata are many and wanton—not only
numerous, but provoking, so that forgiveness, to reach us,
must be patient and ample, and the apostle characterizes its
measure as being—

KaTa TO TAovTOS THs Yapitos av’Tov—“ according to the
riches of His grace.” With Riickert, Lachmann, and Tischen-
dorf, on the authority of A, B, Dt, F, G, we prefer the neuter
TO TovTOs, a form which occurs, according to the best MSS.,
in Eph. ii. 7, iii 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col i. 27, ii. 2; Winer,
§ 9, 2, 2. ITAodros is what Paley calls one of the “cant”
words of the apostle, that is, one of the favourite terms which
he often introduces—“ riches of goodness,” “riches of glory,”
“riches of full assurance,” “riches of wisdom,” ete. It serves
no purpose to resolve the formula into a Hebraism, so that it
might be rendered “ His rich grace,” or “ His gracious riches,”
for the genitive is that of possession connected with its
pronoun. Winer, § 30, 3, 1. The classic Greeks use a
similar construction of two substantives. The av’vod evidently
refers to God, and some MSS. read atrod. Xdpis—see under
ii. 8. The spirit of the clause may be thus illustrated :—The
favour of man toward offenders is soon exhausted, and accord-
ing to its penury, it soon wearies of forgiving. But God's
grace has unbounded liberality. Much is expended; many
sinners of all lands, ages, and crimes are pardoned, fully
pardoned, often pardoned, and frankly pardoned, but infinite
wealth of grace remains behind. It is also to be remarked,
that yapes and alua are really not opposed. Atonement 1s
not in antagonism with grace. For the opulence of His grace
is seen not only in its innumerable forms and varieties of
operation among men, but also in the unasked and upmerited
provision of such an atonement, so perfect and glorious in its
relation to God and man, as the blood of the “ Beloved One.

(Ver. 8.) “Hs éaepiccevcey eis 7pas.— Which He has
made to abound toward us.” ‘Hs is the result of attraction.
If it stand for #v, then the verb will have a transitive signi-
fication —“ Which He hath made, or caused to abound.” But

44 EPHESIANS I. 8.

if 4s stand for the dative, as Calvin, Camerarius, and Schmid
suppose, the meaning is that of our version—‘“In which He
has abounded toward us.” Winer, § 24,1. But the New
Testament affords no example of such an attraction, though
this be the usual signification of the verb. The Vulgate,
taking it for a nominative, falsely reads gue superabundavit in
nobis; and Piscator’s exegesis is wholly arbitrary, copiose se
effudit. It is, however, natural to suppose that there is no
change in the ruling nominative. Attraction seldom takes
place except when the relative should stand in the accusative
(Kiihner, § 787, Anmerk 4; Jelf, § 822), so that, with the
more modern interpreters, we take #js as the substitute of the
accusative, and prefer the transitive sense of the verb. Such
a Hiphil signification belongs to the word in 1 Thess. il. 12 ;
2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8. The relative does not denote the mode
of abundance, but the matter of it. It has been suggested—
Ellicott, p. 164—\that, as verba faciendi, like mwepiocevw, may
have an appended accusative elicited from the verb, “make
an abundance of,” so the principle of attraction need not be
applied to %s. Beza gives it, gua redundavit. The riches of
His grace are not given us in pinched exactness, or limited
and scanty measurement —where sin abounds, grace super-
abounds, Rom. v. 20. God knows that He cannot exhaust
the wealth of His grace, and therefore He lavishes it with
unstinted generosity upon us. Theophylact explains the
clause thus: af@ovws éEéyeev—“ He hath poured it upon us
unsparingly.” And the apostle, having spoken of forgiveness
as an immediate blessing, adds—

év wdaon sodia cai dpovyce—“in all wisdom and pru-
dence.” The preliminary question refers to the position of
this clause. Should it be joined to the preceding é7repic-
cevaev, or does it belong to the following verse, and qualify
the participle ywpicas? If it stand in connection with the
foregoing verb, it may be variously interpreted. Four forms
of exegesis have been proposed :—

1. Calvin, Balduin, and Beza understand the phrase as a
general name for the gospel, and their meaning is, that the
vocation of men, by the perfectly wise plan of the gospel, is
to be ascribed to grace as really as is their election.

2. Others understand it as referring to the gifts of wisdom

we i

EPHESIANS I. & 45

and prudence which accompany the reception of divine for-
giveness. So Aretius, Calixtus, Wolf, Bengel, Morus, Flatt,
Meyer, Meier, Matthies, Bisping, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
virtually Harless—“ According to the riches of His grace,
which He made to abound toward us, along with the gifts of
wisdom and prudence.” Or as Ellicott says—“It may mark

_ out the sphere and element in which the repiccevcey is

evinced and realized.” But the clause so interpreted may be
either logically connected with éweplocevcev or ywwpicas, and
may mean either “He hath abounded toward us,” and one
proof and result of such abundance is the bestowment of these
graces; or He hath made us wise and prudent, because He
hath made known to us the mystery of His will. Thus (cu-
menius, who joins the words with the following verse—aodovs
kal dpovipous troujoas obtws eyvwpicev TO pvotnpiov. If we
preferred this exegesis, we should adopt the latter modifica-
tion, which some of these critics also espouse, namely, that
the wisdom and prudence are neither the proof nor the sphere
of grace abounding toward us, but are the effects of God's
disclosure of the mystery of His will.

3. Some, again, refer the words to God, as if they were
descriptive of the manner in which He has caused His grace
to abound toward us. God in all wisdom and prudence has
made all grace to abound toward us. So Castalio, Riickert,
de Wette, Grotius (in one of his explanations), Baumgarten-
Crusius, and Alford—a connection which Ellicott stigmatizes
“as in the highest degree unsatisfactory.”

4. The opinion of Olshausen, endorsed by Stier, is quite
arbitrary and peculiar—‘that we should walk in all wisdom
and prudence ;” a paraphrase which would indicate an un-
wonted and fatal elasticity in the apostle’s diction.

We propose to join the words with the participle, yvepicas
—Having in all wisdom and prudence made known to us
the mystery of His will.” The construction is similar to that
vindicated in ver. 5, with regard to éy dya7p, and is not
unusual in the Pauline writings. The idea is homogeneous,
if the words are thus connected. Wisdom and prudence have
no natural connection with the abounding of grace. Grace in
its wealth or profusion does not suggest the notions of wisdom
and prudence. The two circles of thought are not concentric

46 EPHESIANS I. 8,

‘in any of the hypotheses we have referred to. For if the
words “in all wisdom and prudence” be referred to God, as
descriptive of His mode of operation, they are scarcely in
harmony with the leading idea of the verse; at least there
would be a want of consecutive unity. For it is not so much
His wisdom as His love, not so much His intelligence as His
generosity, which marks and glorifies the method of His pro-
cedure. The same remarks equally apply to the theory which
looks upon the clause in dispute as a formal description of the
scheme of the gospel.

Nor, if the words be referred to gifts of “ wisdom and
prudence,” conferred along with grace, or be regarded as the
sphere of its operation, is the harmony any better preserved.
Wisdom and prudence are not the ideas you would expect to
find in such a connection. But, on the other hand, “ wisdom
and prudence” are essentially connected with the disclosure
of a mystery. A mystery is not to be flung abroad without
due discrimination. The revealer of it wisely selects his
audience, and prudently chooses the proper time, place, and
method for his disclosure. To make it known to minds not
prepared to receive it, to flash it upon his attendants in full
force and without previous and gradual training, might defeat
the very purpose which the initiator has in view. The quali-
ties referred to are therefore indispensable requisites to the
publication of a mystery.

An objection, however, is stated against this exegesis by
Harless, and the objection is also adopted by Meyer, Matthies,
and Olshausen. Harless boldly affirms that ¢povnois cannot
be predicted of God. It is true that this intellectual quality
is not ascribed to God in the New Testament, the word
occurring only in another place. But in the Septuagint, on
which the linguistic usage of the New Testament is based, it is
applied to God as Creator (Prov. iii. 19), and in a similar pas-
sage, Jer. x. 12; and the Divine attribute of wisdom personified
in Prov. viii. 14, exclaims, éu» povnous— intelligence is
mine.” Why should ¢povyccs be less applicable than yvaous
to God? Prudence, indeed, in its common acceptation, can
scarcely be ascribed to the Omniscient. Still, if God in any
action displays those qualities which in a man might be
called prudence, then such a property may be ascribed to

a

EPHESIANS I. & 47

him in perfect analogy with the common anthropomorphism

of Scripture. But ¢pdvnors may not signify prudence in its

usual acceptation. It is the action of the ¢pyv or mind.

Wisdom is often ascribed to God, and ¢povnacs is the action
of His wise mind—its intuitive formation of purposes and
resolutions in His infinite wisdom. To refer dpovnous always
to practical discretion, as Estius, Bengel, and Krebs do, is
unwarranted. Zo¢ia is not simply and always scientia theo-
retica, nor povnars scientia practica. The words are so
explained, indeed, by Cicero—d¢pédvnots, que est rerum expe-
tendarum fugiendarumque scientia, De Offic.i. 43. In the pas-
sages adduced by Krebs’ and Loesner? from Josephus and
Philo, the word does not certainly bear out Cicero’s definition,
but in some of them rather signifies insight, or perspicacity.
In the classics it often denotes that practical wisdom which is
indispensable to civil government. The term occurs only in
another place in the New Testament, Luke i. 17, where it is
rendered “the wisdom of the just,” and where it certainly
does not refer to prudence. It stands in the Septuagint as
the representative of no less than nine different Hebrew
words. That it is referred to God in the Seventy, shows
that it may be predicated of Him in the New Testament.
Zodgia is the attribute of wisdom, and ¢povnacs is its special
aspect, or the sphere of operation in which it developes itself.
Thus, in Prov. x. 23, 9 6€ codia avSpt riktrec dpovnow. Com-

pare also in Septuagint 1 Kings iv. 29; Dan. ii. 21; Joseph.

Antig. ii. 5, 7, viii. 7,5. It is not so much the result of
wisdom, as a peculiar phase of its action. Intellectual action
under the guidance of codia is $povnows— intelligence. Beza's
view is not very different from this. The word, therefore,
may signify in this clause that sagacity which an initiator
manifests in the disclosure of a mystery—a quality which,
after the manner of men, is ascribed to God.

It is objected, again, that the adjective mdcy, added to cod.
xat dpov., forbids the application of the terms to God. Meyer
admits that ¢pdvnors may be applied to God, but denies
that aca dpovnots can be so applied. We can say of God,
Harless remarks, “in Him is all wisdom, but not He has done

1 Observationes in Novum Test. ¢ Fl. Josepho, p. 325.
2 Observationes in Novum Test. ¢ Philone Alexandrino, p. 338.

48 EPHESIANS I. 8.

this or that in all wisdom.” Olshausen homologates the
statement, his argument being, that God possesses all attri-
butes absolutely. De Wette, who, however, joins the words
to the preceding clause, but applies them to God, answers,
that the Divine wisdom, in reaching its end by every service-
able means, appears not as absolute, but only as relative, and
he explains the clause, in aller dazu dienlicher Weisheit und
Hinsicht. But what hinders that the word should be ren-
dered “in all,” which though it may be literally “every kind,”
yet virtually signifies highest, or absolute wisdom and
discretion? Harless again withstands this, and says, es
bezeichnet nie die Intension sondern nur die Extension. Let the
following examples suffice for our purpose :—Matt. xxviii. 18,
maca é€ovcla—all power—absolute power; Acts v. 23, the
prison was shut, év wdon dodadeia—“ with all safety,” in
their opinion, with absolute security; 1 Tim. i. 15, wdons
arodoyns a&cos—worthy of all or of absolute credit and
welcome; and in many other places. Nor is this sense
unknown to the classics: wdvr’ érustnuns—absolute know-
ledge;* maca dvayxn—utmost or absolute necessity ;? és
mav Kkaxov—into extreme distress ;° eis mavta xlydvvov—into
extreme danger ;* eis macav amoplav—to the utmost embar-
rassment.° So that in was the idea of intension is at least
inferentially bound up with that of extension. Such appear
to us sufficient reasons for connecting the words with
yvepioas, and regarding them as qualifying it, or defining the
method in which the mystery has been disclosed.

But among those who connect the words with yvwplcas,
there are some forms of interpretation adopted which may be
noticed and set aside. The first is that of Chrysostom, who,
in one of his expositions, refers the “wisdom and prudence”
to the mystery, as if they were descriptive of its qualities:
TOUTO yap €oTL TO puUaTnpLoY TO Taons codias TE yéuov Kal
gpovnoews— for this mystery is. marked by its fulness of
wisdom and prudence.” He is followed by Koppe, who, as
is common with him, suggests this metaphrase: 7d wvortyprov
copwratov kal ppovipwratov. These interpretations are not

1 Sophocles, Antig. 721. 2 Plato, Phadr. 235.

3 Herod. vii. 118; ix. 118. * Xenophon, (Cyr. vii. 2, 22.
® Polybius, iii. 77, 4. See also Pape and Passow in their respective Lexicons.

EPHESIANS I. 9. 49

warranted by the syntax. Reverting, then, to the view we
have already stated, we are of opinion that the words qualify
yvwpicas. For this purpose there is no need that they be
placed after it. The participle is at the same time intimately
connected with the verb ézrepiccevoev. It contains one of
the elements of the ydpis, which God has made to abound.
His having made known of His goodwill this higher aspect of
Christ’s work, is ascribed to that grace which, in this way and
for this purpose, He hath caused to abound towards us. It is
also one of the elements of admoAvrpwors, and one of the fruits
of that death which secured it. This connection is approved
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Homberg, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Koppe, Semler, and Holzhausen, by the editors
Griesbach and Scholz, and by Conybeare. The verses are left
undivided by Lachmann and Tischendorf.

(Ver. 9.) Tvwpicas nuiv ro pvoripiov tod Oedrpatos avtod
—“ Having in all wisdom and prudence made known to us
the mystery of His will.” Ivwpicas stands to érepiccevcev
much in the same way as mpoopicas did to é€edétaro.
Bernhardy, p. 383. And so in iii. 10, when the apostle
speaks of God unveiling a great mystery, he adds that by such
a disclosure His “ manifold wisdom” is made known to the
principalities and powers. The essential idea of puornpioyr,
whatever may be the application, is, something into the know-
ledge of which one must be initiated, ere he comprehend it.
In such a passage as this, it is not something unknowable, but
something unknown till fitting disclosure has been made of it;
something long hid, but at length discovered to us by God,
and therefore a matter of pure revelation. The mystery itself
is unfolded in the following verse. It is not the gospel or
salvation generally, but a special purpose of God in reference
to His universe. And it is called the mystery of “ His will”
—rod Oedrnpatos—the genitive being either subjective,
because it has its origin in His own inscrutable purpose ;
or rather, the genitive being that of object, because His will is
its theme—
xara Thy ebSoxiay atop —“ according to His good pleasure.”
EvSox/a has been already explained under ver. 5. Though
the mystery be His will, yet in His benevolent regards He
has disclosed it. We preferred in the previous edition joining

D

50 EPHESIANS I. 10.

the phrase with the following clause and verse, but the similar
use of «ard and its model clause in ver. 5 induces us, with
Meyer, Riickert, and Olshausen, to connect it with yvwploas :—

iw mpoéBero ev avt@—“ which He purposed in Himself.”
The verb occurs only in two other places, Rom. i. 13, ii.
25—and there may be here a quasi-temporal sense in 7po.
The meaning implied in the reflexive form ait, which Hahn
rightly prints in opposition to Tischendorf and Lachmann, is
correct. Luther and Bengel refer it to Christ, but the recur-
rence of the proper name in the next clause forbids such a
reference in the pronoun here. The purpose takes effect in
Christ, but it is conceived in God’s own heart. “In Himself”
He formed this design, for He is surrounded by no co-ordinate
wisdom—‘“ With whom took He counsel?” This and the
next verse are intimately connected. Some, such as Bengel,
suppose the verb dvaxepadaiwcacba: to be connected with
yvepicas, and others unite it with mpoéOero, but it stands out
as the object to which the whole previous verse points, and of
which it is an explanation.

(Ver. 10.) Eis oixovouiay tod mAnpwpatos THY Kalpav—
“In reference to the dispensation of the fulness of the times.”
Winer, § 49, a,c (8). The article is absent before o/ovopiay, as
the term is so well defined by the following genitives. Winer,
§ 19, 2, &. Eis does not signify “until,” as Bullinger,
Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Bucer, Zanchius, and Grotius have
supposed; as if the sense were—that the mystery had been
kept concealed until this dispensation was introduced. This
gives an emphasis and intensity of meaning to mpoé@ero, which
the word cannot well bear. Nor can eds be rightly taken for
év, as is done by Jerome, Pelagius, Anselm, Beza, Piscator,
and the Vulgate, for the meaning would be vague and diluted.
Eis is “in reference to.” Ocxovoyia signifies house-arrangement,
or dispensation, and is rendered by Theophylact, dioécnars,
Kkataotaots. The word in the New Testament occurs in
‘Luke xvi. 2, 3, 4, in the general sense of stewardship, either
the administration itself or the office, and the corresponding
noun, ofcovouos, is found in the same chapter, and in Rom.
xvi. 23. Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 403. Odxovoyia is also
used with special reference to the gospel, and sometimes
describes it as an arrangement or dispensation under charge

EPHESIANS I. 10. 51

of the apostles as its “stewards.” 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, ix. 17;
Eph. iii. 2; Col. i 25; Tit. i 7; 1 Pet. iv. 10. Luther,
led away by this idea, and by the “dispensatio” of the
Vulgate, refers the term to preaching, and to the disclosure
of the mystery—dass es geprediget wiirde. The noun does
not signify specifically and of itself, the dispensation of grace,
though the context leaves us in no doubt that such is the
allusion here; but it characterizes it as an arrangement
organized and secured in all its parts. Eph. iii. 2, 9; 1 Tim.
i. 4. It is not made up of a series of disconnected truths
and events, but it is a compact and symmetrical system of
perfect harmony in all its reciprocal bearings and adaptations.
The adjustment is exact, so that each truth shines and is
shone upon; each fact is a cause and a consequent, is like a
link in a chain, which holds and is held. It is a plan of
infinite wisdom, where nothing is out of place, or happens
either within or beyond its time.

And the scheme is characterized as being tod mAnpw@patos
Tav Kaipmv—the genitive having its characterizing sense.
Scheuerlein, § 16, 3. Into the sense of wArpwpya we shall
inquire at some length under the last verse of this chapter.
The phrase marks the period of the dispensation. It cannot
be the genitive of object—administratio corum qua restant
temporum, as Storr supposes, taking 7Anpwpa in an active sense;
nor can we say with Koppe, that there is any reference to
extrema tempora—the last day; nor with Baumgarten-Crusius,
that the time specified is the remaining duration of the world.
Harless gives, perhaps too narrowly, an exegetical sense to
the words, as if they explained what was meant by the
economy, to wit, a period when the mystery might be safely
revealed—making the genitive that of identity. Nor can we
suppose, with Stier, that these “times are parallel to the
economy, and of equal duration,” that they comprehend die
ganze Zeitdauer dieser Anstalt— for it developes and com-
pletes itself through adjusted times and periods.” This view
is adopted and eulogized by Alford. It seems to us, however,
to be putting more into the words than of themselves they
will bear. The genitive xacpav presents a temporal idea, and
mAnpépatos may be that of characterization. Winer, § 30, 2;
or as in Jude, xpiows peyadns jyépas. It is an economy charac-

a
sy

3

_

52 | EPHESIANS I. 10.

terized by the fulness of the times—that is, introduced at the
fulness of the times. The passages adduced by Alford are
not at all analogous, for they have different contextual rela-
tions, and all of them want the element of thought contained
in 7Anpwpa. True, there are under the gospel xaspol €Ovar,
Luke xvi. 24; xaipol avavfews, Acts iii. 19; Kxarpois tdious,
1 Tim. it. 6—each of these phrases having a special and
absolute reference. But mAnpwpa is relative, and implies a
period which gradually, and in course of ages, has become
filled up; and as the coming of Christ was preceded both by
expectancy and preparation—so we have ta TéAn TOV aiwvav
(1 Cor. x. 11), éx’ écxdrov tov jpepov (Heb. i. 1), in the
New Testament; and again and again in the Old Testament,
“the latter days”—“days to come:” therefore the phrase
here may define the economy by its marked temporal charac-
teristic, as being full-timed and right-timed. Our view may
be thus expressed: The time prior to the dispensation is at
length filled up, for we take wAnpwpya in its passive sense.
The wAynpwpa is regarded as a vast receptacle into which
centuries and millenniums had been falling, but it was now
filled. Thus, Herodotus iii. 22, Sons mAnpwpa paxpotatov
—the longest fulness of life—the sense of the clause being,
The longest period for a person to live is eighty years. Schott,
in Lp. ad Galatas, chap. iv. 4, p. 488; Winer, abid.; Mark
1.15; Luke xxi. 24; John vii. 8; Gal. iv. 4; also in Septua-
gint, Gen. xxv. 24, xxix. 21; Dan. x. 3. It is not rod
xpovov, as in Gal. iv. 4—in which past time is regarded as
a unity—but tay xaipmv, time being imaged under successive
periods." Theodoret has somewhat vaguely—rov opsoévta
mapa tov Qcod xaipov. This is one aspect, and that of
Calovius—dispensatio propria plenitudini temporis—is another
aspect, both of which seem to be comprehended in the phrase.
The economy commenced at a period which implies that the
times destined to precede it were filled up. Two ideas seem
‘to be contained. 1. It marks God’s time—the time pre-
arranged and set apart by Him; a time which can neither be
anticipated nor delayed. 2. It specifies the best time in the
world’s history for the occurrence to take place. Being God’s

1 The noun xaspés is allied to xs/pe, and is often a synonym of muérper.—Donald-
son’s New Crutylus, § 191.

EPHESIANS I. 10, 53

time, it must be the best time. The epoch is marked by God
in His own calendar, and years roll on till their complement
is numbered, while the opportuneness of the period in the
world’s annals proves and ratifies divine wisdom and _fore-
sight. That fulness of the time in which the economy was
founded, is the precise period, for the Lord has appointed it;
and the dest period, for the age was ripe for the event. We
cannot, however, with Usteri, place the entire emphasis of the
phrase on this latter idea. Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 81. The
Grecian arms extended the Hellenic tongue, and prepared the
nations for receiving the oracles of the New Testament in a
language so rich and so exact, so powerful in description and
delicate in shades of expression. Roman ambition had also
welded the various states of the civilised world into one
mighty kingdom, so that the heralds of the cross might not
be impeded in their progress by the jealousy of rival states,
but might move freely on their mission under the protection
of one general sovereignty. Awakened longing had been
created over the East, and in the West the old superstitions
had lost their hold on thinking minds.’ The apostle utters
this thought virtually in 1 Cor. i. 21. The world was allowed
full time to discover by prolonged experiment the insuffi-
ciency of its own wisdom to instruct and save it. It was
sighing deeply for deliverance, and in the maturity of this
crisis there suddenly appeared in Judea “the Desire of all
nations.” The Hebrew seer who looked forward to it, re-
garded it as the “latter day” or “last time;” the nations
who were forewarned of it were in fevered anticipation of its
advent, for it was to them, as Cappell says, complementum
prophetarum, and, as Beza paraphrases, “tempus tam diu
expectatum.” But we, “on whom the ends of the world have
come,” look back upon it, and feel it to be a period which
took its rise after the former cycles had fulfilled their course,
and all preparations for it had been duly completed. We do
not deny to Alford that what characterized the introduction
of the economy characterizes all its epochs, and that this may
be implied in the remarkable phrase. But in the third chapter

1 Der Kreislauf, in welchem sich die Bestimmung und Idee der Heidenthumsa,
und Judenthums vollendete, musste erst sein Ziel erreicht haben. —Usteri,

Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 85.

54 EPHESIANS I. 10.

the apostle unfolds a portion of the mystery, and as if in
reference to this phrase, he says of it—“ Which in other ages
was not made known to the sons of men;” to wit, it was first -
revealed in the fulness of the times. The mystery of this
full-timed dispensation is now described—
dvaxeparaocacba Ta TavTa ev TH Xpicot@— to gather
together all things in Christ.” The infinitive does not need
the article, being explanatory in its nature. Winer, § 44, 2;
Madvig, § 144. The signification of the verb has been
variously understood. 1. Some give it the sense of renew, as
Suidas in his Lexicon. Theodoret explains it by wetaBudrev,
and refers to this change—rtov avO@paTrav 4 dicts avictatat
kal tv adpOapoiay évdverar. Tertullian renders it—ad
initium reciprocare—(De Monogam. 5), and the Syriac and
Vulgate correspond. And this was a general opinion in the
ancient church. Augustine, Hnchiridion, 62; Op. vol. vi. p.
377, ed. 1837. The Gothic has aftra usfulljan, again to fill
up. It would, however, be difficult to vindicate such an
exposition on philological grounds. 2. It has been supposed to
signify to collect again under one head—x«cedaratoy, or xepary.
Such is the general critical opinion of Chrysostom, Gicumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, H. Stephens, Piscator, Calovius, Bengel,
Matthies, Meier, de Wette, Olshausen, and Stier. “ What,”
asks Chrysostom, “is the meaning of the word avaxed.? It is,
to knit together, cvvdyyas. It has another signification—To set
over one and all the same Head, Christ, according to the flesh
—hplav kehparny érieivar.” Beza insists against this meaning,
that the word comes from xefddasov, not from xepard.
Besides, the Headship of Christ is not formally introduced till
the 22nd verse. The meaning of ava in composition must not
be overlooked. Though it have only a faint signification, as
compound words abound in the later age of a language, it
does not quite lose that significance. It signifies here,
apparently, “again”—as if there now existed, under the
God-man as Redeemer, that state of things which had, prior
to the introduction of evil, originally existed under the Logos,
the Creator and Governor. 3. The word is supposed to signify,
as in our version, “to gather together in one ;” so Beza, Meyer,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Harless, and others. Rom. xiii. 9. The
summing up of the data, rerum repetitio et congregatio, was

EPHESIANS I. 10. 55.

called, as Quintilian avers, dvaxefaXaiwots. De Instit. Orator.

vi. 1. The simple verb is found with such a meaning in
Thucydides, vi. 91, viii. 53; and compounded with ovy it
occurs in Polybius iii. 3,1. Xen. Cyr. viii. 1,15. Sucha
summation appears to Grotius and Hammond under the figure
of the reunion of a dispersed army, but Jerome and Cameron
view it as the addition of arithmetical sums. This third
meaning is the most natural—there is a re-collection of
all things in Christ as Centre, and the immediate relation of
this re-gathering to God Himself is expressed by the middle
voice. The objects of this re-union are—

Ta év Tois ovpavois Kal ta éml ths yps—the things in
heaven and the things on earth.” This is a mode of expres-
sion designed to be general, as the employment of the neuter
indicates. Some few MSS. supply the particle ré after the
va of the first clause, and B, D, E, L, read emi for év in the
same clause, a reading which cannot be sustained. Critical
opinions on the meaning of the phrase are very varied.
According to Morus, it denotes God and man; according
to Schoettgen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ernesti, Macknight,
Schleusner, and Koppe—Jews and Gentiles; according to
Beza, Piscator, Bodius, Rollock, Moldenhauer, Flatt, and
Peile—the spirits of good men, especially under the Old
Testament and the present church ; and according to the great
majority, the phrase signifies the union of spirits in heaven,
angels or otherwise, with men on earth. So the Scholium
preserved by Matthiae—dvaxefaratwow karei—rhyv els piav
kehariy &vwow, ws Tov ayyéhov dia Xpiotod trois avOpwrrous
ovvapbévrwv. With these interpretations we agree, so far
as they contain truth. But they have the truth in fragments,
like broken pieces of a mirror. We take the td wayra here to
- be co-equal in extent of meaning with the phrase, Col. i. 16,
“ By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created
by Him and for Him.” These td mdvra are said in ver. 20
to be reconciled to Him. See under Col. i. 20. The phrase
“things in heaven” denotes the higher and more distant
spheres of creation, and these, along with “ things on earth,
may comprehend the universe—7a mavra including, according

56. EPHESIANS I, 10.

to Meyer, all things and beings, while Harless gives the words
the general sense of the universe. So do von Gerlach,
Olshausen, and Stier. The neuter has a generalizing mean-
ing. Winer, § 27, 5; Poppo, Thucydides, i. 104. It cannot
be supposed to be used for the masculine, as no masculine is
implied in the verse. Hodge limits ta mavta to the church
in heaven and earth—hbecause, he says, the union effected is
by the redemption of Christ. This “union,” as he names it,
is indeed a result of redemption; but the gathering together
described here is a consequence above and beyond human
salvation—a consequence connected with it, but held out
apart from it as a mystery disclosed according to His good
pleasure. The sense is weakened altogether by the notion of
Turner, that the infinitive may express a divine intention
which may yet be thwarted. The idea seems then to be that
heaven and earth are now united under one government.
Christ as Creator was rightfully the Governor of all things,
and till the introduction of sin, that government was one and
undivided. But rebellion produced disorder, the unity of the
kingdom was broken. arth was morally severed from
heaven, and from the worlds whieh retained their pristine
integrity. But Jesus has effected a blessed change, for an
amnesty has been proclaimed to earth. Man is reconciled to
God, and all who bear God’s image are reconciled to man.
Angels are “ministering spirits” to him, and all holy intelli-
gences delight in him. Not only has harmony been restored
to the universe, and the rupture occasioned by sin repaired,
but beings still in rebellion are placed under Christ’s control,
as well as the unconscious elements and spheres of nature.
This summation is seen in the form of government; Jesus
is universal Regent. Not only do angels and the unfallen
universe worship the same Governor with the redeemed, but
all things and beings are under the same administration. The
anthem to God and the Lamb begins with saints, is taken up
by angels, and re-echoed by the wide creation. Rev. v. 9, 14.

The death of Jesus is described in this paragraph both in
its primary and ultimate results. First, by it “we have
redemption—the forgiveness of sins.” And, secondly, by
the same event, the universe is gathered together in Christ.
The language, by its very terms, denotes far more than the

EPHESIANS I. 10, 57

union of the church in Him. Now the revelation of this
great truth, as to the ultimate effect of Christ’s. mediation, is
called a “ mystery.” Man could not have discovered it—the
knowledge of it was not essential to his salvation. But it

has been disclosed with peculiar wisdom and delicacy. It

was not revealed in former times, when it could not have
been appreciated; nay, it was not published till the means
of it were visibly realized, till Jesus died and rose again,
and on the right hand of God assumed this harmonizing
presidency.

Since the days of Origen, the advocates of the doctrine of
universal restoration have sought a proof-text in this passage.
But restoration is not predicated—it is simply re-summation.
Unredeemed humanity, though doomed to everlasting punish-
ment, and fallen spirits for whom everlasting fire is prepared,
may be comprised in this summation—subjugated even
against their will. But the punishment of the impenitent
affects not the unity of Christ’s government. Evil has lost
its power of creating disorder, for it is punished, confined, and
held as a very feeble thing in the grasp of the Almighty
Avenger. In fine, it is going beyond the record to deduce
from this passage a proof of the doctrine of the confirmation
of angels by the death of Christ—ut perpetuwm statum retine-
ant. Such are the words of Calvin. Were such a doctrine
contained or clearly revealed in Scripture, we might imagine
that the new relation of angels to Christ the Mediator might
exercise such an influence over them as to preclude the

‘ possibility of their apostasy ; or that their pure and suscep-

tible spirits were so deeply struck with the malignity of sin
as exhibited in the blood of the Son of God, that the
sensation and recoil produced by the awful spectacle for ever
operate as an infallible preservative.

And this re-capitulation of all things is declared a second
time to be in Christ—év adr@—a solemn and emphatic re-
assertion, Kiihner, § 632. His mediative work has secured it,
and His mediatorial person is the one centre of the universe.
As the stone dropped into the lake creates those widening
and concentric circles, which ultimately reach the farthest
shore, so the deed done on Calvary has sent its undulations

_ through the distant spheres and realms of God's great empire.

—_- =."

58 EPHESIANS I, 11.

But év avt@ is the connecting link also with the following
verse. Kiihner, § 632. See also Col. i. 19, 20.

(Ver. 11.) "Ev 6 Kal éxrnpeOnpev. For éxAnp@Onyuev some
read éxAnOnuev, supported by A, D, E, F, G, and the vetus
Itala. Lachmann, following Griesbach, prefers the latter ;
but Tischendorf rightly advocates the former reading, on
what we reckon preponderant authority. Still is the con-
nection marked as usual, “in Christ,” and by the ever-recurring
formula év 6 ’ExdnpeOnpev has its foundation in the usage
of the Old Testament, in the theocratic inheritance—7?M, as
in Deut. iv. 20, and in numerous other places. The xA*pos,
KAnpovopos, and KAnpovoula are also familiar epithets in the
apostolical writings. The inheritance was the characteristic
blessing of the theocratic charter, and it associated itself with
all the popular religious feelings and hopes. The ideas which
some attach to the term, but which refer not to this source
and idiom, are therefore to be rejected. 1. The notion of
Koppe, and of the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider, and
Wilke, is peculiar. According to them, it denotes simply to
obtain, and the object obtained is, or, “it has kindly happened
to us,” that we should be to the praise of His glory. The
passages selected by Elsner (Observ. Sacre, p. 204) out of
fElian and Alciphron, are foreign to the purpose, for the verb
is there regularly construed with the accusative of the object,
and it is not from classic usage that the apostolic term has
been taken. 2. Nor is another common interpretation much
better supported, according to which the verb signifies to
“obtain by lot”—the opinion of Chrysostom and his Greek
imitators, and of the Vulgate, Augustine, Ambrosiaster,
Aquinas, Erasmus, Estius, and a-Lapide. Chrysostom
explains the word thus—«xArjpou yevoyévou nas éFeréEaTo.
Still this explanation does not come up to our idea of the
Pauline «Ajpos, which refers not to the manner of our getting
the possession, but to the possession itself—not to the lot, but
to the allotment. 3. Bengel, Flatt, Holzhausen, Bisping, de
Wette, and Stier take it, that we have become the xAjpos—
the peculiar people of God. This, no doubt, yields a good
sense. The Jews are also called by this name—the noun,
however, being employed as the epithet, and not the verb
as affirming the condition. Besides, the «Ajpos in Col.

EPHESIANS IL. 11. 59

i. 12, and in ver. 18, is not our subjective condition, as this
exegesis implies, but our objective possession in which we
participate, and in the hope of which we now rejoice. 4. So
that with Valla, with Luther, Calvin, and Beza among the
reformers, and with Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Harless, Matthies,
Meyer, Scholz, and Meier, we take the passive verb to signify
“we have been brought into possession ””"—zum Erbtheil gekom-
men—as Luther has it. In whom we have been enfeoffed,
in whom we have had it allotted to us. Deut. iv. 20, ix. 29,
xxxii. 9. The verb may certainly bear this meaning; «Anpow
—‘“TI assign an inheritance to some one;” in the passive
—“TI have an inheritance assigned to me,” as verbs which
in the active govern the genitive or dative of a person have
it as a nominative in the passive. Winer, § 39; Bernhardy,
p. 341; Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii 7, iv. 20. We see no force
in Stier’s objection that such a meaning should be followed
by eis To éxew mas, whereas it is followed by eis 70 elvas
%pas, for the inheritance is got that the inheritors may be, in
the mode of their introduction to it and their enjoyment of
it, to the praise of His glory. The «aé might, if connected
with the unexpressed pronoun, signify “indeed ;” but it may
be better to connect it with the verb—“in whom we have
also obtained an inheritance.” Hartung, Kap. ii. 7; Devarius-
Klotz, p. 636; Matthiae, § 620. That which is spiritual and
imperishable is not, like money, the symbol of wealth, but
it is something which one feels to be his own—an inheritance.
It is not exhausted with the using, and it comes to us notas a
hereditary possession. “Corruption runs in the blood, grace
does not.” It is God’s gift to the believers in Christ, conferred
on them in harmony with His own eternal purpose. The nomi-
native to the verb, indicated by “we,” does not refer specially
to Jewish Christians in this verse, as even Harless supposes ;
far less does it denote the apostles, or ministers of religion, as
Barnes imagines. The writer, under the term “ we,” simply
speaks primarily of himself and the saints and faithful in the
Ephesian church, as being— :
mpoopiabevtes Kata mpobeow Tod Ta mdvTa tvepyouvTos
«ata thy BovrAjy Tod OeXnpatos avrodD—“ being predestinated
according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after
the counsel of His will.” The general significance of these

Ld

;

60 EPHESIANS I. 12.

terms has been already given under previous verses. BovA7
and 6éXnua are here connected—*“the counsel of His will.”
The correspondent verbs, BovAouar and €6€éXo, are distinguished
by Buttmann thus: the latter is the more general expression,
containing the idea that the purpose formed lies within the
power of the person who formed it (Lexilogus, p. 35); while
Tittmann adds, that @éAnua is an expression of will, but
Sovr7 has in it the further idea of propension or inclination.
De Synon. p. 124. But the distinction is vague. The words
occur with marked distinction in 1 Sam. xviii.; for in ver.
22, Oeree év signifies “he has pleasure in;” while in ver. 25,
Bovreras év denotes desire consequent upon a previous reso-
lution. Compare also 2 Sam. xxiv. 3; 1 Chron. xxviii. 4.
@érnua, therefore, is will, the result of desire—voluntas ;
Sov is counsel, the result of a formal decision—ypropositum.
Donaldson’s New Cratylus, §§ 463, 464. Here BovdAn is
the ratified expression of will—the decision to which His
will has come. The Divine mind is not in a state of in-
difference, it has exercised #éAnua—will; and that will is
not a lethargic vellecty, for it has formed a defined purpose,
Sovr7, which it determines to carry out. His desire and His
- decrees are not at variance, but every resolution embodies His
unthwarted pleasure. This divine fore-resolve is universal in
its sweep—* He worketh all things after the counsel of His
own will” The plan of the universe lies in the omniscient
mind, and all events are in harmony with it. Power in unison
with infinite wisdom and independent. and undeviating pur-
pose, is seen alike whether He create a seraph or form a gnat
—fashion a world or round a grain of sand—prescribe the
orbit of a planet or the gyration of an atom. The extinction
of a world and the fall of a sparrow are equally the result of a
free pre-arrangement. Our “inheritance” in Christ springs
not from merit, nor is it an accidental gift bestowed from
casual motive or in fortuitous circumstances, but it comes from
God’s fore-appointment, conceived in the same independence
and sovereignty which guide and control the universe.

(Ver. 12.) Eis 76 elvau tas els Exawvov S0&ns adtov, Tovs
mponrmixotas év TH Xpiot@ — “That we should be to the
praise of His glory—we who have before hoped in Christ.”
The critical opinions on this verse, and on its connection with .

EPHESIANS 1. 132. 61

the preceding one, are very contradictory. Meyer and Ellicott
join it to é«AnpwOnuev —“we have been brought into the
inheritanee, in order that we should be to the praise of His
glory.” Others, as Calovius, Flatt, and Harless, take els ér.
as the final cause of the predestination, and read thus, “ that
we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of
His glory.” Harless would render—die wir vorher bestimmt
waren u8.w., diejenigen zu seyn zum Ruhme seiner Herrlichkeit,
die schon vorher auf Christus hofften—thus making this fore-
hope the blessing to which they were predestinated. But the
blessings to which men are predestinated are not pre-Messianic,
but actual Christian blessings. Besides, such a construction
is needlessly involved, and in verses 5 and 14 the blessings

which believers enjoy are specified, and the phrase “to the

praise of His glory” follows as a general conclusion. Eis
- €rrawov tis S0Ens is therefore not the proximate purpose, but

the ultimate result.

The main struggle has been to determine who are meant
by the uads tods mpondmxotas. Koppe, followed by
Holzhausen, understands the apostle to use the style royal,
and to mean himself. The majority of commentators suppose
the words to denote the believing Jews, so called, in the
opinion of Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bodius, Bengel, Flatt,
Olshausen, and Stier, because their faith in Christ preceded
in point of time that of the Gentiles. This exegesis admits
of various modifications. The hope of the Jews in Christ
pteceded that of the Gentiles, either, as Harless imagines,
because they had heard of Him earlier; or, as Rosenmiiller,

- Meyer, Olshausen, Chandler, and others affirm, because they

possessed the Old Testament prophecies, and so had the hope
of Him before He came into the world. But it may be

_ replied, that this sudden change of meaning in Hers, 80

different from all the preceding verses, is a gratuitous
assumption; for the “we” and the “us” in the preceding

context denote the community of believers with whom the

————-|_~ ~~ *

apostle identifies himself, and why should he so sharply and
abruptly contract the signification, and confine it to himself
and his believing countrymen? There is no hint that such
particularization is intended, and there is nothing to point out
the Jews as its object. Were this the idea, that the Christian

62 EPHESIANS I. 12.

Jews were distinguished from the Gentiles by the forehope of
a Messiah, as the great object of their nation’s anticipations
and desires, then we might have expected that the phrase
would have been mpondruxdtes els tov Xpictov. Nor do we
apprehend that there is anything in the participle to limit its
meaning to the Hebrew portion of the church. The wpo may
not signify before or earlier in comparison with others, but,
as de Wette maintains, it may simply mean “already ”—
prior to the time at which the apostle writes. Many con-
firmatory examples occur: Eph. iii. 3, caOws mpoéypayyra—as
I have already written; Col. i. 5, €Avrida Hv mponcotcate—
the hope of which ye have already heard; Acts xxvi. 5,
mpoywweakovtes—who have already known; Gal. v. 21, @
mporéyw—which I have already told you; Rom. iii. 25, trav
TpoyeyovoTwy apyapTnudtwv —of sins already committed ;
1 Thess. ii, 2, dAXa mpotraPovres —but having already
suffered; and so in many other cases. The preposition
indeed has often a more distinctive meaning, but there is
thus no necessity caused by the words of the clause to refer
it to Jews. The use of vets in the following verse might be
said to be a direct transition, natural in writing a letter, when
the composer of it passes from general to more special
allusions and circumstances. The verb éAzifw also is used in
reference to the Gentiles, Matt. xii. 21, Rom. xv. 12; and it
might here denote that species of trust which gives the mind
a firm persuasion that all promises and expectations shall be
fully realized. But while these difficulties stand in the way,
still, on a careful review of the passage, we are rather inclined
from the pointed nature of the context to refer the ruds to
believing Jews. The participle may certainly bear the
meaning of having hoped beforehand—that is, before the
object of that hope appeared; or it may mean before in
comparison with others, Acts xx. 13. Thus the duets of the
following verse forms a sharp contrast to the expressed nudads
and the tods mpondrixoras, which is a limiting predication,
with emphasis upon it, as indicated by its position and by the
specifying article. Donaldson, § 492. So understood, the
claim describes the privilege of believing Jews in contrast
with Gentiles. Lightfoot on Iwke, ii. 34. The article tis
before d0€ns is omitted by many MSS., and is justly cancelled

EPHESIANS I. 13, 63

by Tischendorf and Lachmann. The clause itself has been
explained under ver, 6.

(Ver. 13.) "Ev @ wal dpeis. This clause is variously con-
strued. Morus harshly renders évy ¢6—“ therefore,” making it
to correspond to the Hebrew x3. Meyer, Peile, and Alford
supply the verb of existence—“in whom are ye.” But this
appears tame in contrast with the other significant verbs of
the paragraph. Far better, if a verb is to be supplied to the
clause at all, either to take 7Amixate, with Beza, Calvin, and
Estius; or 逫AnpwOnte, with Zanchius, a-Lapide, Bodius,
Koppe, Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. But the clause pre-
sents only one compacted sentence—“In whom also ye,
having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation ;
in whom (I repeat) ye, having believed, were sealed.” 'Ev 6
wai vpeis refers to the verb éodpayicOnre—in Christ ye too
have been sealed; and the second éy @ xaié resumes and
intensifies the declaration, for it refers to Christ, as Harless,
Olshausen, and Stier rightly think, and not—as Piscator,
Grotius, and Rosenmiiller affirm—to Aoyos, or—as Castalio,
Calvin, Beza, and Meyer aver—to evayyédiov. The apostle,
in assuring the Gentile converts that their interest in Christ,
though more recent, was not less secure than that of believing
Jews, first of all turns to their initial privilege as having
heard the gospel, and then he cannot but refer to their
faith; and this second reference, so important, suspends
the construction for a moment. The apostle describes their
privilege—

axovoavtes Tov Aoyov Tis dAnOelas—“ having heard the
word of the truth.” The aorist has its proper meaning,
though rendered “having heard,” and points to the period
when their privilege commenced. The genitive is that of
contents or substance. Scheuerlein, § 12, 1. This clause
describes the revealed system of mercy. That word has
truth, absolute truth, for its essence. There is no occasion to
suppose any allusion to the types of the Old Testament, with
Chrysostom, or to the lying vanities and ambiguous oracles
of Heathendom, with Baumgarten-Crusius and a-Lapide.
The idea was familiar to the mind of Paul, Rom. i. 18, ii. 8;
Col. i. 5—%-ddAnOela; 2 Thess. ii. 12. This special truth is
adapted to man’s spiritual state. It is a truth that there is a

64 EPHESIANS I. 13.

God, but the truth that this God is the Saviour; a truth that
God is benevolent, but the truth that grace is in His heart
toward sinners; a truth that there is a future world, but the
truth that heaven is the home of the redeemed. The gospel
is wholly truth, and that very truth which is indispensable to
a guilty world. And it comes as a word, by special oral
revelation, for it is not gleaned and gathered: there is a kind
and faithful oracle.

It is further characterized as 76 evayyédov Tis cwTnplas
vyav—the gospel of your salvation.” But what is the
precise form of the genitive? We cannot regard it, with
Harless, as merely a peculiar form of apposition; nor can we
make it, with other critics, the gospel which secures your
salvation. Rom. i. 16. For the occurrence of adxovcavtes, as
explaining their relation to the gospel, would suggest the
explanation—the gospel which reveals salvation, because it
contains it. Bernhardy, p. 161; Winer, § 30, 2,6. The
gospel is good news, and that good news is our salvation—
the best of all news to a sinful and dying world. Salvation
makes safe from all the elements of that penalty which their
sin brought down upon transgressors, and possession to the
inheritance of the highest good—the enjoyment of the Divine
favour, and the possession of the Divine image. This
truthful and cheering revelation they had heard, and that at
two several periods, from the lips of the apostle himself.
Having heard the gospel, they believed it: “Faith cometh by
hearing.” They heard so as that they believed, for they had
heard with candour, docility, and attention. While others
might criticise the terms of the message, or scoff at it, they
believed it, they took it for what it professed to be. They
gave it credit, received its statements as truths, and felt its
blessings to be realities.

év @ Kal miotevoavtes—* in whom also having believed.”
The pronoun has Xpuoros for its antecedent, and it is in close
connection with the verb. The verb miorevw is found with éy
in Mark 1.15, but not in the writings of the apostle. The
aorist marks a time antecedent to the following verb. They
not only heard, but they also believed the word of truth.

eoppayicOnte to IIvevpati tis érayyedias TH ayip—* ye
were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” The dative is

;

EPHESIANS I. 13. 65

that of instrument, and the position of r@ dyip gives a signal
solemnity to the epithet. This Divine Being is termed
IIvedpa, not on account of His essence, since the whole
Godhead is Spirit, but because of His relation to the universe
as its Life, and to the believing soul as its Quickener. And
He is the Hoty Spirit, not as if the sanctity of His character
were more brilliant than that of Father and Son, but because
of His economic function as the Sanctifier. The genitive
erayyeXlas is supposed by Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, and the
early church, to have an active sense, and to mean the Spirit
who confirms the promise. Better is the idea which makes
the genitive denote quality, as in the Syriac version—the
Spirit which was promised. The genitive is almost that of
ablation, as Theophylact in his first explanation gives it—
éte €& emayyedias €600n. The Spirit is a prominent and
pervading promise in the Old Testament. Isa. xxxii. 15,
xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 27, xxxix. 29; Joel ii. 28; Zech. xii.
10. The Spirit was also the leading promise which Christ
left to His disciples, as recorded in John, referred to in Acts
i. 4—8, and in Gal. iii. 14. See Luke xxiv. 49. The fact is,
that up to the period of our Lord’s ascension, the Spirit stood
to the church in the relation and attitude of a promised gift.
John vii. 39. “Holy Ghost was not yet” in plenary
possession and enjoyment, “because Jesus was not yet
glorified.” The same truth was taught by the apostle at
Ephesus. Acts xix. 2. Paul said to certain disciples there
who had been baptized into John’s baptism, “ Did ye receive
the Holy Ghost when ye believed? And they said unto
him, We did not so much as hear whether there be any Holy
Ghost.” Surely such ignorance referred not to the person of
the Holy Ghost, for these men were Jews; but the reply
seems to be, “We did not hear whether His promised
outpouring has been vouchsafed.” And when they were
rebaptized, the blessing came upon them. To a church
where such a scene occurred, where men had waited for the
Spirit, and felt that His descent did not follow John’s
baptism—for it was the prerogative of the Messiah to baptize
with the Holy Ghost—no wonder that Paul designates this
Divine Agent by the name of the Spirit of promise. And
‘though the church now possess Him, still, in reference to
Fr

66 EPHESIANS I. 14.

enlarged operation and reviving energy, He is the Spirit of
promise.

By this Spirit they were sealed. 2 Cor.i.22. The sealing
followed the believing, and is not coincident with it, as Har-
less argues. This sealing is a peculiar work of the Spirit.
2 Tim. ii. 19. Various ideas may be contained in the general
figure. It seems to have, in -fact, both an objective and a
subjective reference. There are the seal, the sealer, and the
sealed. The Holy Ghost is the seal, God the sealer.
Sdpayis Bacitixn eixov éott’—the Divine image in the
possession of the Spirit is impressed on the heart, and the
conscious enjoyment of it assures the believer of perfection
and glory—Rom. vill. 16—or, as Theodore of Mopsuestia
says, THv BeBaiwow édéEacbe. He who seals feels a special
interest in what is so sealed—it is marked out as His: “The
Lord knoweth them that are His.” He recognizes His own
image. So Chrysostom—«adrep yap el tis Tovs AaxXOvTas
avT@ Snrouvs troijoevev, just as if one were to make manifest
such as have fallen to his lot. The notion of Theophylact is
similar. But the idea that the sealing proves our security to
others, or is meant to do so, is foreign to the meaning. That
seal unbroken remains a token of safety. Rev. vii. 3. Whatever
bears God’s image will be safely carried home to His bosom.
The sealed ones feel the assurance of this within themselves.
That there may be an allusion in the phrase to the miraculous
gifts of the early ages, is not to be entirely denied, though
certainly all who possessed those charismata were not con-
verted men. Baptism was named “a seal” in early times,
oppayis—signaculum. Greg. Naz. Or. xl. De Bapt.; Tertull.
Apol. xxi. The reason of the name is obvious, but there is no
allusion to it here. Augusti, Handb. der Christ. Archeologie,
vol. i. p. 315, 16.

(Ver. 14.) "Os éotw appaBov ris KdXnpovoulas jhuav—
“Who is the earnest of our inheritance.” The reading 6 is
found in A, B, F, G, L, but appears to be a correction. The
relative does not agree with its antecedent in gender, not that,
as Bloomfield imagines, such a change is any argument in
favour of the personality of the wvevua, for it only assumes
the gender of the following definitive predicate. So Mark

? Polyenus, p. 768.

EPHESIANS I. 14 67

xv. 16; Gal. iii 16; 1 Tim. iii. 13, ete. Winer, § 24, 3;
Kiihner, § 786, 3 ; Madvig, § 98. From not perceiving this
idiom, some refer to Christ as the antecedent. ’AppaSav—
earnest, is but the Oriental i3°Y in Greek letters. 2 Cor. i 22,
v. 5, The earnest is not, properly speaking, a mere pledge,
pignus, as the Vulgate has it. The pledge is restored when
the contract has been performed, but the earnest is a portion
of the purchase money. Isidore, lib. v. 25; Gaius, iii. 139;
Suicer, sub voce. The master gives the servant a small coin
when the paction is agreed on, and this handgelt, or earnest,
mpodoua, as Hesychius defines it, is the token that the whole
sum stipulated for will be given when the term of service
expires. The earnest is not withdrawn, but is supplemented
at the appointed period, for it is only, as Chrysostom explains
it, wépos Tov mavros. Irenwus also says—“ Quod et pignus
diztt Apostolus, hoc est partem ejus honoris quia Deo nobis pro-
missus est, in epistola que ad Ephesios est."—Adv. Hares. lib.
-v. cap. 11. The inheritance, «Anpovoyia, is that glorious
blessing which awaits us, which is in reserve for us, and held
by Christ in our name—that inheritance in which we have
been enfeoffed (ver. 11), and which belonged to the vio@ec/a ;
and jor is resumed, for it belonged alike to believing Jew
and Gentile.

The enjoyment of the earnest is a proof that the soul has
been brought by faith into union with God. It has said to
the Lord, “Thou art my Lord.” This covenant of “God's
peace” is ratified by the earnest given. The earnest is less
than the future inheritance, a mere fraction of it—exr decem
solidis centum solidorum millia, as Jerome illustrates. The
work of God’s Spirit is never to be undervalued, yet it is only
a small thing in relation to future blessedness. That know-
ledge which the Spirit implants is but limited—the dawn,
faint in itself, and struggling with the gloom of departing
night, compared to the broad effulgence of mid-day. The
holiness He creates is still imperfect, and is surrounded and
often oppressed with remaining infirmities in “this body of
death,” and the happiness He infuses is often like gleams of
sunshine on a “dark and cloudy day,” faint, few, and evanes-
cent. But the earnest, though it differ in degree, is the same
in kind with the prospective inheritance. The earnest is not

68 EPHESIANS I. &.

withdrawn, nor.a totally new circle of possessions substituted.
Heaven is but an addition to present enjoyments. Know-
ledge in heaven is but a development of what is enjoyed on
earth ; its holiness is but the purity of time elevated and
perfected; and its happiness is no new fountain opened in the
sanctified bosom, but only the expansion and refinement of
those susceptibilities which were first awakened on earth by
confidence in the Divine Redeemer. The “earnest,” in short,
is the “inheritance” in miniature, and it is also a pledge that
the inheritance shall be ultimately and fully enjoyed. God
will not resile from His promise, the Spirit conferred will
perfect the enterprise. To give believers a foretasting, and
then withhold the full enjoyment, would be a fearful torture.
The prelibation will be followed by the banquet. As an
earnest of the inheritance, the Holy Ghost is its pledge and
foretaste, giving to believers the incipient experience of what
it is, and imparting the blissful assurance of its ultimate and
undisturbed possession. And all this—

eis ATOAUTpwWoLY THS TepiTToLnocEws, eis Errawov THs Sokns
avroo—“ till the redemption of the purchased possession, to
the praise of His glory.” “The expression is idiomatic and
somewhat difficult.” 1. Some suppose zrepi7rolnois to mean
salus, conservatio, deliverance and life. The allied verb some-
times signifies in the Septuagint “to save alive,” and so
Whitby renders the phrase “the redemption of life,” and
Bretschneider, redemptio qua vite eterne servamur. Wetstein,
Bengel, and Bos have virtually the same explanation. Holz-
hausen justifies this criticism at some length, and resolves the
clause eis aro. Kat TwepiTroinow. 2. Others take the noun in
the sense of possession. In 2 Chron. xiv. 13, the noun seems
to signify “a remnant preserved,” «al érecov Aidiorwes wate
wn elvar év avtois mepitoinow. 3. Some connect the two
substantives as cause and effect. Luther renders zw unserer
Erlisung, dass wir sein Eigenthum. wiirden—to our redemption,
that we should be His possession. In this view Luther was
preceded by Theodoret and Pelagius, and has been followed
by Homberg and von Gerlach. Bucer has redemptio qua con-
tingat certa vite possessio. But with an active sense the noun,
as may be seen under ver. 7, is followed by a genitive. 4.
Vatablus, Koppe, and Wahl give the noun a participial ren-

EPHESIANS I. 14, 69

dering—the redemption which has been secured or purchased
for us. Koppe also gives it another turn, “which we have
already possessed,” in allusion to ver. 7. 5. Others change
this aspect, and give it this rendering, ad obtinendam redemp-
tionem. Beza translates, dum in libertatem vindicemur—a
rendering which would require the words to be reversed. 6.
Another party, H. Stephanus, Bugenhagen, Calovius, and
Matthies, preceded by Ambrosiaster and Augustine, who seem
to have understood it in the same sense, take the word in the
general sense of possession—hereditas acquisita. But the
inheritance needs not to be redeemed ; the redemption certainly
applies to us, and not to the blessedness prepared for us. 7.
The verb denotes to acquire for oneself: Gen. xxxvi. 6,
xxxi. 18 ; Prov. vii. 4; Isa. xliii. 21, Xads pou bv reprerroen-
caunv; Acts xx. 28, éxxrAnaola, fv mepierroijcato bia Tov
aipatos tov idiov; 1 Tim. iii. 13, Ba@yov éavtois xadov trept-
movovvtat. Similar instances occur in the Apocrypha, and the
_ same meaning is found in the classics. Didymus defines it,
_mepim. yap kat’ ékaipetov év Tmepiovzia Kal Kxtjpate dedoyIC-
_ pévov, that is mepum., which is emphatically reckoned as portion
of our substance and possession. Theophylact explains the
words by the same terms, and (Ecumenius defines it by itself,
mepiTr. nas Karel dua TO Trepiroincacbat Huas Tov Gedy.’ In
this way the noun is used in 1 Thess. v. 9, eis reper. owTn-
plas; 2 Thess. ii. 14, eis mepur. do€ns; Heb. x. 39, eis meper.
auxijs. In all these cases there is the idea of acquisition for
oneself, and the noun followed by a genitive has an active
significance, which it cannot have here, and Meyer's connection
with avrov is strained. The idea of life, vitality, or safety,
found in the term so often when it stands in the Old Testa-
ment as the representative of 7, and on which some exegetes
lay such stress, is evidently a secondary use. The central idea
is to preserve for oneself, and as life is the most valuable
of possessions, so the word was employed xar’ éfox1j»—to
"preserve it. The great majority of critics understand mept-
moinow in the abstract—the possession, te. the people pos-

* Such a meaning belongs to the verb in the Greek classica. Of lesfivew wy

sweincay vi xwpier, Thucyd. 3, 102. Tas Yuxas eypswmtcacts. Xenoph. Cyrop.

4, 4. 8. SHO cin wal b Daipar eepareiner. Herodian, 8, 8 12. See the
- Lexicons of Passow, Pape, and Liddell and Scott, sub voce.

70 EPHESIANS I. 14.

yessed—zrrepitrounBevtes. As a collective noun to denote a
body of people, weputouy is employed in Phil. iii, 3, and so —
éxXoyn stands in Rom. xi 7 for of éxXextot. The word thus ©
corresponds to the Hebrew mpaD, often rendered by a similar
term—rrepiovoros. Compare Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6,
xiv. 2, xxvi. 18; Isa. xliii. 21; or Mal. iii. 17, écovral por
eis Trepitoinow. The trepiro/noss in the Old Testament refers
not to any possession held by the people, but to the people
themselves held in possession by God. Titus ii. 14; and dads
els tepitroinaw, 1 Pet. ii. 9. The collective. people of God
are His mepitro(nous—the body of the faithful whom He has
taken to be His xAjpos. They are His by the blood paid for
their ransom. Ofétwes, says Theophylact, éopéev mepiroinocs
kal Knows Kal Tepiovoia Beod. And the redemption which is
here referred to, is their complete and final deliverance from
all evil. The people who form the “possession” become
God’s by redemption, and shall fully realize themselves as
God’s when that redemption shall be completed.

Olshausen, Meyer, and Stier understand eis to denote the
final cause—“ for the redemption of the purchased possession.”
Still in this case “ for” would have virtually a subtemporal
sense. De Wette and Riickert render it “until ;” iv. 30.
Whether the words be joined with éodpayicOnre or with the
immediately preceding clause, it matters not, for the meaning
is much the same. The sealing and earnest are alike inter-
mediate, and point to a future result—eis implying a future
purpose and period, when both shall be superseded. The
earnest is enjoyed up till the inheritance be received, when it
is absorbed in its fulness. The idea is common in the Old
Testament, as showing the relation which the ancient Israel
bore to God as His “ inheritance ”—His, and His by a special
tie, for He had redeemed them out of Egypt. Triune divine
operation is again developed ;—the Father seals believers, and
His glory is the last end; in the Son are they sealed, and
their redemption is His work; while the Spirit—“ which pro-
ceedeth ” from the Father, and is sent by the Son—is the
Seal and the Earnest.

And this doAvtpwors is our absolute redemption, as
Chrysostom terms it. Wilke understands by dzroAvtpwous—
the liberation of the minor on his majority, comparing this

EPHESIANS I. 14 "1°

passage with one somewhat similar in Galatians. But darodv-
Tpwors seems, in the apostle’s idea of it, to be a long process,
including not a single and solitary blessing, but a complete
Series of spiritual gifts, beginning with the pardon of sin, and
stretching on to the ultimate bestowment of perfection and
felicity, for it rescues and blesses our entire humanity. In-
Jesus “we are having redemption ;” and pardon, enlighten-
ment, and inheritance, with the Spirit as the signet and the
earnest, are but its present elements, given us partially and
by instalments in the meanwhile: for though it begin when
sin is forgiven, yet it terminates only when we are put in
possession of that totality of blessing which our Lord's obe-
dience and death have secured. Rom. viii. 23; 1 Cor. i 30.
“We have redemption” so soon as we believe; we are ever
having it so long as we are on earth; and when Jesus comes
again to finish the economy of grace, we shall have it in its
full and final completion. Thus the redemption in ver. 7 is
incipient, and in ver. 14 is final—the first and last stages of
the same atrodvtpeacs.

And all issues eis éravoy tis S0&ns avtov— to the praise
of His glory "—His grace having now done its work. As in
verses 5th and 6th, e/s with the proximate end is followed
by es with the ultimate purpose. The eperoinows—“ the
Lorb’s own,” “the Holy Catholic Church” in heaven, praises
Him with rapturous emotion, for His glory is seen and felt in
every blessing and hope, and this perpetual and universal
consciousness of redemption is ever jubilant in its anthems
and halleluiahs. See under ver. 6.

The period of redemption expires with the wapoveia, No
more is redemption to be offered, for the human race has run
its cycle; and no more is it to be partially enjoyed, for the
redeemed are to be clothed with perfection : 90 that the period
of perfection in blessing harmonizes with that of perfection in
numbers. As long as the process of redemption is incomplete,
the collection of recipients is incomplete too. The church
receives its complement in extent at the very same epoch at
which it is crowned with fulness of purity and blessedness.
“May it please Thee of Thy gracious goodness shortly to
accomplish the number of Thy elect, and to hasten Thy king-
dom,” is an appropriate petition on the part of all saints.

72 EPHESIANS I, 18.

(Ver. 15.) This verse begins a new section. After praise
comes prayer. The apostle having given thanks to God. for
the Ephesian converts, offers a fervent and comprehensive
prayer on their behalf, that they may enjoy a deeper insight,
so as to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His future
glory, and His transcendent vivifying and exalting power, as
seen in the resurrection and glorification of Christ.

Aa tovro—“ Wherefore,” not, as Grotius says, and in which
saying he is joined by Riickert and Matthies, “because we
are bound to thank God for benefits,” for the words have
a wider retrospective connection than merely with the last
clause of the preceding paragraph. Nor, on the other hand,
is it natural, with Chrysostom, CEcumenius, and Harless, to
give them a reference to the whole previous section. It is
better, with Theophylact and Meyer, to join them to the 13th
and 14th verses. For in these verses the apostle turns to the
believing Ephesians, and, directly addressing them, describes
briefly the process of their salvation, and then, and for that
reason, prays for them. The prayer is not for “us,” but for
“you,” and for you, because ye heard and believed, and were
sealed.

Kayo, rendered “I also.” But such a translation suggests
the idea of others, tacitly and mentally alluded to, besides
the apostle. Who then can be referred to in the word “also”?
Is it, “Others thank God for you, so do I”? or is it, “Ye
thank God yourselves, I do it also for you”? thus, as Meyer
says, (zusammenwirkt)—he co-operates with them. These sup-
positions seem foreign to the context, since there is no allusion
to any others beside the writer, nor is there any reference
to the Ephesians as praying or giving thanks for themselves.
Kai may be merely continuative, as it often is in the New
Testament ; it may merely mark transition to another topic;
or it may indicate the transition from the second person to
the first. Stuart, § 185. Kayo’ may signify “indeed,”
quidem; or it may have the first of those meanings in the
Pauline diction. Compare Acts xxvi. 29; Rom. iii 7; 1
Cor, vi. 8, 40, x. 88, xt 1; 2 Cor.-xi. 16: Gal. iv. 12%
Phil. iii 19; 1 Thess. ni. 5. The word would thus mean

1 Buttmann pronounces it to be an error to write xéy# with iota subscribed,
§ 29, n. 2; Jelf, § 14.

|

EPHESIANS I. 15. 73

“Wherefore I indeed”—the apostle who first preached to
you, and who has never ceased to yearn over you—

dxovcas THY KaO’ ipas trict év TH Kupip 'Incot—*having
heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus.” It is wrong to argue

from this expression, with Olshausen and de Wette, that the

apostle had no personal knowledge of the persons whom he
addressed. This was an early surmise, for it is referred to by
Theodoret. Some, says he, have supposed that the apostle
wrote to the Ephesians, a> pndérw Oeacdpevos aitovs.' As
we have seen in the Introduction, those who wish to regard
this epistle as a circular letter, lay stress on the same term.
But some years had elapsed since the apostle had visited
Ephesus, and seen the Ephesian church, and might he not
therefore refer to reports of their Christian stedfastness which
had reached him? Nay, his use of the aorist may signify
that such intelligence had been repeatedly brought to him.
Kiihner, § 442, 1; Buttmann, § 137, 8, Obs. 5. But this
frequentive sense, however, is denied to aorists in the New
Testament. Winer, § 40, 5,6,1.2 The verb ravopas, connected
with this aorist, is in the present tense, as if the apostle meant
to say, that such tidings from Ephesus were so satisfactory,
that he could not cease to thank God for them. His thanks-

_ giving was never allowed to flag, for it sprang from information
as to the state of the church in Ephesus, and especially of what

the apostle emphatically names—
tHv Kal’ tpas wiotw. The expression is peculiar. Winer,
§ 22, 7, renders it fidem que ad vos pertinect, but in such a

version the phrase expresses no other than the common form

of the pronoun—wperépa wiotis. Harless and Riickert trans-

1The criticism of Hammond upon axedeas is ingenious, but not satisfactory.
He renders it here cum sciverim, for &xevw, he adds, often signifies to know or
to understand. Gen. xi. 7, xlii, 23; 1 Cor. xiv. 2, He that speaketh in an

‘unknown tongue speaketh not to man—eidils yap dxove—for no one understands

him. The use of the verb is similarly idiomatic in the other places cited. It
signifies, to hear so as tounderstand. These phrases refer, however, to personal
conference, where difference of language rendered conversation unintelligible.
But in this clause it refers to reports by third parties, and therefore cannot be
so used. The idiom is one easily understood, for it occurs in many similar
phrases. Thus, to hear prayer is to comply with the request ; to hear one in
danger, isto help him. With us in Scotland the order is inverted. One sys
to his friend, ‘‘Speak for a moment,” which means, ‘‘ Hear me speak for a

~ moment.”

* See Moulton’s Winer, p. 347, n. 2.

74 EPHESIANS I. 13.

late, den Glauben bet euch—* the faith which is among you;”’
Riickert holding that a species of local meaning is implied in
the idiom, and Harless maintaining that if the adjective pro-
noun had been used, the subjective view of their faith would
have been given—faith as theirs; whereas by this idiom,
their faith in its objective aspect is depicted—faith as it exists
among them. Though this mode of expressing relation came
to be common in later Greek, as Meyer has shown, still we
are inclined to think that there was something emphatic in
the form. Bernhardy, p. 241. Acts xvii. 28, tives Tov Kal’
byas troumTav— certain of the poets among you ”—some of
your poets, not ours — not Jewish or Christian bards, but
Greek ones, whom ye claim and recognize as your national
minstrels. Acts xviii. 15, the Roman proconsul says, “ If it
be a question of your law,” vouov tod cad’ buas—your law;
the law that obtains among you, not the Roman law—your
Jewish law, to which you cling, and the possession and ob-
servance of which mark and characterize you as a people. So
in Acts xxvi. 3—rév Kata ‘Iovéaiovs é8@v—customs among
Jews — specially Jewish; the very thing under discussion,
and spoken of by one who had been educated at Rome. The
ordinary phrase, 7 wioTis tue, is used seventeen times, and
this form seems to denote not simply possession, as the genitive
jueyv or pronoun tyerépa would imply, but also characteristic
possession. It is that faith which not only is among you,
but which you claim and recognize as your peculiar posses-
sion—that faith which gave them the appellation of muczod in
the first verse, and which is said in ver. 13 to have secured
for them the sealing influences of the Holy Spirit. At all
events, the instance adduced by Ellicott and Alford as against
us, is not parallel. The phrase “your law,” John viii. 17, to
vopw To vweTepe, is not parallel to Acts xviii. 15, for the first
was spoken by a Jew to Jews—it was His law as well as
theirs (Gal. iv. 4); but not so in the case of the Roman deputy
in Achaia. It seems foreign to the phrase to bring out of it,
as Alford does after Stier, “the possibility of some not having
this faith.” He had named them quioro/ already, and will
cata with the partitive’ meaning imply that some might not
have this faith? That faith reposed—

év t® kupip ’Incod. The usage and meaning of «vpios are

EPHESIANS I. 15. 75

fully referred to under ver. 2. Such a characteristic faith was
in Christ. Winzer' indeed proposes to connect duas with
this clause—/idem, qua, vobis Domino Jesu veluti insitis, inest.
The position of the words excludes such a connection. Their
faith lay immoveable in Jesus, and the same idea, expressed
by év, is very frequent in the preceding verses. See under
ver. 1. IIicris followed by év is not common; yet eis, zpos,
émi occur often in such connection in the Septuagint; Ps.
Ixxviii 22; Jer. xii. 6; Gal. iii. 26; Col. i 4; 1 Tim. i. 14,
ii 13; 2 Tim. i. 13, iii, 15. See under the first verse.
The zictis, so well defined by «a6 duds, and so closely allied
to xupwos, needs not the article after it, and the want of the
article indicates the unity of conception. The article is
similarly omitted in Gal. iii. 26, and in Col i. 4; Winer, §
20, 2. That faith wrought by love—

Kai THY ayaTNy Thy eis TuvTas TOs dylous—“and your love to
all the saints.” Some MSS. such as A, B, etc., omit tv aydrny,
and Lachmann, true to his critical principles, leaves them out
in his edition. But the omission is an evident blunder.
The Syriac version, older than any of these MSS., has the
words, and without them no sense could be made of the verse.
Chrysostom also reads the words, and says that the apostle
always knits and combines faith and love, a glorious pair—
Bavpaotny twa Evywpida :—

dy.os is explained under ver. 1. Faith and love are often

_ associated by the apostle. Col. i.4; Philem. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3.

> *

The article is repeated after dyamnv, because the relation
expressed by eds is not so intimate as that denoted by ¢,
because it has not the well-understood foundation of iors,
and it may also signalize the difference of allusion—dayd7n, not
to Christ, but—r7v els wdvras tods dylovs. This conception,
therefore, has not the unity of the preceding: it is love, but
love further defined by a special object—“ to all the saints.”
It is not philanthropy—love of man as man—but the love of
the brethren, yea, “all” the brethren—“ the household of
faith.” Community of faith begets community of feeling, and
this brother-love is an instinctive emotion, as well as an
earnest obligation. In that spiritual temple which the Spirit

is rearing in the sanctified bosom, faith and love are the

} Commentatio in Eph. cap. i. v. 19. PAngstprogramm, Leipzig, 1836.

76 EPHESIANS I. 16.

Jachin and Boaz, the twin pillars that grace and support the
structure.

(Ver. 16.) Ob ravopar edyapictav imép tyuav—“I cease
not giving thanks for you.” ‘Yzrép is thus used, v.20; 1 Tim.
i 1. Evyapiorteiv, in the sense of “to give thanks,” belongs
to the later Greek, for, prior to the age of Polybius, it signified
to please or to gratify. Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 18. Instead
of a participle the infinitive is sometimes employed, but there
is a difference of meaning. The participle expresses an action
which already exists, and this form of construction prevails in
the New Testament. “As one giving thanks for you I cease
not.” The infinitive evyapictety would mean, “I cease not
from a supposed period to give thanks.” Winer, § 45, 4;
Stuart, § 167; Scheuerlein, § 45, 5; Hermann, Ad Viger. p.
771; Bernhardy, p. 477.1. The Gothic version of Ulphilas
has preserved the peculiar point of the expression—“ unsvei-
bands aviliudo,’—non-cessans gratias dico. The apostle,
though he had visited them, does not felicitate himself on his
pastoral success among them, but gives thanks on this account
to God, for His grace had changed them, and had sustained
them in their Christian profession.

Hvelav bpwv Trovovmevos etl TAY Tpocevyav ou—< making
mention of you in my prayers.” Rom. i. 9; Phil. i. 3; 1
Thess. i 2,3. Some MSS., as A, B, and D, omit duav, and it
is rejected by Lachmann ; but there is no good reason for its
exclusion, for it may have been omitted because of the
previous vzev so close upon it, for A and B have the same
omission in 1 Thess. ii 2. F and G place the pronoun after
the participle. The terms evyapiota@y and pveiav rrovovpevos
are not to be identified. The apostle gave thanks, and his
thanks ended in prayer. As he blessed God for what they
had enjoyed, he implored that they should enjoy more. He
thanked for their faith and hope, and he prayed as he glanced
into the future. And he made special mention of the Ephe-
sian church; movoduevos in the middle voice implying— for
himself ”—éal tev mpooevyav pov. The preposition has a
temporal meaning with a sub-local reference. Bernhardy, p.

1 Kiihner occupies no less than seven sections in enumerating and defining

the different classes of verbs which are followed by a participle rather than an
infinitive (§ 657-664),

EPHESIANS I. 17. 77

246; Winer, § 47, g,d; Stallbaum’s Plato, de Rep. p. 460.
He did it as his usual work and pleasure, and perhaps the
language implies that he made formal mention of them when-
ever and wherever he prayed. He yearned over them as his
children in Christ, and he bore their names on his heart
before the Lord in fervent, repeated, and effectual intercession.
(Ver. 17.) “Iva 6 @eds tod Kupiou syyav Inood Xpictoo
Son— That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would give.”
Making mention of you in my prayers, offering this prayer
for you, that the God, etc. His prayer for them had this
special petition—that. “Iva is thus used with the optative,
and that telically to denote the object of desire, the blessing
wished for. Bernhardy, p. 407. We see no reason to agree
with MHarless, Olshausen, Winer, Robinson, Riickert, and
others, in denying the proper telic use of iva in such a con-
nection, or after verbs of entreaty. Ellicott also gives it a
sub-final meaning—the purport of the prayer being blended

_ with the purpose. Winer, § 41, 8,1. On the other hand, to
deny with Fritzsche the ecbatic sense of (va, is an extreme
quite opposed to many passages of the New Testament, and as

_ wrong as to give it too often this softened meaning. Harless
- says, that the optative is here used for distinctness, because a
r verb expressing desire is omitted. But the final cause of
entreaty is—“in order that” something may be given. The
object of the apostle’s prayer was, that God would give the
Ephesians the spirit of wisdom. He prayed for this end—
this final purpose was present to his mind; he prayed with
this avowed intent—@%a. Ellicott’s statement is after all but
_atruism: if a man tell you to what end he prays, he surely
tells you the substance of his prayers. Disclosure of the pur-
pose must express the purport, and fa, pointing out the first,
~ also of necessity introduces the last. But the iva in such an
idiom contains in itself the idea of previous desire, and the
- optative is used, not as if there were any doubt in the apostle’s
mind that his prayer might not be granted, or as if the answer
_ might be only a probable result, but that God’s giving the
: object prayed for would be the hoped-for realization of the
intention which he had, when he began to offer the petitions
_ which he was still continuing. Jelf, §807,7; Devarius-Klotz,
_p. 622. Had the wish that God would confer blessing begun

78 EPHESIANS I. 17.

merely when the apostle wrote the words, had the whole aim
of the prayer been regarded as future to that point of time, the
subjunctive would have been used. 4m is a later form for
do/n. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, pp. 345,346; Sturz, De dialecto
Alexandrino, p. 52. Lachmann, however, reads doy in the
Ionic subjunctive form, but without sufficient ground. The
Divine Being to whom Paul presented intercessory prayer for
the Ephesians, is referred to under two peculiar and unusual
epithets—

‘O @cos tod Kupiov nav *Inootd Xpictob— The God of
our Lord Jesus Christ.” He is elsewhere called the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but only in this place, simply,
“the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The language has need-
lessly startled many commentators, and obliged them to make
defence against Arian critics. Suicer, sub voce. The dangerous
liberties taken with the words in the capricious use of hyper-
baton and parenthesis by Menochius, Vatablus, Estius, and
a-Lapide, do not gain the end which they were intended to
serve. It is with some of them— “the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the God of glory,’ or “the God (of our Lord
Jesus Christ the Father) of glory.” The criticism of Theo-
doret is more rational, though not strictly correct, for he thus
distinguishes the two divine appellations in reference to Christ,
—Ocov pev ws avOpwrov, matépa 5é ws Ocod. The reader
will find an explanation of the phrase under the first clause of
the 3rd verse. The exposition of Harless is somewhat loose.
His explanation is—the God by whom Christ was sent to
earth, from whom He received attestation in word and deed,
and to whom He at length returned. But more special ideas
are included—1. To be His God is to be the object of His
worship—my God is the divinity whom I adore. As a man
Jesus worshipped God, often prayed to Him, often consulted
Him, enjoyed His presence, and complained on the cross
of His desertion, saying—“ My God, my God.” 2. The
language implies that God blessed Him—my God is He who
blesses me. Gen. xxviii. 21. He prepared for Him His body,
sustained His physical life, bestowed upon Him the Spirit,
protected Him from danger, “ gave His angels charge concern-
ing Him,” raised Him from the dead, and exalted Him to
glory. 1 Cor. xi 3, xv. 27; 1 Pet. i 21. Especially, as

,

,

3

EPUESIANS I. 17, 79

Harless intimates, did He as Messiah come from God and do
the will of God, and He is now enjoying the reward of God.
Possessed Himself of supreme divinity, He subordinated Him-
self to God, in order by such an economy to work out the

_ glorious design of man’s salvation. The immanent distinctions

of the one Godhead are illustrated in their nature and necessity
from the scheme of redemption. And the reason why Paul
refers to God in this relation to Jesus is, that having sent His
Son and qualified and commissioned Him, having accepted
from Him that atonement of infinite value, and having in proof
of this acceptance raised Him to His own right hand, it is now
His divine function and prerogative to award the blessings of
the mediatorial reign to humble and believing suppliants.

At the same time we cannot fully acquiesce in many inter-
pretations of the Nicene Creed, even as illustrated by Petavius,'
and adopted by such acute defenders as Cudworth? and Bull.’
To admit the divinity of the Son, and yet to deny Him
to be avro@eos as well as the Father, seems to us really to
modify and impugn the Saviour’'s Godhead by a self-contra-
dictory assertion. We cannot but regard self-existence as
essential to divinity. Bishop Bull says, however—“ Pater
solus naturam ulam a se habet.”. The Creed of Nice declares,
“We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the Essence of the
Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, of one Essence with the Father.” These
sentiments have been the faith of the church in every age, but
they have been in many instances explained by unjustifiable
imagery and language, often taken in the earlier centuries from
the Platonic ontology, and drawn in later times from material

_ sources. The arguments against what is called the eternal

sonship, by Roell, Drew, Moses Stuart, Adam Clarke, and

E _others, are, with all their show of argument, without founda-

tion in Scripture, for a sonship in the Divine nature appears

_ to be plainly taught and implied in it. But a sonship which

affirms the Divine nature of the Son to be derived from the
Father, makes that Son only Sevtepos Oeos—a secondary Deity.

Not only is the Son dpoovc.os 7 matp/—of the same essence

1 De Trinitate, i. 5. ® Intellectual System, vol. ii. 406, ed. 1845, London,
® Defensio Fidei Nicene. Works, vol. v. ed. 1827, Oxford.

80 EPHESIANS I. 17.

with the Father, but He is also avrofeos—God in and from
Himself. Sonship appears to refer not to essence, but to
existence—not to being in itself, but to being in its relations,
and does not characterize nature so much as_ personality.
But such difference of position is not inequality of essence,
and when rightly understood will be found as remote from
the calumnious imputation of Tritheism, as from the heresy
of Modalism or Sabellianism.! |

o IIatnp rhs 80&ns—*“ the Father of glory ”—is a unique
phrase, having no real parallel in Scripture. It has some
resemblance to the following phrases—“ King of glory” in
Ps. xxiv. 7; “Lord of glory,” 1 Cor. ii. 8; “God of glory,”
Ps. xxix. 3, quoted in Acts vii. 2; IIatnp trav dotav, Jas.
i 17; 6 Ilarnp trav oixtippor, 2 Cor. i. 3; and yepovBly do£ns,
Heb. ix. 5. Mo&ns is the genitive of characterizing quality.
Winer, § 30,2. The notion of Theodoret is, that Sofa signifies
the Divine nature of Christ, and many of the Fathers held a
similar view. Athanasius remarks on this passage, that the
apostle distinguishes the economy—kai dokav pév Tov povoyevh
xanet, referring to the phrase in John i. 14, “the glory of the
only-begotten of the Father ”—an idea also repeated by Alford.
Theophylact quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as giving the same
view—xal @cov nai IIatépa; Xpictod ev iyyovv Tod avOpw-
mivov, Beov' Tis Sé SdEns, Hryouv ths Ocorntos, IIatépa. Cyril
also (De Adoratione, lib. xi.), Jerome, and Bengel adopt the
same hypothesis. Suicer, Thesaurus, i. 944, 5. These views
are strained and moulded by polemical feelings, and the use
of d0€a in reference to Jesus in other parts of the New
Testament will not warrant such a meaning here. While
this special and personal application is without ground on the
one hand, it is a vague and pointless exegesis on the other,
which resolves the phrase into IIatnp évdofos. De Wette

1 See also Schleiermacher, der Christl. Glaube, § 170-190 ; Twesten, Vorles-
ungen tiber die Dogmatik, § 41; Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, § 72; Treffry, On
the Eternal Sonship of Christ, London, 1839. It is a pity that so many non-
biblical terms have been found necessary in the treatment of this awful subject,
but sad and fatal errors seem to have made the coinage of them indispensable.
One is disposed to say of them with Calvin—‘‘ Utinam quidem sepulta essent,
constaret modo hee inter omnes fides, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum esse unum
Deum : nec tamen aut Filium esse Patrem, aut Spiritam Filium, sed proprietate

quadam esse distinctos.”—Institutio Christ. Reliyionis, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Berolini,
1834.

EPHESIANS I. 117. Bt

_renders—The Father with whom glory is ever present ; refer-
Ting to the last clause of ver. 18—the glory of the inherit-
ance. Others find in waryp the sense of origination—source
of glory—auctor, fons. So Erasmus, Fesselius,' a-Lapide,
_Grotius, and Olshausen, though with varying applications of
_the general exegesis. This explanation is at least admissible.
Did we, with some, regard Sofa as the immanent or essential
glory of God, it would be impossible. Such glory is coeval
with the Divine nature, the Essence and Effulgence are
-coeternal. Or did we, with others, regard 80fa as meaning
glorious gifts conferred upon us, then such a notion would not
be in harmony with the context. That Iatyjp may signify
originator is plain, though Harless expressly denies it. What
is Ilatnp tay rvevpdtwv but their Creator? (Heb. xii. 9); or
Tlatnp trav dare (Jas. i. 17) but their Producer? or Tari
“Tov oixtipp@y (2 Cor. i. 3) but their Originator? Harless
/refers the Sofa very much to the epithets of the following
verses, while Stier and Alford virtually maintain an allusion
to the God-man, in whom God's glory is revealed, by whom
it dwells in humanity, and in whom all His people are glorified.
On the other hand, and more in harmony with the course of
‘thought, Sofa appears to us to be that glory so often already
referred to, and throwing its radiance over this paragraph. Men
are elected, predestinated, sanctified, and adopted—eis éra:voy
Oofns; enlightened, enfeoffed in an inheritance according to
eternal purpose—els éraivoy Sons av’rod; and they hear,
Believe, are sealed, and enjoy the earnest of the Spirit—eés
mvov tis Sofns avTov. The three preceding paragraphs
are thus each wound up witha declaration of the final result
‘and purpose—the glory of God. And now, when the apostle
Tefers to God, what more natural than to ascribe to Him that
glory which is His own chief end, and His own prime harvest
in man’s redemption? Here stand, as repeated and leading
‘Wdeas, ver. 6, S0&ns—ver. 12, d0£ns—ver. 14, 56Ens ; so that
in ver. 17 He is saluted with the title, arip rijs 80€ns. This
lory is not His essential glory as Jehovah, but the glory which
» has gathered for Himself as the God of our Lord Jesus
nrist. The clause is in close union with the preceding one.
Saviour-God, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, is in this
1 Adversaria Sacra, i. 350.
¥

82 EPHESIANS I, 17.

very character the possessor and thus the exhibiter of glory.
It is then wholly—zrpos To mpoxeiyevov, as CEcumenius says,
that such a title as this is given to God, that is, because of
the contextual allusions, but not simply because the gifts
prayed for are manifestations of this glory, as Olshausen
supposes ; nor merely, as Cocceius and Meyer argue, because
He will do that in answer to prayer which serves to promote
His own glory.

The gift prayed for is—that He would give “ you ”—dpiv
—mrvedpa copias Kai atroxadrvrpews év érruyvoces avtoD— the
Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.”
Though avedua wants the article, there is no reason, with
Middleton, Chandler, Crellius, and Locke, to deny its reference
to the Holy Spirit, and to make it signify “a wise disposition,”
for the word came to be regarded very much as a proper name.’
Thus, Matt. xii, 28, év wvevpats Ocod—“by the Spirit of
God;” Rom. i. 4, cata mvedpa dywwovvns; 1 Pet. i. 2, év
ayacue mvevpatos; and in Mark i. 8; Luke i. 15, 35, 41,
67. The reference in these cases is plainly to the Holy Spirit,
in some peculiar phases and manifestations of His divine
influence. The canon of Middleton is not borne out by
usage. On Greek Art. pp. 125,126. The genitives are not
wholly those of possession, but perhaps also of character.
fom. viii. 2,15; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim.i. 7. The Ephesians
had possessed the Spirit as an earnest and seal, and now the
apostle implores His influence in other modes of it to descend
upon them. This “revelation” is His mode of operation, and
the enlightened eye is the fruit of His presence. Indeed,
Chrysostom and Theodoret use copia mvevpatixyn—spiritual
wisdom—in explanation of mvetpa codias, but Chrysostom
distinctly acknowledges the influence of the Spirit. Theo-
phylact plainly specifies the gift of the Divine Spirit, “That
He may supply you with spiritual gifts, so that by the Spirit
you may be enlightened—@ore dca Tod mvevpatos dwtic Ova.”
The Reformers supposed that the Spirit of grace and revela-
tion is taken for the grace itself, as Calvin explains—spiritus
sapientie et revelationis pro ipsa gratia capitur. We prefer a
clear and formal reference to the Holy Spirit—the gift of God

1 Compare Gersdorf, Beitrdge zur Sprach-Characteristik der Schriftsteller des |
neuen Test., Kap. iv,

EPHESIANS I. 17. 83

through Christ. o¢éa and droxdAvyis are intimately joined,
but not, as Meyer thinks, by the union of a general and special
idea. Nor can we, with Olshausen, refer the words to the

ancient charismata, and make droxd\vyis mean the capacity
_ for receiving revelation, or for being a prophet. These super-
natural endowments cannot be alluded to, because the apostle
prays for the bestowment of wisdom and revelation to enable
the Ephesians to know those blessings in the knowledge of
which every Christian is interested, and which all Christians
through all time receive in a greater or less degree from the
Holy Ghost.

The Ephesians had already enjoyed spiritual blessings, and
they had been sealed by the Holy Spirit. Now the apostle
prays that they may enjoy Him as a Spirit of wisdom and
revelation. Yoda is wisdom, higher intelligence, rising at
length into the “ riches of the full assurance of understanding.”
It is connected with droxaduyis, for the Spirit of wisdom is
the Spirit of revelation, and by such revelation that wisdom
is imparted. The oracles of the New Testament had not
then been collected, and therefore truth in its higher aspects
might be imparted or extraordinarily revealed by the Holy
Ghost. Such generally is the view also of Harless, codxa,
_ however, being, according to him, the subjective condition,
and doxdAvyis the objective medium. The clause is no
-hendiadys. It resembles Rom. i. 5, “This grace and apostle-
ship,” that is, grace, and the form in which the grace was
} given—that of the apostolate; Rom. xi. 29, “The gifts and
calling of God,” that is, the gifts and the medium of their
- conferment—the Divine calling. Here we have the gift of
wisdom along with the mode of its bestowment—revelation.
‘We cannot say, with Ellicott, that cop/a is the general and
amoxddvyis the more special gift, for the last term carries
| in it the notion of mode as well as result—insight commu-
“nicated so as to impart wisdom. Nor can we see how it is
“illogical to mention the gift, and then refer to the vehicle of

And still all spiritual truth is His revelation. The Bible
“is His gift, and it is only when the prayerful study of the
‘Bible is blessed by spiritual influence that wisdom is acquired.
“Solemn invocation of the Holy Spirit must precede, and His

84 EPHESIANS I. 17.

presence accompany, all faithful interpretation of the word of
God. As we contemplate the holiness and veracity of its
Author, the grace and truth of all His statements, and the
benevolent purpose of His revelation, the heart will be soft-
ened into that pure sensibility which the Holy Ghost delights
in, as of old the strains of music in the schools of the prophets
soothed and prepared the rapt spirit of the seer for the illapse
of his supernatural visitant. Earthly passions and turbulent
emotions must be repressed, for the “dew” descends not
amidst the storm; the conflicting sensations of a false and
ungodly heart forbid His presence, as the “dove” alights not
amidst the tossings of the earthquake. The serenity resulting
from “that peace which passeth all understanding,” not only
draws down the Spirit of God, not only imparts a freer scope
to the intellectual powers, a purer atmosphere to the spiritual
vision, and a new relish to the pursuits of biblical study, but
also refines and strengthens those faculties which unite in
discovering, perceiving, and feeling the truths and beauties of
inspiration.

év émriyvoce. avtovd. The avtod refers to God, and not to
Christ, as Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Calovius, Flatt, and Baum-
garten suppose. ’Ev does not signify e/s—in reference to, or
in order to, as Jerome, Anselm, Luther, a-Lapide, Grotius,
Bengel, and von Gerlach erroneously argue. The spirit of this
exegesis may be seen in the note of Piscator—* Ut eum in dies
muagis magisgue cognoscatis.” Such an unusual meaning is
unnecessary. The versions, “through” the knowledge of God,
as Rollock renders, or “along with” it, as Hodge makes it, are.
foreign to the context. Tyndale cuts the knot by translating
—‘“That he myght geve vnto you the Sprete of wisdom, and
open to you the knowledge of him silfe.” Meyer, Harless, and
Matthies suppose that ¢v marks out the sphere of operation
—die Geistige Thiitigkeits-Sphére. Connecting the words
especially with dioxadiews, we suppose them, while they
formally denote the sphere, virtually to indicate the material
of the revelation. In the last view they are taken by Homberg,
Riickert, and Stier. If the knowledge of God be the sphere in
which the Spirit of revelation operates, it is that He may deepen
or widen it—in our possession of it. In what aspect is the
Spirit prayed for? It is as a Spirit of wisdom. How is this

EPHESIANS I. 17. 85

wisdom communicated by Him? By revelation. What is
the central sphere, and the characteristic type, of this revela-
tion? Jt is the knowledge of God, not agnitio, as the
Vulgate has it, and Beza and Bodius expound it, but cognitio—
not the acknowledgment, but the knowledge of God. The
knowledge of God stands out objectively to us as the first and
best of the sciences ; and when the Spirit imparts it, and gives
the mind a subjective or experimental acquaintance with it,
that mind has genuine wisdom.! 'Emiywots Qecod is the
science, and go¢/a is the result induced by the Spirit of reve-
lation. The preposition é7é, in émi-yvwors, contains probably
the idea of the “additional” as the image of intensive. Such
a preposition sometimes loses its full original force in com-
position, but it would be wrong to say with Olshausen, that
here such a meaning is wholly obliterated. Tittmann, De Syno-
nymis, etc., p. 217; Wilke, Appendiz, p. 560. 'Emiyvwor
is not ascribed to God in the New Testament, neither could
it with propriety. His knowledge admits of no improvement
either in accuracy or extent. Phavorinus defines the term
peta THY TpwTny yvaow Tod mpdypatos Kata Suvayw
avers Katavonots. The simple verb and its compound are
used with beautiful distinction in 1 Cor. xiii. 12, dpre ywooxw
€x pépous, Tore 5é emrvyvdcouat. That knowledge of God in
which the Spirit of revelation works, and which He thereby
imparts, is a fuller and juster comprehension of the Divine
Being than they had already enjoyed. The subsequent
verses show that this additional knowledge of God concerns
not the works of His creation, which is but the “time vesture ”
of the Eternal, but the grace and the purposes of His heart,
His possession and exhibition of love and power, His rich
array of blessings which are kept in reserve for His people,
and that peculiar influence which He exercises over them in
giving them spiritual and permanent vitality. Harless says
that ériyvwors signifies the knowledge of experience, because

1 Stier quotes a remark ‘‘sehr naiv” from one of Francke's Fast-Sermons,
illustrating at once the spirit of the good old man's peculiar pietism, as well as
his opinion of the godless and Christless teaching beginning to prevail in the
colleges of Germany : ‘‘The apostle does not say he wished that a university
should be founded in the city of Ephesus, to which should be appointed a host
of professors by whom the people should be made wise. O no: he implored the

Spirit of wisdom.”

86 .EPHESIANS I. 18.

dvvayis stands as its object. This view, however, is defective,
for Svvauis is not the only object—there is also the “ in-
heritance,” which is future, and therefore so far external to
believers.

Some, however, join the clause with the following verse
—‘“In the knowledge of Him the eyes of your heart
being enlightened.” Thus construe Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Zachariae, Olshausen, Lachmann, and Hahn. Such a con-
struction is warped and unnatural. Olshausen’s reason is
connected with his notion that codia and dmoxddvis are
charismata or extraordinary gifts, and could not be followed
up and explained by such a phrase as the “knowledge of
God.” But the verb dwrifm is nowhere accompanied by év;
in Rev. xvii. 1 it is followed by é«. The Syriac renders,
“ And would enlighten the eyes of your hearts to know what
is,” ete.

(Ver. 18.) Iehwricpévovs tots odOarpovs tis Kapdias
vuav—The eyes of your heart having been enlightened ;”
that is, by the gifts or process just described. Kapdéas is
now generally preferred to dvavolas, as it has preponderant
authority, such as MSS. A, B, D, E, F, G, etc., with the Syriac,
Coptic, and Vulgate, etc. Thus, too, Clemens Romanus—
oi ofOarpol ths Kxapdias. Ep. ad Corinth. § 36. Various
forms of construction have been proposed. 1. Some under-
stand the clause to be the accusative governed by do. The
words are so taken by Zanchius, Matthies, Riickert, Meier,
Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Stier, and Turner. This con-
struction, however, seems awkward. Bengel remarks that
the presence of the article before 6f@adrpovs is against such a
construction. For the eyes were, not precisely a portion of the
gift, but only the enlightenment of them ; whereas, according to
this construction, if tods 6¢@arpovs be governed by den, both
the eyes and their illumination would be described as alike
the Divine donation. This, however, is not the apostle’s mean-
ing. The eyes of the heart needed both a quicker perception
and a purer medium in order to distinguish those glorious
objects which were presented to them. The words, as placed
by the apostle, are different from a prayer for “enlightened
eyes ;” and the clause is not parallel with those of the pre-
ceding verse, but describes the result. 2. Iebwtiopévous may

EPHESIANS I. 18 87

be supposed to agree by anticipation with the following duas
—*that you, enlightened as to the eyes of your heart.” 3.
Ellicott takes it as a lax construction of the participle redwrie-
pévous referring to byiv, with rods 6pOarpovs as the accusative of
limiting reference. But in a broken construction the participle
usually reverts to the nominative. See Buttmann, Gram. der
Neutest. Sprach. § 145, 4. 6. 7. The clause may be a species
of accusative absolute—“the eyes of your heart having been
enlightened,” and it expresses the result of the gift of the
“Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.”
Such is the view of Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Kiittner, and Koppe.
Kiihner, § 682; Bernhardy, p. 133. But we cannot adopt
the hint of Heinsius, that the participle has eivas understood,
and that the formula is then equivalent to dwriferOar. Exercit.
Sac. p. 459. The “heart” belongs to the “inner man,” is the
organ of perception as well as of emotion; the centre of
spiritual as it is physically of animal life. Delitzsch, System
der Bibl. Psychol. § 12; Beck, Umriss der Bib. Scelenlehre, § 26.
The verb ¢wrifw, used in such a relation, has a deep ethical
meaning. Light and life seem to be associated in it—as, on
the other hand, darkness and death are in Hebrew modes of
conception. Thus Ps. xiii. 3, xxxvi. 9; John Lt 4, vill. 12.
The light that falls upon the eyes of the heart is the light of
spiritual life—there being appreciation as well as perception,
experience along with apprehension. Suicer, sub voce das.
Matt. xiii. 15; Mark vi. 52; John xii. 40.’ The figure is
common too among classical writers. If the spirit of wisdom
and revelation in the knowledge of God be conferred, then the
scales fall from the moral vision, and the cloudy haze that
hovers around it melts away. It is as if a man were taken
during night to a lofty eminence shrouded in vapour and dark-
ness, but morning breaks, the sun rises, the mist disparts,
rolls into curling wreaths and disappears, and the bright
landscape unfolds itself. Such is the result, and the design,
is that they may obtain a view of three special truths. And
first— Eas
eis TO eldévat tpas, tis eat 4 edtris Tis Kdijoews ere
“that ye may know what is the hope of His calling —the

1 Olshausen’s virtual denial of any reference in the phrase to the ro
faculty, is contrary to the passages quoted. See also his Opuscula, p. 159.

88 EPHESIANS I. 18

infinitive of aim with e/s and the article, Winer, § 44, 6; and
the genitive being that of origin or possession—the hope asso-
ciated with or the hope springing out of His calling. KyAjjous
is a favourite Pauline word. It describes Christian privilege
in its inner power and source, for the “ calling” is that Divine
summons or invitation to men which ensures compliance with
itself. The term seems to have originated in the historical
fact of Abraham’s call, and the fact gives name and illustra-
tion to the spiritual doctrine. It is His calling—man’s
calling is often slighted, but God’s is “ effectual calling.” The’
KAjnots is the incipient realization of the éxAoyn. Calovius:
and Goodwin take éAmis wrongly as the ground of hope.
Zanchius, Calovius, Flatt, Meyer, Harless, and Baumgarten-
Crusius maintain it to be the subjective hope which His call-
ing creates, but the reference seems rather to be to the object
of that hope—the inheritance of the following clause. ’EAis:
is To éAmfouevov—res sperata, in the opinion of Meier,
Olshausen, and Stier; but of course the knowledge of the thing.
hoped for sustains the emotion of hope, so that the two ideas
are closely allied. The apostle seems to refer rather to what
the hope embraces, than either to its basis or to its character.
Col. i. 5; Tit. ii, 13. It needs no special grace to know the
emotion of hope within us; it can be gauged in its depth, |
and analyzed in its character; but it does need special en-
lightenment to comprehend in their reality and glory what
are the objects hoped for in connection with God’s calling.
We give tis its ordinary meaning, “what”—not making it
mean gualis vel cujusnam nature, with Harless; nor quanta,
gmotamy, with Baumgarten-Crusius and Stier. That it may
occasionally bear such a sense we deny not; but the simple
signification is enough in the clause before us, though indeed
it involves the others. What, then, is the hope of His call-
ing? <Abraham’s calling had hope, and not immediate
possession attached to it, for not he, but his seed, were to in-
herit in future years. Salvation is partially enjoyed by “ the
called” on earth, but much of it is in reserve for them in
heaven. Therefore all that lies over for us creates hope, and
this rich reversion is here connected, not with our election—
the reality of which prior to our calling we knew not—but
with the calling itself, and the conscious response of the heart

EPHESIANS I, 18 89

to the influence of the truth and the Spirit. The apostle also
specifies a second design—

kai tis 6 TroUTOS Tis SoENS Tis KAnpovoplas abrod év Tots
aylous—“ and what the wealth of the glory of His inheritance
among the saints.” The «a/ is omitted by some MSS., such
as A, B, Dt, K, G, and by Lachmann; but it is found in
D’, E, K, L, and is rightly retained by Tischendorf.
The repetition of «a/ in the next verse might have led to its
omission. Tvs is repeated to bring out the emphatic thought.
“The riches of the glory of His inheritance” is a phrase to
be resolved neither, with some, into the rich glory of the
inheritance, nor the riches of the glorious inheritance. The
words represent, as they stand, distinct but connected ideas.
It was the riches of His grace in ver. 7—the norm according
to which blessing is enjoyed now; here it is the riches of
glory to be enjoyed in the future, the genitives being those of
possession. KAnpovouda has been already explained under
ver. 11, in connection with the verb é«AnpwOnper.

The phrase év tots dy/ous is attended with some difficulty.
1. Winer and others insert the verb éors, and suppose it to
_ signify “which is in the possession of the saints.” The
strain of the context forbids the exegesis—it is future, and
not present blessing, which the apostle refers to. 2. It is
taken by Homberg and Calovius in the neuter gender as a
local epithet—“in the holy places.” Such an idea is not
found in the epistles, and is not of Pauline usage. 3. Others
assume the meaning of “ for,’——“ prepared for the saints,”
such as Vatablus, Bullinger, and Baumgarten; but this gives
an unwarranted meaning to the preposition ¢év. 4. Stier
understands the words with special reference to his own
interpretation of ver. 11, which he renders—“in whom we
have become God’s inheritance”—so that God's inheritance
is the saints; and as they form it, it possesses a peculiar
glory. But the inheritance, as we understand it, is something
external to the saints—something yet to be fully enjoyed by
them, and of which in the interval the Holy Spirit is declared
to be the earnest. 5. The better opinion, then, is, with
Riickert, Harless, Winzer, Meier, Olshausen, Ellicott, and
Alford, to take éy in the sense of “among,’—“ among the
saints.” Job xlii 15. Of Job’s daughter it is said, their

90 . EPHESIANS I. 18.

father gave them xAnpovoulay év rots adeApots—“ among their
brethren.” So Acts xx. 32, cAnpovomlay év Tois jyvacpévors
—‘“inheritance among the sanctified.” Also Acts xxvi. 18.
Perhaps the full formula may be seen in Num. xviii. 23,
év péow viav Iopand xAnpovoyiay. There seems no need to
supply éorw, as is done by Ellicott after Meyer—nor does
the article need to be repeated. “Aryios has been explained
under the first verse, and means here, those possessed of
completed holiness, or as Cameron—rovds TeTeAevwpévovs.
Myrothecium, p. 248. The inheritance is meant for the
possession of the saints. It is their common property. And
the consecrated ones are not merely, as Baumgarten-Crusius
says, those of the former dispensation who first were called
“holy,” though saints alone enjoy the gift. It is “ His,” and
they are His. The possession of holiness is the prerequisite
for heaven. Such a character is in harmony with the
pursuits, enjoyments, and scenes of the celestial world.
Saints have now the incipient heritage, but not in its full
fruition. It is not here presented to us as a rich blessing of
Christ’s present kingdom; but it is the blessing in prospect.
The two clauses are thus nearly related. The prayer is, that
the Ephesians might first know the reality of the future
blessing; and, secondly, might comprehend its character.
What, then, are the riches of its glory? There is the
“glory ” of the inheritance itself, and that glory is not a mere
gilding—glitter without value; for there are also “the
riches” of the glory. There is glory, for the inheritance in
its subjective aspect is the perfection of the “saints.” But
there are also “riches of glory,” for that perfection is
complete in the sweep and circle of its enjoyments, and is not
restricted to one portion of our nature—the mind being filled
with truth, and the heart ruled in all its pulsations by
undivided love. There is “glory,” in that the inheritance is
God’s, and they who receive it shall hold fellowship with
Him; but there are in addition “riches of glory,” inasmuch
as this fellowship is uninterrupted, the harmony of thought
and emotion never disturbed, and the face of God never
eclipsed, but shedding a new lustre on the image of Himself
reflected in every bosom. There is “glory,” in that the
inheritance yields satisfaction, for a perfect spirit in perfect

EPHESIANS I. 19. 91

communion with God must be a happy spirit; but there are
likewise “riches of glory,” since that blessedness is un-
changing, has no pause and no end; all, both in scene and
society, being in unison with it, while it excites the purest
susceptibilities, and occupies the noblest powers of our nature,
giving us eternity for our lifetime and infinitude for our
home.

The third thing which the apostle wished them to know,
was the nature of that power which God had exerted upon
them in their conversion. The calling of God had glorious
hopes attached to it or rising out of it. The wealthy inherit-
ance lay before them, and the apostle wished them to know
how or by what spiritual change they had been brought
into these peculiar privileges, and how they were to be
sustained till their hopes were realized. Not only had they
been the objects of God’s affection, as is told them in the
first paragraph—but also, and especially, of God's power.
_ Infinite love prompted into operation omnipotent strength.
_ And that power is exercised in a certain normal direction,
- for it works on believers as it wrought in Christ, and, as the
_ apostle shows in the second chapter, it does to them what it
did to their great Prototype. The same kind of power
manifested in the resurrection and glorification of Jesus, is
exhibited in the quickening of sinners from death. The 20th
verse of this chapter is illustrated by the 6th of the following
chapter, and all between is a virtual digression, or suspension
of the principal idea in the analogy. The power which the
apostle wishes them to comprehend was the power which
quickened Jesus, and had in like manner quickened them ;
which raised Jesus, and had in the same way raised them ;
which had elevated Jesus to God’s right hand in the heavenly
places, and had also raised them with Christ, and made them
sit with Christ in the heavenly places. Such is the general
idea. He says—

(Ver. 19.) Kal rf 1rd imepBadrov péyebos rijs duvdpews
avrod els nuds rods motevovras—“ And what is the exceed-
ing greatness of His power to us-ward who believe.” 2 Cor.
xiii. 4. The apostle writes tr .. . tis . . . TH—repeating
the adjective in his emphatic and distinct enumeration. Els
-pas—* in the direction of us ”—is most naturally connected

92 EPHESIANS I. 19,

With Svvayews, and not with an understood éet:—power
exercised upon us believers. Winer, § 49,c,6. The greatness
of that power is not to be measured; it is “exceeding,” for it
stretches beyond the compass of human calculation. It is
the power of giving life to the dead in trespasses and sins—
a prerogative alone of Him who is “ Life.” Compounds with
tép are great favourites with the apostle, and this word is
used by him alone. Speaking of those who are to enjoy the
future glorious inheritance, he calls them absolutely ot dyiot,
but those on whom rests this power in the meantime are only
ot muctevovtes; and while in recording his prayer he naturally
says “you,” he now as naturally includes himself—npas.

The connection of this with the following clause is im-
portant—xata thy évépyecav. Some join the words with the
immediately preceding wiotevovtas—an exegesis followed by
Chrysostom, Meier, Matthies, and Hodge. On the other
hand, the words are joined to duvdyews by Cicumenius, in
one of his explanations, by Calvin, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford,
Ellicott, and Stier. The last appears to be preferable. It
is indeed true, that in consequence of God’s mighty power
men believe. See under Col. ii. 12. But the adoption of
such a meaning, advocated also by Crellius, Griesbach,' and
Junkheim, would be almost tantamount to making the apostle
say—that they might know the greatness of His power on
them who believe in virtue of His power. Some of the older
divines adopted this view as a mode of defence against Armi-
nian or Pelagian views of human ability, and as a proof of the
necessity and the invincibility of Divine grace. But «ard
rarely signifies “in virtue of,’ and even then the idea of
conformity is implied. Certainly the weak faith of man is
not in conformity with the mighty power of God. Nor can
Kata point out the object of faith in such a construction as
this, and it never occurs with mwiorevw to denote the cause of
faith. Besides, and especially, it is not to show either the
origin or measure of faith that the apostle writes, but to illus-
trate the power of God in them who already believe. Kara,
therefore, signifies “after the model of.” It points out how
the power to us-ward operates; xatd—after the model of that
power which operated in Christ.

1 Opuacula, ii. 9; Brevis Commentatio in Ephes. i. 19.

EPHESIANS I. 19. 93

It weakens the point of the apostle’s argument to take the
clause followed by xatd merely as an amplification, as Chry-
sostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Estius, Grotius, Meier, and Winzer
have done. It is not the apostle’s design to illustrate the
mere trepSad\rXov—the mere vastness of the power, but to
define its nature and mode of operation. Nor can we agree
with Harless, after Ambrosiaster, Bucer, and Zanchius, in
making this clause and those which follow it belong equally
to the €Azis and «Anpovopia, and in regarding the paragraph
as a general illustration of the nature of the hope, and the
wealth and glory of the inheritance. Thus Ambrosiaster:—
Exemplum salutis credentium et gloria in resurrectione Salva-
toris consistere profitetur, ut ex ea cognoscant fideles quid cis
promissum est. This explanation is too vague, for évépyea
and the allied words are connected with Svvaycs naturally, but
not with the hopes or the inheritance. The exegesis of
Harless would imply, that the blessings described in the
paragraph are future blessings, whereas, as himself virtually
admits, they are blessings already enjoyed by Christians (ii. 6).
Ellicott errs in the same way when he says, that the reference
is “primarily to the power of God, which shall hereafter
quicken us even as it did Christ.” What he calls primary
the context places as secondary, for it is present power which

_is causing itself to be felt on present believers. The order of

thought is not, the hope—then the inheritance—and then the
power which shall confer it; but, the hope—the inheritance
—and the power which sustains and prepares us for its
possession. Meyer's notion is similar to Ellicott’s.

Nor does «ard, as in the opinion of Koppe and Holzhausen,
signify mere similitude. For if the resurrection of Jesus be
the normal exhibition of Divine power, the implication is, that
other similar exhibitions are pledged to Christ’s people. That
power has operated, «ard—after the model of that energy
which God wrought in Christ. CZcumenius has the right idea
to some extent when he compares the two acts—rd dvacrijvas
Has tod YuytKod Oavdrov Kal ro avactivas Tod cwpatiKod
tiv Xpictov. The objection of Matthies that, had the apostle
meant to show the correspondence between the power exerted
on us and that on Christ in His resurrection, he would have
said év ipiv, as he has said é¢v r@ Xpiore, is without founda-

94 EPHESIANS I. 19.

tion, because the power put forth on Christ was an act long
past and perfect, whereas the power put forth on believers is
of present and continuous operation, and a stream of that
divine influence is ever coming—els judas Tods miotevovtas.
This use of the article and participle, instead of a simple
adjective, is emphatic in its nature. The participial meaning
is brought into prominence—‘“on us who are believing,” on us
in the act or condition of exercising faith. Nor is the
objection of de Wette more consistent. It is illogical, he
affirms, to speak of applying a norm or scale to exceeding
greatness. But the apostle does not use a scale to mete out
and measure the exceeding greatness of God’s power, he
merely presents a striking example to enable us to know
something of its mode of operation. The sacred writer
illustrates his meaning by the presentation of a fact, and that
meaning will be best brought out after we have examined the
phraseology. For God puts forth that power—

KaTa THY Evepyelav TOU KpaToUS THS Layvos avToD-—“accord-
ing to the working of the force of His might.” To suppose
that the apostle used these three terms without distinction,
and for no other purpose than to give intensity of idea by the
mere accumulation of synonyms, would indeed be a slovenly
exegesis, Nor is it better to reduce the phrase to a Hebraism,
connecting tod xpdtous, as Peile proposes, with évépyevay,
as if it were equivalent to t7v xparodcay; or, on the other
hand, resolving it either into xpdtos ioyupov, or ioxds Kpa-
Tepad, aS is recommended by Koppe and the lexicographers
Bretschneider, Robinson, and Wahl. “Icxyvs, connected with
icyw, another form of €yw, is—power in possession, ability,
or latent power, strength which one has, but which he may or
may not put forth, Mark xii. 30; Luke x. 27; 2 Pet. ii.
11. Kpdros, from xpas, the head, is that power excited into
action — might. Luke i. 51; Acts xix. 20; Heb. ii.-14,
"Ioyvs, viewed or evinced in relation to result, is xpdros.
Hence it is used with the verb zrovety. The words occur
together, Eph. vi. 10; Isa. xl. 26; Dan. iv. 27; Sophocles,
Phil. 594, "Evépyeva, as its composition implies, is power
in actual operation. “Ioxvs, to take a familiar illustration, is
the power lodged in the arm, xpdros is that arm stretched
out or uplifted with conscious aim, while évépyeva is the same

EPHESIANS 1. 20, 95

arm at actual work, accomplishing the designed result. Calvin
compares them thus: icyvs—radiz ; xpdtos—arbor ; évépyea
— fructus. The connection of words similarly allied is not
uncommon, Lobeck, Paralipomena, Diss. viii. § 13, p. 534
The language is meant to exalt our ideas of Divine power.
That might exercised upon believers is not only great, but
exceeding great, and therefore the apostle pauses to describe
it slowly and analytically ; first in actual operation—évépyea ;
then he looks beyond that working and sees the motive power
—xparos; and still beneath this he discerns the original
unexhausted might—ioyvs. The use of so many terms
arises from a desire to survey the power of God in all its
phases ; for the spectacle is so magnificent, that the apostle
lingers to admire and contemplate it. Epithet is not heaped
on epithet at random, but for a specific object. The mental
emotion of the writer is anxious to embody itself in words,
and, after all its efforts, it laments the poverty of exhausted
language. The apostle now specifies one mode of operation—

(Ver. 20.) “Hv évnpyncev év tm Xpiot@, éyeipas aitov éx
vexepav—“ Which He wrought in Christ, having raised Him
from the dead”—in Christ our Head and Representative, év
denoting the substratum, or ground, or range, as Winer calls it,
on or in which the action takes effect, § 48, a, 3. The use of a
verb with its correlate noun has been noticed already, chap. i.
3,6. In such cases there is some intensification of meaning.
Bernhardy, p. 106. The participle is contemporaneous with
the verb. That manifestation of power is now described in its
results, to wit, in the resurrection and glorification of Christ.
- He raised Him from the dead. It was the work of the Father
—having sent His Son, and having received the atonement
from Him—to demonstrate its perfection, and His own accept-
ance of it, by calling Jesus from the grave.

In the meantime, we may briefly illustrate this third section
of the apostle’s prayer—‘ that ye may know the exceeding
greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to
the working of the might of His power which He wrought in
Christ, when He raised Him from the dead.” Our general
view has been already indicated. The specimen and pledge
of that power displayed in quickening us, is Christ's resur-
rection. Now, 1. It is transcendent power — UwepSddrAov

96 EPHESIANS I. 20,

péyeOos. The body of Jesus was not only lifeless, but its
organization had been partially destroyed. The spear had
pierced the pericardium, and blood and water—blood fast
resolving itself into serum and crassamentum, issued imme-
diately from the gash. To restore the organization and to
give life, not as the result of convalescence, but immediate
and perfect life, was a sublime act of omnipotence. To vivify
a dead heart is not less wonderful, and the life originally
given is the life restored. But created effort is unequal to the
enterprise. The vision of Ezekiel is on this point full of
meaning. The valley lay before the mind’s eye of the prophet,
full of bones, dry and bleached, not only without muscle and
integument, but the very form of the skeleton had disappeared.
Its vertebree and limbs had been separated, and the mass
was lying in confusion. The seer uttered the oracle of life,
and at once there was a shaking—the various pieces and
organs came together — “bone to his bone.” The osseous
framework was restored in its integrity, nay, sinew and flesh
came upon it, and “ the skin covered them above.” But there
was no breath in them. The organization was complete, but
the vital power—the direct gift of God—was absent. The
prophet invoked the “ breath of Jehovah.” It descended and
enveloped the host, and at the first throb of their heart they
started to their feet, “an exceeding great army.” The restora-

tion of spiritual life to the dead soul results immediately

from the working of the might of His power. Conviction,
impression, penitence, and reformation, may be to some extent
produced by human prophesying; but life comes as God’s
own gift—-a Divine operation of the power of His might,
analogous to the act of our Lord’s resurrection.

2. It is power already experienced by believers—power—
eis —* to us-ward.” They had felt it in prior time. It is not
some mighty influence to be enjoyed by them in some future
scene of being, or, as Chandler and others suppose, at the
resurrection. “You did He quicken,” raise up, and enthrone
with Christ.

3. It is resurrectionary power—power displayed in restor-
ing life, for it has its glorious prototype in the resurrection
of Jesus. Divine power restored physical life to Jesus, and
that same power restored spiritual life to those who “were dead

a

EPHESIANS I. 20. 97

in trespasses and sins.” The context shows plainly that this
is the meaning of the reference, for the subject is resumed at
ver. 5 of the succeeding chapter. There was spiritual life
once in man—in his great progenitor; but it left him and
he died; and the great purpose of the gospel is to unite
| him to God, and to give back to him, through union with
“Christ our life,” this life which he originally enjoyed. See
} chap. ii. 5, 6.

4. The resurrection of Jesus is in this respect not merely a
specimen or illustration—it is also a pledge. Some regard it
as a mere comparison. Morus defines xara merely—simili
modo. Koppe says the power in us is non minor—“ not less”
than that in Christ; and Grotius looks upon it as a proof of
God’s ability—quod factum apparet, id iterum fieri potest.
Chrysostom, on the first verse of the next chapter, says—#ére
ToU vexpous avuiaTay TO Wuyny vevexpwyévny iacacBat TOM@
peifov éott—“ to heal a dead soul is a far greater thing than to
raise the dead.” But when God raised His Son—the repre-
sentative of redeemed humanity—the deed itself was not only
an illustration of the mode, but also a pledge of the fact, that
all His constituents should be quickened, and should have
this higher life restored to them. For the man Jesus died,
that men who were dead might live, and the revivification of
His dead body was at once a proof that the enterprise had
been accomplished, and a pledge that all united to Him
should live in spirit, and live at length like Himself in an
entire and glorified humanity. The nobler life of soul, and
the reunion of that quickened spirit with a spiritualized body,
are covenanted blessings. Olshausen makes the general resur-
rection of believers from the dead the prinicipal reference of
the passage. But this, as we have seen, is a mistaken view.
Still, as this new life cannot be fully matured in the present
body, for its powers are cramped and its enjoyments curtailed,
so it follows that a frame suited to it will be prepared for it,
in which all its faculties and susceptibilities will be completely
and for ever developed and perfected. Present spiritual life
and future resurrection are therefore both involved. He
raised Him—

nal éxdOicev ev Seiad abtod ev tots érovpavlouw—" and He
set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places.”

G

98 EPHESIANS I. 20.

Lachmann reads xa@/cas, after A, B, and some other MSS.,
but the common reading is the best sustained, and the other
has the plausibility of an emendation, like the reading évnp-
ynxev in the previous clause. This recurrence to the aorist
forms, therefore, an anacolouthon or inconsequent construc-
tion. These anacoloutha only occur when the mind, in its
fervour and hurry, overlooks the formal nexus of grammatical
arrangement, or when the writer wishes to lay emphasis on
special ideas or turns of thought. Winer, § 63, 2,6. The
transition is sometimes marked by &é In similar cases it
appears as if the writer wished to indicate a change in the train
of illustration, his immediate purpose being served. John v.
44hapBavovtes—xai ov Enteite; 2 John 2—rnv pévoveav
—«aiéorat. So in the present passage. The sense is com-
plete—éyeipas avtrov é« vexp@v; the principal, essential, and
prominent idea illustrative of Divine power is brought out.
But, changing the construction as if to indicate this, the
apostle adds, not cal xa@icas, but éxd@icev—his mind fondly
carrying out the associated truths. The chief object of the
apostle is to show the nature of that power which God has
exercised upon believers. It is power which operates after
the model of that which He wrought in Christ. Power was
manifested in Christ’s resurrection, visibly and impressively,
but not in the same form in His glorification. Might is seen
in the one and honour in the other. In the sixth verse of the
following chapter the principal thought is that of revivification
or spiritual resurrection, though the other idea of glorification
is also annexed ; but it is still a minor idea, for though we are
spiritually brought into a new life as really as Christ was
physically quickened, yet we are not é€v Tots émovpavioss, in
the very same sense as Christ personally is, but only as being
in Him—members of the body of which He is the ever-living
and glorified Head.

The verb éxa@:cev has a hiphil signification, and like some
other verbs of pregnant meaning, seems here as if to contain
its object in itself. It is not therefore followed by a formal
accusative. So the corresponding Hebrew verb, awinp, wants
the personal pronoun as its accusative in 1 Sam. ii. 8.

év de&ia avtov—* at His own right hand.” Mark xvi. 19
Heb. viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2. The language refers us to Ps. cx.

EPHESIANS I. 20, 99

év tois émovpavios. The phrase has been explained under
ver. 3. Lachmann reads—éy ois ovpavois, without any emi-
nent authority. We cannot say with Matthies, and Hunnius
quoted and approved by Harless, that the expression has a
special reference to things and not to places, and denotes the
status celestis, For the idea of place does not necessarily
imply local and limited conceptions of the Divine essence.
Our Master taught us to pray, “Our Father which art in
heaven.” The distressed mind instinctively looks upward to
the throne of God. The phrase ta érovpama does not signify
heaven in its special and ordinary sense, but the heavenly
provinces. In the highest province Jesus is at the right
hand of God, and in the lowest province of the same region
the church is located, as we have seen under i. 3, and shall
see again under ii. 5, 6.

Jesus was not only raised from the dead, but placed at the
Father's “right hand.” Three ideas, at least, are included in
the formula, as explained in Scripture. 1. It is the place of
honour. Jesus is above all created dignities, whatever their
position and rank. Ver. 21.

2. It is the place of power. He sits “on the right hand of
power.” Matt. xxvi. 64. “All things are under His feet.”
He wields a sceptre of universal sovereignty. Ver. 22.

3. It is the place of happiness—happiness possessed, and
happiness communicated. “At Thy right hand there are
pleasures for evermore.” Ps. xvi. 11. The crowned Jesus
possesses all the joy which was once set before Him. But His
humanity, though glorified, is not deified—is not endowed
with any of the essential attributes of divinity. | Whatever
the other results of the €vwats xaO’ brootacw, or the commu-
nicatio idiomatum, may be, we believe that the inferior nature
of Jesus remains a distinct, perfect, and unmixed humanity.
The @edvOpwros is in heaven, was seen in heaven, “from
whence we look for Him,” and the saints are to be caught up
to meet their Lord in the air! Augustine says well (Hp. 57)

1In the Formula Concordia, ii. 8, De Persona Christi, ubiquity is without
hesitation claimed for Christ's humanity—‘‘ Ut videlicet etiam secundum illam
suam assumtam naturam, et cum ed prasens esse possit, et quidem pravsens mt,
ubicunque velit."— Die aymbolischen Biicher der evangelisch-lutheriachen
Kirche, ed. Miiller, Stuttgart, 1848, p. 674 et seq. Hasse, Hutterus Redivivus,
§105. Schmidt, Dogmatik der Evang.-Luth, Kirche, p. 243, ete.

100 EPHESIANS I. 21.

—Cavendum est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut
veritatem corporis auferamus.

(Ver. 21.) ‘Yrepdvw tracns apyjs Kai éEovaelas Kal Surdpews
kal KkupsoTntos—“ Far above all principality, and power, and
might, and lordship.” The clauses to the end of the chapter
explain and illustrate, as we have now hinted, the session at
the right hand of God. These various appellations are used
as the abstract for the concrete, as if for sweeping significance.
The highest position in creation is yet beneath Christ. Some
of the beings that occupy those stations have specific and
appropriate names, but not only above these, but above every
conceivable office and being, Jesus is immeasurably exalted.
There is no exception; He has no equal and no superior, not
simply among those with whose titles we are so far acquainted,
but in the wide universe there is no name so high as His,
and among all its spheres, there is no renown that matches
His. These principalities stand around and beneath the
throne, but Jesus sits at its right hand. It is a strange whim
of Schoettgen, on the one hand, to refer these names to the
Jewish hierarchy, and of van Til, on the other hand, to
regard them as descriptive of heathen dignities.

To attempt to define these terms would serve little purpose,
and those definitions given by the pseudo-Dionysius, and
others even of the more sober and intelligent Greek fathers,
are but truisms. For example: dpya/ are defined by Diony-
sius—as éxeiyny thy apynv dvagatvoveat; Suvdmers are pro-
nounced by Theodoret—s wAnpody Ta Kedevopeva Svvapevor ;
and the «upidrntes are stated by Phavorinus to be—dvvdpes
diytau NetToupytkal Kupiov. The first two of these four terms
are used of human magistracy, Tit. iii, 1; in this epistle, of
the hostile powers of darkness, vi. 12; of the celestial hier-
archy, in iii. 10; and they are spoken of as distinct from
angels, in Rom. viii. 38, and 1 Pet. iii, 22. Jesus is described
as at the right hand of the Father—év rots érovpaviois, and
perhaps the beings referred to under these four designations
are the loftiest and most dignified in heaven. To restrict the
word solely to angels, with Meyer, or good angels, with
Ellicott, might be too narrow; and it would be too vague,
with Erasmus, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, and Olshausen, to
refer it to any kind of dignity or honour. These dignities

EPHESIANS I. 21. 101

and honours are at least heavenly in their position, and
belong, though perhaps not exclusively, to the creatures who,
from their office, are termed angels. To say that He who is
at the right hand is raised above human dignitaries, would be
pointless and meaningless ; and to affirm that He occupies
a station superior to any on which a fiend may sit in lurid
majesty, would not be a fitting illustration of His exalted
merit and proportionate reward. Yet both are really included.
Human princedoms and hellish potentates must hold a_posi-
tion beneath the powers and principalities of heaven, above
which the Son of God is so loftily exalted.

What the distinction of the words among themselves is,
and what degrees of celestial heraldry they describe, it is
impossible for us to define. We are obliged to say, with
Chrysostom, that the names are to us donua cal od yvwpifo-
peva; and, with Augustine—dicant, qui possunt, si tamen
possunt probare quod dicunt ; ego me ista ignorare confiteor.
Hofmann denies that the words indicate any gradations of
angelic rank, but only indicate the manifoldness of which
their relation to God and to the world is capable. This may
be true so far, but the relation so held may indicate of itself
the rank of him who holds it. Schriftb. vol. i. p. 347. The
four terms form neither climax nor anticlimax; the two first
of them here are the two last in Col. i. 16, and the last term
here, xuptorntes, stands second in the twin epistle. The first
and last have special reference to government, princedom, or
lordship, and the intervening two may refer more to preroga-
tive and command. And they may be thus connected: Who-
ever possesses the dpy7 enjoys and displays éfovela; and
whoever is invested with the dSvvayis, wields it in his ap-
pointed xupidrns. Speculations on the angelic world, its
number, rank, and gradations, were frequent in the earlier
centuries. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus set the example,
but the pseudo-Dionysius mustered the whole angelic band
under his review, and arranged them in trinary divisions :—

L @pdvor, XepovBip, L<padip.
IL Kupiéryres, "Efovoia, Avvdpas.
IIT. "Apyxai, "ApydyyAou * Ayyaou.'

1 Enchiridion, cap. 58.

102 EPHESIANS I. 21.

The Jewish theology also held that there were different ranks
of angels, and amused itself with many fantastic reveries as
to their power and position.’ All that we know is, that there
is foundation for the main idea—that there is no dull and
sating uniformity among the inhabitants of heaven—that
order and freedom are not inconsistent with gradation of rank
—that there are glory and a higher glory—power and a
nobler power—rank and a loftier rank, to be witnessed in the
mighty scale.” As there are orbs of dazzling radiance amidst
the paler and humbler stars of the sky, so there are bright
and majestic chieftains among the hosts of God, nearer God
in position, and liker God in majesty, possessing and reflecting
more of the Divine splendour, than their lustrous brethren
around them. But above all Jesus is enthroned—the highest
position in the universe is His. The seraph who adores and
burns nearest the eternal throne is only proximus Huic—

** Longo sed proximus intervallo.”

vmepdvew— over above ;” not reigning over, as Bengel has
it, but simply in a position high above them. The majority
of cases where the word is used in the Septuagint would seem
to show that it may intensify the idea of the simple avo.
We cannot agree with Ellicott’s denial of this. It is true
that compounds are numerous in Alexandrian Greek, and
cease from use to have all their force; yet in the Septuagint
the passages referred to and others, from the spirit of them or
the suggested contrast to the position of the observer, point to
a full sense of the compound term. Deut. xxvi. 19, xxviil. 1;
RZeKS 1. 220, x2 0) ee 2;

The second clause expands and rivets the idea of the first,
and corresponds, as Stier well remarks, to the ovre tis KTlows
érépa, in Rom. viii. 39. For the apostle subjoins—

kal TravTos dvouatos dvowafouévov-—“ and every name that
is named.” Kai introduces a final and comprehensive asser-
tion, “and in a word” (Ellicott)—et omnino. Fritzsche on
Matt., p. 786. Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Meier, and

‘ Hierarchia Celestis, cap. vi.
2 Kisenmenger, Hntdecktes Judenthum, ii. p. 874; Boehmer, Zsagoge in Ep.

ad Col. p. 292; Petavius, Dogmata Theol. tom. iii. p. 101; Twesten, Dog-
matik, vol. ii. p. 305.

a
———————

«* aS
——_— -———

EPHESIANS IL. 21. 103

Bloomfield, take évoua here as a name or title of honour,
referring to Phil. ii. 9; John xii. 28; Acts iv. 12; 2 Tim. ii.
19; and to the verb in Rom. xv. 20. To this we see no great
objection, especially in such a context. But as the following

| participle has its usual meaning, dvoza may be taken in its

common signification—an exegesis certainly preferable to that
of Morus, Harless, and Riickert, who qualify it by its position,
and make it denote every name of such a kind as those just
rehearsed. To show the height of Christ's exaltation, the
apostle affirms that He sits above all

‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, kingdoms, powers ;"

but to enlarge the sweep of his statement he now adds—and
also above every name of being or of rank that the universe
contains. Bodius, Meyer, and de Wette say—rrav dvoya is
simply for av; Beza renders—quicquid existit. CEcumenius
makes it equivalent to wav pntov nal dvowastov—which is
preferable.

ov povoyv év T@ alae TovTw, GAdAa Kal év TH pédXovTI—
“not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”
This clause does not belong to the preceding éxa@icev, as
Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Koppe, Holzhausen, Kiittner, and
Burton suppose ; for they regard it as expressing the perma-
nency of Christ’s dominion. The intervening sentences show
that this exegesis is unfounded, and that the words must be
construed with dvoyafouevov—“ every name named, not only
in this world, but also in that which is to come.” What, then,
is meant by ai@y odtos and aiwy pérdkwv? The phrase cannot
have its Jewish acceptation—the period before Messiah and
the period of Messiah, as Cocceius and others hold. The.
plain meaning is—the present life and the life to come,’ with
the attached idea of the region where each life is respectively
spent—earth and heaven, but without any marked ethical
reference. “The future,” as Olshausen remarks, “is in the
phrase opposed to the present.” Over all the beings we can
name now, or shall ever be able to name, Jesus is exalted —.
over all that God has brought, or will bring, into existence.
Whether, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Bengel suppose
from this verse, we shall have our knowledge of the celestial

1 Vide Koppe, Zxcursus 1. ; Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra, vol, i 618.

104 EPHESIANS I. 22.

powers extended, is a question which it does not directly
solve. Lest, however, there should be any imagined excep-
tion to Christ’s supremacy, or any possible limitation of it—
any power or principality anywhere left uncompared or out
of view, the apostle says, Jesus is exalted not only above
such of them as men now and on earth are in the habit of
familiarly naming, but also above every name of existence or
rank in every sphere and section of the universe. hil est, says
Calvin, tam sublime aut excellens quocunque nomine censeatur,
quod non subjectum sit Christi majestati. There seems to be no
immediate polemical reference in this extraordinary paragraph.
Not only is there exaltation, but there is also authority—

(Ver. 22.) Kat ravra irétakev iro tods modas avtov—
“ And put all things under His feet.” The allusion is clearly
to the language of the 8th Psalm. In the 110th Psalm the
enemies of Messiah are specially referred to, and their sub-
jugation is pictured out by their being declared to be His foot-
stool. The allusion is not, however, in this clause, to enemies
defeated and humbled, as Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen,
and Olshausen, to some extent, suppose. The apostle is de-
scribing the authority of the Saviour by this peculiar figure.
It is no repetition of the idea in the preceding verse. That
exhibits His honour, but this proclaims His imperial preroga-
tive. Heb. ii 8. The wavta not only contains what has
been specified, but leaves nothing excluded. The brow once
crowned with thorns now wears the diadem of universal sove-
reignty ; and that hand, once nailed to the cross, now holds in
it the sceptre of unlimited dominion. He who lay in the
tomb has ascended the throne of unbounded empire. Jesus,
the brother-man, is Lord of all: He has had all things put
under His feet—the true apotheosis of humanity. This
quotation from the Psalms Theodoret names 7)v mpopytixiy
paptupiav, for this old Hebrew ode plainly refers to man’s
original dignity and supremacy —to the race viewed in
unfallen Adam (Gen. i. 26—28); but it also, as interpreted in
Heb. ii. 6, 7, as plainly refers to the Second Adam, or to
humanity restored and elevated in Him—<in Christ as its
Representative and Crown.

kal avtov ewxe Kefarynv trép tavta TH éexkrnola—* and
gave Him to be Head over all things to the church.” There

EPHESIANS I. 2. 105

no reason for changing the ordinary meaning of &w«e, and
ndering it “appointed "—@nxe—as is suggested by Calvin,
za, Harless, Meier, and Olshausen. In chap. iv. 11 we
rave the same verb. His occupancy of this exalted position
a Divine benefaction to the church; His appointment is the
ult of love, which gives with wise and willing generosity.
ay more,and with emphasis—xal avrdv éwx<e—“ and Him
e gave.” The natural meaning of éSwxe is thus sustained
y the prefixing of the pronoun, and it governs the dative,
exxAnola, after it. This repetition of the pronoun intensifies
he idea, and its position in this clause is emphatic—* and
im, so exalted and invested, so rich in glory and power—
ven Him and none other, has He given as Head.”

The most difficult phrase is xefadyy trép wdvta. The
ulgate merely evades the difficulty by its translation—supra
nem ecclesiam. The Syriac rendering is preferable :—
Him who is over all hath He given to be Head,” transposing
e order of the words, a rendering followed by Chrysostom—
tov dvta i@ép Tmavta Xpiotov; and the same idea is adopted
by Erasmus, Camerarius, Estius, and a-Lapide. The position
of the words shows that trép mavra qualifies xepadryv. But
in what sense? Not—
1. In the vague sense of “special.” ’Ext raoi— in “ pre-
ference to all,” as it is explained by Bodius and Baumgarten.
Bodius thus paraphrases—Super omnia, nempe catera superius
enumerata, hoc est, pre aliis omnibus creaturis. Nor—

2. In the general sense of “Supreme Head,” as is ad-
vocated by Beza, Riickert, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Olshausen, Conybeare, Bisping, and de Wette. This exegesis
gives imép the sense of “above,” as the highest head is the
Head above all other heads. Koppe resolves it by trepeyouca
mavrwyv—“ overtopping all;” but nocomparison of this nature
seems to be in the apostle’s mind. Olshausen says, the
apostles and prophets were also in a certain sense heads of
the church, while Christ was—xedad1 iép mdvta. But the
mavra has no such implied contrast in itself, and it naturally
turns our attention to the previous verses, where the princi-
palities and powers are not only pronounced to be inferior to
Christ, but are affirmed to be under His special jurisdiction.

3. The words may mean—"He gave Him as Head over

\

06 EPHESIANS I. 22.

all things to the church,” or “He gave Him who is Head over)
all things to be Head to the church.” The former of these |

renderings is expressed by Harless, Alford, and Ellicott in
his second edition, the latter by Stier and Meyer. The dif-
ference is not very material Meyer supposes that by a
figure of speech called Brachyology, a second xepadry is
understood. Matthiae, § 634; Kiihner, § 852; Jelf, § 893.

But there is no need of this shift—and the first exegesis |

is preferable (Madvig, § 24, a); the noun being a species of
what Donaldson calls “tertiary predicates’ 489. New
Cratylus, § 302. Christ is already declared by the apostle to
be above all in position and power, t7rép mavta; but besides,
He is by the Father’s gift «efad7 to the church. The wavra
are not connected with Him as their xefady, their relation to
Him being merely denoted by vép; but the church claims
Him as its Head, yea, claims as its Head Him who is over
all. Were the izép to be taken in the active sense of super-
intendence, the genitive would be employed, as Harless
intimates ; but it denotes here, above or beyond all in honour
and prerogative, for twép in the New Testament with the
accusative, has always this tropical meaning. Matt. x. 24;
Luke xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 13; Phil. ii. 9; Philem. 16. The
signification, therefore, is—This glorious Being, above all
angelic essences, and having the universe at His feet, is, by
Divine generosity, Head to the church, for the wavra refers
not to members of the church, as Jerome and Wahl argue and
as Harless favours, but to things beyond the church, being
equivalent to wavra in the preceding clauses; nor is the word
to be restricted to good angels, as Theophylact and CEcumenius
seem to suppose.

The noun éxxAnola is the name of the holy and believing
community under the New Testament. Its meaning is obvious
—the one company—np, who have been called or summoned
together to salvation. The church here spoken of is specially
the church on earth, which stands in need of protection, though
the church in heaven be equally related to Jesus, and equally
enjoy the blessings of His Headship. Jerome, Nosselt, Koppe,
and Rosenmiiller extend it to all good beings—an extension
not warranted by the name or the context. The dative is not,
as de Wette takes it, a dativus commodi, nor is it connected

!

EPHESIANS L 23, 107

with the xefadyv immediately preceding as its complement,
but it belongs naturally to the verb éSwxev. The relation of
‘Christ to the church is not that of austere government, or lofty
» and distant patronage. He is not to it merely drép ravta—
glorious being to contemplate and worship, but He is its
» Head, in a near, tender, necessary, and indissoluble relation.
And that Head is at the same time “ Head over all.” His
intelligence, His love, and His power, therefore, secure to the
church that the wdyra will “ work together for good.” Under
His “over all” Headship, everything that happens benefits
His people — discoveries in science, inventions in art, and
revolutions in government—all that is prosperous and all that
is adverse. The history of the church is a proof extending
through eighteen centuries; a proof so often tested, and by
such opposite processes, as to gather irresistible strength with
its age; a proof varied, ramified, prolonged, and unique, that
the exalted Jesus is Head over all things to the church.
And the idea contained in this appellation is carried out to its
correlative complement in the following verse, and in these
Ttemarkable words—

(Ver. 23.)"Htis éotivy ro capa abtod—“ which indeed is
His body.” “Hris—welche ja, as it is rendered by de Wette.
) Kiihner, § 781, 4,5. Of this meaning of éo7vs there are many
examples in the New Testament, though it has also other
| significations. “Head over all things to the church, which in
’ truth is His body.” The mode of expression is not uncommon.
mChap. ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 16, v. 23, 30; 1 Cor. xii, 15; Col. i
118, 24, ii, 19, iii. 15, etc. Head and body are correlative,
and are organically connected. The body is no dull lump of
slay, no loose coherence of hostile particles; but bone, nerve,
| and vessel give it distinctive form, proportion, and adaptation.
| The church is not a fortuitous collection of believers, but a
| ‘society, shaped, prepared, and life-endowed, to correspond to
its Head. The Head is one, and though the corporeal members
| are many, yet all is marked out and “curiously wrought

| first a connection of life: if the head be dissevered, the body
| dies, The life of the church springs from its union to Christ
by the Spirit, and if any member or community be separated

|

with symmetry and grace to serve the one design ; there
being organization, and not merely juxtaposition. There 1s

108 EPHESIANS I. 23. .

;
from Christ, it dies. There is also a connection of mind: the
purposes of the head are wrought out by the corporeal organs ©
—the tongue that speaks, or the foot that moves. The church
should have no purpose but Christ’s glory, and no work but the |
performance of His commands. There is at the same time a _
connection of power: the organs have no faculty of self-motion, —
but move as they are directed by the governing principle -
within. The corpse lies stiff and motionless. Energy to do-
good, to move forward in spiritual contest and victory, and to
exhibit aggressive influence against evil, is all derived from —
union with Christ. There is, in fine, a connection of sympathy.
The pain or disorder of the smallest nerve or fibre vibrates
to the Head, and there it is felt. Jesus has not only cogniz-
ance of us, but He has a fellow-feeling with us in all our
infirmities and trials. And the members of the body are at
the same time reciprocally connected, and placed in living
affinity, so that mutual sympathy, unity of action, co-opera-
tion, and support are anticipated and provided for. No
organ is superfluous, and none can defy or challenge its fellow.
Similar fulness and adjustment reign in the church. See under
iv. 15, 16. Not only is the church His body, but also—

TO TANpwopa Tod Ta TavTa ev Tao TAnpovpévov-—“ the
fulness of Him that filleth all in all.”

1. The term wAnpwpa is in apposition to cdpa, and is not
governed by édwxe, as is the strange view of Homberg, Cas-
talio, and Erasmus, who says—ro mAnpopa videtur accusandt
casu legendum, ut referatur ad Christum. Meier holds a
similar view, making the words #75 éotl TO capa avdTod a
parenthesis, and supposing that 7Anpwya. stands in apposition
to avrov. This arrangement not only does violence to the
natural and obvious syntax, but, as Olshausen well observes,
God cannot make Christ to be the mAnpapa, for Christ pos-
sesses the fulness of the Godhead, not through an act of the
Father’s will, but by the necessity of His nature. Bengel
regards 7Ajpwya as neither referring to the church, nor as
governed by édw«xe. It stands, in his opinion, as a species of
accusative absolute, like waptvpiov in 1 Tim. ii. 6, and forms
an epiphonema—a quod erat demonstrandum. The violence
resorted to in such an exegesis is not less objectionable than
that seen in the opposite opinion of Storr, who imagines tha

: EPHESIANS I. 23. 109
:

it signifies that “which is in God abundantly,” and that it is
employed as a species of nominative in apposition to 6 @eds
mdova103, ii. 4.
2. Many understand the noun in the general sense of mul-
titude—copia, cetus numerosus, making mAnpwpa equivalent to
-mA700s. Such is the view which Storr calls probable, and it is
that of Wetstein, Koppe, Kiittner, Wahl, and even Fritzsche.
Hesychius and Phavorinus define rAnpwpa by mAjOos, and
Schoettgen renders, Multitudo cui Christus preest. This notion
_is plainly unwarranted by the philology of the term. IT\#@os
has always a reference to abundance, but such an idea is only
secondary in 7A7pwpya—fulness being merely a relative term,
‘in application either to a basket (Mark viii. 20), or to the
globe (Ps. xxiv. 1), and its quantity is determined by the
subject. What meaning in such a case would be borne by
the homogeneous 7Anpoupévov? Besides, the idea of unity in
o@pa would ill correspond with that of multiplicity given to
mAjpopya. Cameron and Bos render 7Anpwya “the full body,”
f plenitudo illa que est in corpore—a meaning which the simple
word cannot bear, and which is borrowed from iv. 16, where
other terms are joined with the substantives.

3. Some refer the use of the term to the familiar employ-
ment of the 73°3¥*—the divine glory, or visible manifestation
of God, which some, such as Harless, identify with 7Anpwpa.
But the church cannot stand in such a relation to God—the
Shechinah is the highest personal manifestation of His own
infinite fulness, the glory of which is reflected by the church,
‘as shone the face of Moses when even a few straggling rays
f the divine radiance fell upon it.

4. Allied to this last view is the more general one of those
who regard the wAnpwyua in the light of a temple in which
he glory of God resides, and who refer it in this sense to the
hurch. Michaelis and Bretschneider espouse this notion, the
tter of whom paraphrases wAjpwpa—gquasi templum, in quo

tat, quod occupat et regit, ut anima corpus. The idea of
arless, found originally in Hackspann, is very similar. “As,”
ys he, “the apostle employs the same term to denote the
shurch, which he uses to represent the richness of that glory

1 Comment. in Rom. vol. ii. 469.
*Buxtorf, Lez. Talmud. 2394; Wagenseil, Sota, p. 83.

110 EPHESIANS I. 23,

which dwells in God and Christ, and emanates from them,
so the church may be called ‘the fulness of Christ, not
because it is the glory which dwells in Him, but because it is
the glory which He makes to dwell in her as in everything
else. It is the glory not of One, who without it suffers want,
but of One who fills all—das All—in all places—‘ The whole
earth is full of His glory.’ In fact, ‘the church’ is the glory
of Christ, because He is united to it alone as the head with
its body.” This is also the view of von Gerlach: “the church
is His fulness—seine Herrlichkeit, that is, His glory. All
His Divine perfections are manifest in it. It is His visible
appearance upon the earth.” This exegesis, however, gives
the word a peculiar conventional meaning, not warranted by
its derivation, but drawn from expressions in Colossians which
have no affinity with the place under review ; and such a sense,
moreover, is so recondite and technical, that we can scarce
suppose the apostle to give it to the word without previous
warning or peculiar hint and allusion. No traces of hostility
to Gnosticism and its technical cévwya and mAjpwpya are
found in the context, and there is no ground for such a con-
jecture on the part of Trollope, Burton, and Conybeare. The
fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ—owpartuixas, says the
apostle in a letter which formally opposes a false philosophy.
Col. ii. 9. Here he says, on the other hand, the church is
Christ’s body, His fulness. Passing by those forms of inter-
pretation which are not supported either by analogy or by the
nature of the context, we proceed to such as have higher
ground of probability.

The grammatical theory in the case of verbal nouns is,
that those ending in pos embody the intransitive notion of
the verb, while those in ows have an active, and those in pa
have a passive sense, or express the result of the transitive
idea contained in the verb. Kiihner, § 370. The theory,
however, is often modified by usage. According to it—and
in this case it is verified by many examples—zAnpwpa will
be equivalent ‘to To aemAnpwpyévov—the thing filled, just as
Tpaypa is TO Tempayuevov—the thing done; or the word may
be taken in an abstract sense, as «Aaoua—not the thing
broken, but the fragment itself. Thus the meaning may pass
to that by which the effect is produced, and this is virtually

‘EPHESIANS I. 23, 111

the so-called active sense of such nouns; not, as Alford
observes, “an active sense properly at all, but a logical
transference from the effect to that which exemplifies the
effect.” In fact, those aspects of active and passive meanings
depend on the view assumed—whether one thinks first of the
container, and then of the contained, or the reverse. Thus,
Ps, xxiv. 1; 1 Cor. x. 26, 9 yj Kai 7o mAnpwya adtijs—
“the earth and its fulness.” So the noun is used of the in-
habitants of a city, as its complement of population; of the
manning of a ship; the armed crew in the Trojan horse; and
the animals in Noah’s ark.' In such examples the idea is
scarcely that of complement, but rather the city, ark, and
ship are represented as in a state of fulness. What they
contain is not regarded as filling them up—Anpwais, but
they are looked upon simply as being already filled up.

The great question has been, whether wAnpwya has an
active or a passive sense. Critics are divided. Harless? affirms,
with Bahr, that the word is used only in an active sense,
while Baumgarten-Crusius’* as stoutly maintains on the other
side, that the noun occurs with only a passive signification.
The truth seems to lie between the two extremes. The word
sometimes occurs in the so-called active sense, denoting that
which fills up (Matt. ix. 16), where wAxpwya is equivalent to
é7i8Anuwa—the piece of new cloth designed to fill up the rent.
Mark ii. 21. But it is often used in a passive sense to denote
fulness—the state of fulness: Mark viii. 20, Tocwy orupiéwv
Trnpwopata— the fulnesses of how many baskets "—“ how
many filled baskets of fragments?” So Rom. xiii. 10, 7A»-
popya voyov— fulfilment or full obedience of the law.” The
idea of amplitude is sometimes involved, as Rom. xv. 29,
év tAnpwpate evroyias—“ in the fulness of the blessing ;” and
in Rom. xi. 25, wAnpopa tov €Ovav— the fulness of the
Gentiles,” where it is opposed to aro pépous, and in the 12th
verse is contrasted with #rrnwa. As applied to time (Gal.

1 Robinson, Passow, Liddell and Scott, sub voce.

2 ‘Ich betrachte es nun mit Bahr als ein unzweifelhaftes Resultat der gefiihrten
Untersuchung, dass es im N. T. nur im activen Sinne gebraucht werde,” ete.,
4 2 i Genin aber hat wAvgwue auch in N. T., wie in dem gesammten Sprach-

. gebrauche durchaus passive Bedeutung, nur den Schein activer Bedeutung
niwmt es,” ete., p. 50.

112 EPHESIANS I. 23.

iv. 4; Eph. i. 10), it signifies that the time prior to the
appointed epoch is regarded as filled up, and therefore full.
See under i. 10.

1. An active signification, however, is preferred by Chrysos-
tom, (Ecumenius, Ambrosiaster, Theophylact, Anselm, Thomas
Aquinas, Calvin,’ Beza,? Rollock, Zanchius, Hammond, Cro-
cius, Zegerus, Calovius, Estius, Bodius, Passavant, Richter,
von Gerlach, Bisping, and Hofmann. The words of Chrysos-
tom are—“The head is ina manner filled up by the body,
because the body is composed of all its parts, and needs every
one of them. It is by all indeed that His body is filled up.
Then the head is filled up, then is the body made perfect,
where we all together are knit to one another and united.” *
The notion involved in this exegesis, which is also beautifully
illustrated by Du Bosc in his French sermons on this epistle,
is the following: The church is His body; without that body
the head feels itself incomplete—the body is its complement.
The idea is a striking, but a fallacious one. It is not in
accordance with the prevailing usage of 7wA7pwpa in the New
Testament, and it stretches the figure to an undue extent.
Besides, where wA7jpwya has such an active sense, it is
followed by the genitive of what it fills up, as wAnpwpata
KXNacpuatov. How, then, would it read here—the filling up
of Him who fills all in all? But if He fill all in all already,
what addition can be made to this infinitude? Or, if the
participle be passive—the filling up of Him who is filled as
to all in all; then, if He be already filled, no other supple-
ment is required. We are not warranted to use language as
to the person of Christ, as if either absolute or relative im-
perfection marked it. According to this hypothesis also, that

1 «* Hic vero,” says Calvin, ‘‘summus honor est Ecclesiw, quod se Filius Dei
quodammodo imperfectum reputat, nisi nobis sit conjunctus.”

2 Beza says: ‘‘Complementum sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi amor
ut quum omnia omnibus ad plenum prestet, tamen sese veluti mancum et
membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis
adjunctam.”

3 TArewpa Onoi, rovrioriy, olov xiParn wAngovras wage Tov Coparos did yao Tavrwy
Mipay 7d cupa arviornxs xal ives ixacrov xentu. “Ogu wag airiv xowy wavTwy
xentovra sivayt, "Av yee un duty wordol xa) 6 wiv vele, 6 di mois, 6 dt AAAO Ti bons,
ob Angedras Grov ro caue, Aik wdvrwvoryTAngras To copa airov. Tort rAngovras
A usQarn, TOTs TIASOY Cam YivsTas Grav buod Tarets wusY CuYMupiver xal GUYXExOA-
Anwivos.

EPHESIANS I. 23, 113

ae

mystical body will be gradually growing, and will not be

complete until the second coming. Moreover, in other parts

of the New Testament, the word, when used ina religious
sense, expresses not any fulness which passes from us to

Christ, but, as we shall see in the next paragraph, that fulness

which passes from Christ to us. We need scarcely allude to

the view of Riickert, that +Anpwya is the means by which the
m™Anpodr is to be realized, or by which Christ fulfils all things

—the means of His fulfilling the great destiny which has

devolved upon Him of restoring the world to God. But ra
_ mavra cannot be restricted to the Divine plan of that redemp-
_ tion, which the church is Christ’s means of working out,
_ neither can wAnpwpya signify means of fulfilment, nor does
the verse contain any hint of universal restoration. Bitterly
does Stier say, “We venture to wish in truth and in love,
that such an interpreter might learn to read the writing ere he
interpret it.”

2. The word, we apprehend, is rightly taken in a passive
sense—that which is filled up. This is the view of Theo-
doret,! Cocceius, Grotius, Roell, Wolf, Flatt, Cramer, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Matthies, de Wette, Meyer, Holzhausen,
Stier, Alford, and Ellicott. This exegesis is certainly more
in unison with the formation, and general use of the term
in the New Testament, and with the present context. So
| wAnpwpa is employed, Lucian, Rerum Hist. ii. 37,°Amo dvo0
| “TAnpwpatov éuayovto—they fought from two filled vessels ;
~ and so, 38—révte yap elyov TANpwpyata—the ship being named
_ mAnpwpya from its full equipment. So the church is named
_ mXypwpua, or fulness, because it holds or contains the fulness
of Christ. It is the filled-up receptacle of spiritual blessing,
from Him, and thus it is His +Aypwpa, for He ascended—ive
mAnpbon Ta wdvta. Again, Col. ii. 10—xai date ev adre
meTAnpwuéevoi—“in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily, and in Him ye are filled,’—ye have become His
mripwpa or fulness. John i. 16—* Of His fulness have all
we received, and so we become His fulness.” Believers are

.
r

3 Theodoret thus explains it—ixxrnciav, . .«geenyigues ree pir Xgeewes copa,
: wou Bi Targis wrrgwua® lwdnewes yag airhy warrelarey xaqueparen, wal oats iv
iF airs, xai iurigrarss nara wgopntinny Qwrir, This interpretation is wrong in one
i particular, but it rightly explains ea%geua,
: H

”

eae ind

114 "EPHESIANS I. 23.

filled with all the fulness of God—that fulness which dwells
in Him, iii. 19.

The tod which follows wAnpwpa I refer to Jesus; not to
God, as do Theodoret, Koppe, Winer, Wetstein, Meier, Alford,
Turner, and Stier. It is Jesus, the Head, who is spoken of ;
the church is His body, and the next clause stands in apposi-
tion—* which is also His fulness ”—

Ta jTavtTa év Taow TAnpovpévov. Tdis not found in the
Textus Receptus, but on the testimony of A, B, D, E, F, G, J,
K—the majority of minuscules, etc., and the Greek fathers, it
is rightly received into the text... Many take mAnpovpévou as
a passive, such as Chrysostom, Jerome,? Anselm, Wetstein,
Winer, and Holzhausen. So the Vulgate reads adimpletur.
Estius has a similar explanation, and also Bisping, who finds
it a proof-text for the dogma of the merit of the saints. The
exegesis of these critics almost necessitated such a view of
the participle. The idea of Beza, adopted by Dickson, is
better, viz., that the phrase is added to show that Jesus does
not stand in need of this supplement—wt qui eficiat omnia in
omnibus reverd. If the participle be taken as a passive form,
the words ta mavta év tdaox present a solecistic difficulty, and
we are therefore inclined, with the majority of interpreters, to
regard the participle as of the middle voice. Winer, § 38, 63
Similar usage occurs in Xenophon,’ Plato, and Pollux. The
force of the middle voice is—“ who fills for himself,” all in
all. The Gothic version has usfwlljandins—* filling;” and
the Syriac also has the active. Holzhausen capriciously
makes the phrase equivalent to das Hwige—the Eternal, that
is, Christ carries in Himself the fulness of eternal blessings.
Both nouns—zravta and mado1.—seem to be neuter, and are
therefore to be taken in their broadest significance—*“ who
fills the universe with all blessings.” In Col. i. 16, ra
mavta is used as the appellation of the universe which the
Son of God has created. 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. iit. 9. It
narrows the sense of the idiom to give 7aoe a masculine

1 Reiche, Comment. Criticus in N. T’., vol. ii. p. 144 ; Gottinge, 1859.

2 **Sicut adimpletur imperator, si quotidie ejus augeatur exercitus, et fiant nove
provincie, et populorum multitudo succrescat, ita et Christus in eo quod sibi
credunt omnia—ipse adimpletur in omnibus.”

3 Moulton, p. 323. * Hellen. 6, 2,14. *Gorg. 493. © Onomast. 164-175.

| EPHESIANS I. 23. | 115

signification, and confine it, with Grotius, Matthies, and Stier,

to members of the church—His body; or, with Michaelis, to
give it the sense of—“in all places;” or, with Harless and
de Wette, to translate it-—“in different ways and forms ;” or,
with Cramer, to interpret it as meaning, that religious bless-
ings are no longer nationally restricted, but may be enjoyed
by all! The preposition is instrumental, v. 18. Winer, §
48, a, 3, d. The true meaning is—“in all things,” as
Fritzsche rightly maintains. Comment. in Rom. xi. 12. The
idiom occurs, 1 Cor. xv. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 6; 1 Tim. iii 11;
Tit. ii. 9. Macknight, preceded by Whitby, takes wavta as a
masculine—*“ who fills all his members with all blessings.”
But why should the adjective dwindle in meaning? Why
should 7a wdvta be less comprehensive here than the repeated
indefinite wdvra of the preceding verse? On the one hand
the verse speaks nothing for the ubiquity of Christ’s body,
nor does it bear such a reference to Gnostic philosophy and
- nomenclature as betokens a post-apostolical origin, as Baur
_ conjectures. Ebrard, Christ. Dogmatik, ii. p. 139; Martensen,
ibid. § 176, etc. But see also Thomasius, Christi Person und
Werk, vol. ii. § 45; Schmid, Die Dogmatik der Evang. Luth.
| Kirche, § 31, 32, 33.
_ The church, then, is the wA7pwpa—the glorious receptacle
of such spiritual blessings. And as these are bestowed in
no scanty or shrivelled dimensions—for the church is filled,
so loaded and enriched, that it becomes fulness itself—and
as that fulness is so vitally connected with its origin, it is
_ lovingly and truly named “the fulness of Christ.” The store-
house, “ filled with the finest of the wheat,” is the farmer's
fulness. The blessings which constitute this fulness, and
_ warrant such a name to the church—for they fill it to over-
flowing, “good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and
running over”—are those detailed in the previous verses of
the chapter. “All spiritual blessings,’ the Divine purpose
realizing itself in perfect holiness ; filial character and preroga-
_ tive ; redemption rooting itself in the pardon of sin; grace
exhibited richly and without reserve; the sealing and earnest
of the Spirit till the inheritance be fully enjoyed—the results
of the apostle’s prayer—Divine illumination ; the knowledge
and hope of future blessedness, and of the depth and vastness

fs

116 EPHESIANS I. 23.

of that Divine power by which the new life is given and sus-
tained, union to Jesus as the Body with the Head, the source
of vitality and protection—all these benefactions, conferred
upon the church and enjoyed by it, constitute it a filled
church, and being so filled by Christ, it is aptly and emphati-
cally called—His FULNEss.

And the exalted goodness of the Mediator is not confined
to filling the church. His benign influence extends through
the universe—ra mdvra, as gathered together in Him. As
all ranks of unfallen beings are beneath Him, they receive
their means of happiness from Him; and as all things are
beneath His feet, they share in the results of His Mediatorial
reign. The Head of the church is at the same time Lord
of the universe. While He fills the church fully with those
blessings which have been won for it and are adapted to it,
He also fills the universe with all such gifts as are appropriate
to its welfare—gifts which it is now His exalted prerogative
to bestow.

CHAPTER II.

THE apostle resumes the thought which he had broken off in
ver. 20. He wished the Ephesian saints to know what was
the exceeding greatness of God’s power toward those who
believe—a species of power exemplified and pledged in the
resurrection of Jesus. That power, he virtually intimates,
_ you have experienced, for he who gave life to Jesus gave life
_ to you, when you were dead in trespasses and sins.

(Ver. 1.) Kat tas dvtas vexpods tois mapattwpact Kal
_ tais duaptiais— And you being dead in trespasses and sins.”
We do not connect the words grammatically with ver. 20,
and we hold it to be a loose interpretation which Calvin,
_ Hyperius, Bloomfield, and Peile express, when they say that
this verse is a special exemplification of the general act of
_ Divine grace expressed in the last clause of the former chap-
_ter. The connection, as we have stated it, is more precise
_ and definite, for it is the resumption of a previous train of
thought. The verb which governs tds is not téragev, nor
érdnpwoe mentally supplied, nor the mAnpoupévov of the
_ preceding verse, as is supposed by Calovius, Cramer, Koppe,
_ Rosenmiiller, and Chandler, for “ filling” and death are not
homogeneous ideas. The governing verb is ouve{woroince
in ver. 5, as Jerome and (Ecumenius rightly affirm, though
the former blames Paul for a loose construction there—
conjunctionem vero causalem arbitramur, aut ab indoctis
_ scriptoribus additam, et vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso
_ Paulo, qui erat imperitus sermone sed non scientia, superflue
_usurpatam. The thought is again interrupted between vers. 1
and 4, as it had been between the previous ver. 20 and
ver. 1 of this chapter. The apostle’s mind was eminently
_ suggestive, influenced by powerful laws of mental association,
and prone to interpolate subsidiary ideas—but he resumes by
_8é in ver. 4. Bengel, Lachmann, and Harless separate the

4 117

118 EPHESIANS II. 1.

two chapters only by a comma, but the sense is complete at
the termination of the first chapter, and the xa/—giving
emphasis, however, to the following wtuas—continues the
discourse, signifying not “even,” but simply “and.”

The MSS. B, D, E, F, G, ete. the Syriac, Coptic, Arabic,
and Latin versions, with Jerome, Theodoret, and Ambrosi-
aster, place vua@y at the end of the verse. Lachmann has
~received it into the text, so has Tischendorf in his seventh
edition, with Hahn and Meyer. A has éavrwy, showing
emendation at work. It is long since attempts were made to
show a distinction between vapart@patra and dapaprias.
Augustine, in his twentieth question on Leviticus, says—
Potest etiam videri illud esse delictum, quod imprudenter, ulud
peccatum quod ab sciente committitur. Jerome says that the
former is—quast initia peccatorum, and the latter—cwm quid
opere consummatum pervenit ad finem. These definitions are
visionary and unsupported. On the other hand, Olshausen
regards maparTopata as denoting sinful actions, and duapriat
as indicating more the sinful movements of the soul in inclina-
tions and words. Meier, again, supposes the words to be
synonymous, but yet to be distinguished—wie Handlung und
Zustand—as action and condition. The opinion of Baum-
garten-Crusius is akin. Bengel imagines that the first term
had an emphatic reference to Jewish, and the last term to
Gentile transgressions—an opinion in which Stier virtually
concurs; while Matthies characterizes mapamtopata as spi-
ritual errors and obscurations, and dwapriac as moral sins and
faults. ‘Tittmann says that the first substantive refers to sin
as if rashly committed, and is therefore a milder term than
dpaptiat, which denotes a willing act. De Synonymis, etce.,
p. 45. Lastly, Harless gives it as his view, that wapdmropa
denotes the concrete lapse—the act, while the term duapriat,
as the forcible plural of an abstract noun, signifies the mani-
festations of sin, without distinguishing whether it be in
word, deed, or any other form. Crocius, Calovius, Flatt,
Meyer, and Riickert regard the two words as synonymous.
(IIapartwya has been explained under i. 7.) Perhaps while
the first term refers to violations of God’s law as separate and
repeated acts, the last, as de Wette supposes, may represent
all kinds of sin, all forms and developments of a sinful nature.

EPHESIANS I, 1. 119

Thus wapart@para, under the image of “ falling,” may carry
_ an allusion to the desires of the flesh, open, gross, and palp-
_ able, while duapréas, under the image “missing the mark.”
may designate more the desires of the mind, sins of thought
and idea, of purpose and inclination. Miiller, Zehre von der
Siinde, vol. i. p. 118; Buttmann, Lexil. p. 79, ed. Fishlake ;
Fritsche, in Rom. v. 12. The two words in close connection
must denote sin of every species, form, and manifestation, of
intent as well as act, of resolve as well as execution, of
inner meditation as well as outer result, In Ps. xix. 13,
‘14, there is apparently a contrast between the terms—the
last being the stronger term—wapartwpata tis ovrrces, and
then xa@apicOncopar dd dyaptias peyddns. The article
before each of the nouns has, according to Olshausen
and Stier, this foree—Sins, “which you are conscious of
having committed.” We prefer this emphasis—Sins, which
are well known to have characterized your unconverted
state.

In the corresponding passage in Col. ii. 13, év precedes the
substantives, and denotes the state or condition of death.
Compare also, for the use and omission of éy in a similar
clause, Eph. ii. 15 with Col. ii. 14. Though that preposition
be wanting here, the meaning, in our apprehension, is not
_ very different, as indeed is indicated by the phraseology of
_ ver. 2—‘“in which ye walked.” The “trespasses and sins”
_ do not merely indicate the cause of death, as Zanchius, Meier,
Ellicott, and Harless maintain, but they are descriptive also
_ of the state of death. They represent not simply the in-
_ strument, but at the same time the condition of death.
_ The dative may signify sphere. Winer, 31, 6; Donaldson,
_ §456. The very illustration used by Alford, “sick in a fever,”
_ represents a condition, while it points to a cause. Sin has
- killed men, and they remain in that dead state, which is a
: criminal one—éyxAnua éyet, as adds Chrysostom. Quite

: foreign to the meaning of the context is the opinion of Cajetan

and Barrington, who would render the phrase neither dead by
"nor dead in trespasses and sins, but dead ¢o trespasses and
sins. Appeals to clauses and modes of expression in the
Epistle to the Romans are out of place here, the object of
"illustration being so different in the two epistles Such a

120 ‘EPHESIANS If. 1.

sense, moreover, would not harmonize with the vivification
described in ver. 5.

The participle évras points to their previous state—that
state in which they were when God quickened them—and is
repeated emphatically in ver. 5. The adjective vexpds is
usually and rightly taken in a spiritual sense. 1. But Meyer
contends for a physical sense, as if it were equivalent to certo
moriturt, and Bretschneider vaguely renders it by morti
obnoxii. This exegesis not only does violence to the terms, but
it is plainly contradicted by the past tense of the verb—
ovvetworroince. The life was in the meantime enjoyed, and
the death was already past. (The reader may consult what is
said under i. 19.) Meyer’s opinion is modified in his last
edition, and he speaks now of eternal death—der ewige Tod.
But this is not the apostle’s meaning, for he refers to a past,
not a future death. 2. Some, such as Koppe and Rosenmiiller,
give the words a mere figurative meaning; wretched, miser-
able—misert, infelices. Such an idea is indeed involved in
the word, but the exegesis does not express the full meaning,
does not exhaust the term. The term, it is true, was often
employed both by the rabbinical’ and classical writers? in a
sense similar to its use before us. But the biblical phrase is
more expressive than the 0°. of the Jewish doctors, or the
satirical epithets of Pythagorean or Platonic preceptors.’
Without putting any polemical pressure on the phrase, we
may regard it as spiritual death, not liability to death, but
actual death—véxpwous wuyixn, as Theophylact terms it.
The epithet implies: 1. Previous life, for death is but the
cessation of life. The Spirit of life fled from Adam’s dis-
obedient heart, and it died in being severed from God. 2. It
implies insensibility. The dead, which are as insusceptible as

1Talmud, Berachoth, 3; Levi Gerson, Comment. in Pentat. p. 192; Schoettgen,
Hore Hebraice, 1 Tim. v. 6; Pococke, Porta Mosis, p. 185.

2 Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. lib. v.; Arrian, Diss. 43 ; Epictet. Anton.
4, 41.

3 Raphelius, Annotat. Philol. p. 469. Clement of Alexandria remarks, that
in the barbaric philosophy, apostates were called dead vexpods xadrovios rods
ixaicovras trav doymarwyv—Strom. v. p. 574. Jamblichus (De Vita Pythag.
xxxiv.) says, that for rejected apostates a cenotaph was built by their former
fellow-pupils. Origen, Contra Celsum, lib. iii. See also Brucker, Dissertat.
Exeget. in loc, in the Tempe Helvetica, ii. 58, ,

;

EPHESIANS IL. 2, 121

their kindred clay, can be neither wooed nor won back to
existence. The beauties of holiness do not attract man in his
spiritual insensibility, nor do the miseries of hell deter him.
God’s love, Christ’s sufferings, earnest conjurations by all that
is tender and by all that is terrible, do not affect him. Alas!
there are myriads of examples. 3. It implies inability. The
corpse cannot raise itself from the tomb and come back to the
scenes and society of the living world. The peal of the last
trump alone can start it from its dark and dreamless sleep.
Inability characterizes fallen man. Nexpoi, says Photius,
dcov pos évépyerav ayafod twos. And this is not natural
but moral inability, such inability as not only is no palliation,
but even forms the very aggravation of his crime. He
cannot, simply because he will not, and therefore he is justly
responsible. Such being man’s natural state, the apostle
characterizes it by one awful and terrific appellation—“ being
dead in trespasses and sins.”

(Ver. 2.) "Ev als roté repreatjoate— In which ye once
walked.” This use of the verb originated in the similar
employment of the Hebrew 727, especially in its hithpahel
conjugation, in which it denotes “course of life.’ The als
agrees in gender with the nearest antecedent—dpapriais, but
refers, at the same time, to both substantives. Kuler,
§ 786, 2; Matthiae, § 441,2,c. The ev marks out the sphere
or walk which they usually and continually trod, for in this
sleep of death there is a strange somnambulism. Col. iii. 7.
The figure in epurateivy has been supposed to disappear and
leave only the general sense of vivere, as Fritzsche maintains
on Rom. xiii. 13, yet the idea of something more than mere
existence seems to be preserved. It is life, not in itself, but
_ in its manifestations. Thus living and walking are placed in
logical connection—rvevmate Tepurateire is different plainly
from fepev mvevuats. Gal. v. 16, 25. Though there was
spiritual death, there was yet activity in a circuit of sin, for
_ physical incapacity and intellectual energy were not impaired.
Yea, “the dead,” unconscious of their spiritual mortality,
- often place up, as their motto of a lower life—“Dum vivimus
_ vivamus.”* But this sad period of death-walking was past—
_moré. Their previous conduct is next described as being—
| 1« Mori vero in peccatie, est peecatis vivere.”—Rollock, in loc.

123 EPHESIANS II. 2.

kata Tov ai@va Tov Koowouv TovTov—“ according to the
course of this world ”—xara, as usual, expressing conformity.
Semler, Beausobre, Brucker, Michaelis, and Baur (Paulus, p.
433) take the aiwy as a Gnostic term, and as all but identical
with the Being described in the following clauses—the evil
genius of the world. Such a sense is non-biblical and very
unlikely, yea rather, impossible. Others, such as Estius,
Koppe, and Flatt, regard aidyv and xocpos as synonymous,
and understand the phrase as a species of pleonasm. The
translation of the Syriac is alliterative—mloto\s
luct ko\s9—“the worldliness of this world,’ or the
“secularity of this seculum.” But the aiwy defines some
quality, element, or character of the xooycs. It is a rash
and useless disturbance of the phraseology which Riickert
on the one hand suggests—xatad tov al@va tovtov Tod
koopov; or which is proposed by Bretschneider on the other
—0O KOcpmos TOU aidvos TovTov, meaning—homines pravi, ut
nune sunt. Aiwyv sometimes signifies in the New Testament
—‘“this or the present time ”—certain aspects underlying it.
Gal. i. 4. Anselm and Beza would render it simply—* the
men of the present generation ;” but in the connection before us
it seems to denote mores, vivendi ratio—not simply, however,
external manifestations of character, but, as Harless argues,
the inner principle which regulates it— Weltleben in geistiger,
ethischer Beziehuwng—* world-life in a spiritual, ethical rela-
tion.” It is its “course,” viewed not so much as composed
of a series of superficial manifestations, but in the moving
principles which give it shape and distinction. It is, in short,
nearly tantamount to what is called in popular modern phrase,
“the spirit of the age”—r7v mapodcayv Swnv, as Theodoret
explains it. The word has not essentially, and in itself, a bad
sense, though the context plainly and frequently gives it one.
Kocpos, especially as here, and followed by odros, means the
world as fallen away from God—unholy and opposed to God.
John xin 3.) yxviil..36 2 1 Cor... 20,111 19, v; 10: Gal, iv. 3.
None of the terms has a bad meaning in or by itself; nor does
the apostle here add any epithet to point out their wickedness.
But this use of the simple words shows his opinion of the

world, and he condemns it by his simple mention of it, while —

the demonstrative otros confines the special reference to the

a

EPHESIANS Il. 2. 123

time then current. The meaning therefore is, that the Ephe-

sians, in the period of their irregeneracy, had lived, not
_ generally like other men of unholy heart, but specifically like

the contemporaneous world around them, and in the practice of
such vices and follies as gave hue and character to their own
era. They did not pursue indulgences fashionable at a former
epoch, but now obsolete and forgotten. Theirs were not the
idolatries and impurities of other centuries. No; they lived
as the age on all sides of them lived—in its popular and
universal errors and delusions; they walked in entire con-
formity to the reigning sins of the times.

The world and the church are now tacitly brought into
contrast as antagonistic societies; and as the church has its
own exalted and glorious Head, so the world is under the
control of an active and powerful master, thus characterized—

| Kara tov dpyovta tis éEovclas tov aépos—* According to
_ the prince of the power of the air”—x«ara being emphatically
repeated. The prince of darkness is not only called dpyv,
but o Oeds Tod aidvos tovrov, 2 Cor. iv. 4; and his ¢Eougia is
mentioned Acts xxvi. 18. Again, he is styled 6 dpywv tov
Kogpov tovrov. John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11. His _princi-
pality is spoiled, Col. ii. 15, and Jesus came to destroy his
works. 1 John iii. 8. Believers are freed from his power.

1 John v. 18; Col. i. 13. The language here is unusual,
and therefore difficult of apprehension, and the modes of
_ explanation are numerous, as might be expected.

Flatt is inclined to take éfouvc/as in apposition with dpyovta
—qui est princeps, or, as Clarius and Rosenmiiller render 1t~—
_ princeps potentissimus. There is no occasion to resort to this
syntactic violence. "Efovoia does not seem to signify simply
“might,” as Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, and Theophylact
hold; but it is rather a term describing the empire of spirits
* over whom Satan presides—-spirits, so called, either as pos-
sessed of power, as Riickert and Harless think, or rather,
_ because they collectively form the principality of Satan, as
Zanchius and Baumgarten-Crusius imagine—a meaning which
F, nouns similarly formed, as dovAe/a, ouppayia, frequently have.
Bernhardy, p. 47. Such passages as Luke xxii. 53 and Col.
_ i. 13 show that the opinion which joins both views is justified
_ by biblical usage.

ws

124 EPHESIANS II. 2.

’Anp does not denote that which the éfouc/a commands or
controls, as Erasmus, Beza, Flacius, and Piscator suppose, but
it points out the seat or place of dominion; not, however, in
the sense of Robinson, von Gerlach, Barnes, and Doddridge.
Holzhausen propounds the novel interpretation, that the
apostle understands by the “power of the air”—die heid-
nische Gétterwelt, “ the heathen world of gods.” That ajp of
itself should signify darkness, is an opinion which cannot be
sustained. Heinsius,' Estius, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Bisping,
and Hodge identify the term with oxotos, in ver. 12 of the
6th chapter, or in Col.i. 13. The passages adduced from the
ancient writers, such as Homer,’ Hesiod, and Plutarch, in
support of this rendering, can scarcely be appealed to for the
usage of the term in the days of the apostle. The word in a
feminine form signified fog or haze, and is derived from do,
anuti— I breathe or blow,” and is used in opposition to aiOnp
—‘“the clear upper air;” and it has been conjectured that
the original meaning of the term may have suggested its use
to the apostle in the clause before us.

But more specially, 1. Some of the Greek fathers take the
genitive as a noun of quality—* prince of the aérial powers”
—dacwparor Svvdpers. Thus Chrysostom—Todro radw gdyot
Ste Tcv wTroupdviov exel TOTOV, Kal TvevpaTa TadW aépla at
acwpatot Suvapes eicly adtod évepyodvros—“ Again he says
this, that Satan possesses the sub-celestial places, and again,
that the bodiless powers are aérial spirits under his operation.”
(Ecumenius quaintly reasons of this mysterious dpywv, “that
his apy is under heaven, and not above it; and if under
heaven, it must be either on earth or in the air. Being a
spirit, it is in the air, for they have an aérial nature.” With
more exactness, Cajetan describes this host as having subéile
corpus nostris sensibus ignotum, corpus simplex ac incorruptible.
Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, refers also to the
depiwv mvevyadtev. The opinion of Harless is much the same
as that of Olshausen—“ These evil powers are certainly not
earthly, and as certainly they are not heavenly,” and they are
therefore named by an epithet which defines neither the one
nor the other quality. This is substantially the interpretation

' Kxercitat, sac. p. 459.
?Damm, Lexicon, sub voce ; Buttmann, Lezilogus, ibid.

EPHESIANS IL. 2, 125

of CEcumenius, of Hahn, and of Hofmann, Schriftb. p. 455.
The interpretation of Moses Stuart is virtually identical,’ and
the notion of Stier is not altogether different, but it is some-
what mystically expressed. The view of a-Lapide and
Calixtus, that those “aérial” imps could and did raise storms
and hurricanes, is as puerile on the one side, as that of Calvin
and Beza is vaguely figurative on the other—that man is in
as great and constant danger from those fiends, as if they
actually inhabited the air. Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus
take “air” by a metonymy as meaning earth and air together,
or the earth surrounded by the air—an opinion connected
with the reading of F, G—dépos rovrov—and of the Vulgate,
aéris hujus. Others, not satisfied with these fanciful opinions,
give the epithet “aérial” a figurative signification. So
Rieger alleges, that the power of these evil spirits resembles
that of the atmosphere —swift, mighty, and invisible.
Cocceius also takes the term metaphorically, as if it described
that darkness, blindness, and danger on “slippery places,”
which Satan inflicts on wicked men. Bucer says indeed, that
the apostle describes the air as the habitation of fallen and
wicked spirits—ex peculiari revelatione. But, 2. There are
others who argue, that the apostle borrowed the notion either
from the Pythagorean or Gnostic demonology. Wetstein
afirms— Paulus ita loquitur, ex principiis philosophia
Pythagoree, quibus ili ad quos scribit imbuti erant. The
Pythagorean philosophy, it is true, had opinions not unlike
that supposed to be expressed by the apostle. Plutarch says
—itraiOpov dépa nai tov troupdviov bvta Kai Beav Kal
Saipovev peortov.? Diogenes Laertius records, that according
to Pythagoras, the air was full of spirits—dvta tov dépa
wuxyav eueov. Apuleius, Maximus Tyrius, Manilius,
Chalcidius, and others, make similar avowals, as may be found
at length in the quotations adduced by Wetstein, Elsner,’ and
Dougteust The same sentiments are also found in Philo,
in his treatises De Gigantibus® and De Plantatione* Nay,

1 Bibliotheca Sacra, 1848, p. 140 ; Maimonides, Morch Nevochim, iii. ¢. 51;
Buxtorf, Lezic. Talmud, sub voce 5X00,

2 Quast. Rom. i. p. 274, also in his De Iside et Osiride, p. 361.

3 Observat. p. 206. * Analecta, p. 127,

® Opera, cura Pleiffer, ii. p. 359. ® Do. iii. p. 93.

126 EPHESIANS II. 2.

Augustine held that the demons were penally confined to the
air—damnatum ad aérem tanquam ad carcerem. Comment. on
Ps. cxliiii And Boyd (Bodius), as if dreaming of a Scottish
fairy-land, thinks that the devil got the principality of the air
from its connection with us, who live partly on earth and
partly in air, and that his relation to sinful man is seen in
his union with that element which is so essential to human
life. But is it at all likely that the inspired apostle gave
currency to the tenets of a vain philosophy—to the dreams
and delusions of fantastic speculation? Besides, there is no
polemical tendency in this epistle, and there was no motive to
such doctrinal accommodation. Gnosticism is always refuted,
not flattered, by the apostle of the Gentiles. 3. Others, again,
such as Meyer and Conybeare, suppose that the language of
the rabbinical schools is here employed. Harless has
carefully shown the falsity of such a hypothesis. A passage
in Rabbi Bechai, in Penta. p. 90, has been often quoted, but
the Rabbi says—*“ The demons which excite dreams dwell in
the air, but those which tempt to evil inhabit the depths
of the sea,” whereas these submarine fiends are the very class
which the apostle terms the principality of the air.1 Some of
the other quotations adduced from the same sources are based
upon the idea that angels are furnished with wings, with
which, of course, they flutter in the atmosphere, as they
approach, or leave, or hasten through our world. Sciendum,
says the Munus Novum, as quoted hy Drusius, a terra usque
ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et preefectis, omnesque
stare et volitare in aére. These notions are so puerile, that the
apostle could not for a moment have made them the basis of
his language.” The other six places in which dnp occurs
throw no light on this passage, as it is there used in its
ordinary physical acceptation.

In none of these various opinions can we fully acquiesce.
That the physical atmosphere is in any sense the abode of
demons, or is in any way allied to their essential nature,
appears to us to be a strange statement.? When fiends move
from place to place, they need not make the atmosphere the

1 Kisenmenger, Entdecktes Juden. p. 437.
* Bartolocci, i. p. 320. Testament. xii. Patr. p. 729.
3 But see Cudworth, Intellectual System, vol. ii. p. 664, ed. Lond. 1845.

-FPHESIANS II. 2. 127

chief medium of transition, for many of the subtler fluids of
nature are not restricted to such a conductor, but penetrate
the harder forms of matter as an ordinary pathway. There
is certainly no scriptural hint that demons are either compelled
to confinement in the air as a prison, or that they have chosen
it as a congenial abode, either in harmony with their own
nature, or as a spot adapted to ambush and attack upon men,
into whose spirit they may creep with as much secrecy and
subtlety as a poisonous miasma steals into their lungs during
their necessary and unguarded respiration. We think,
therefore, that the dnp and xéopos must correspond in relation.
_ Just as there is an atmosphere round the physical globe, so
an ayjp envelopes this xdapos. Now, the xocyos is a spiritual
world—the region of sinful desires—the sphere in which live
and move all the ungodly. We often use similar phraseology
when we say “the gay world,” “the musical world,” “the
literary world,” or “the religious world;” and each of these
expressive phrases is easily understood. So the xcoopos of the
New Testament is opposed to God, for it hates Christianity ;
the believer does not belong to it, for it is crucified to him
and he to it. That same world may be an ideal sphere,
comprehending all that is sinful in thought and pursuit—a
region on the actual physical globe, but without geographical
boundary—all that out-field which lies beyond the living
church of Christ. And, like the material globe, this world of
death-walkers has its own atmosphere, corresponding to it in
character—an atmosphere in which it breathes and moves.
All that animates it, gives it community of sentiment, con-
- tributes to sustain its life in death, and enables it to breathe
- and be, may be termed its atmosphere. Such an air or
atmosphere belting a death-world, whose inhabitants are
vexpol Tois maparTwpact kal Tais duaptiass, is really Satan's
seat. His chosen abode is the dark nebulous zone which
canopies such a region of spiritual mortality, close upon its
inhabitants, ever near and ever active, unseen and yet real,
unfelt and yet mighty, giving to the xécyos that “form and
pressure ”"—that aiwv—which the apostle here describes as
its characteristic element. If this interpretation be reckoned
too ingenious—and interpretations are generally false in
\4 proportion to their ingenuity—then we can only say, that

128 EPHESIANS II. 2,

either the apostle used current language which did not convey
error, as Satan is called Beelzebub without reference to
the meaning of the term—“ Lord of flies;” or that he meant
to convey the idea of what Ellicott calls “ near propinquity,”
for air is nigh the earth; or that he embodies in the clause
some allusions which he may have more fully explained
during his abode at Ephesus.

In their trespasses and sins they walked—xata—“ according
to” the prince of the power of the air. This preposition used
in reference to a person, as here, signifies “according to the
will,” or “conformably to the example.” This dark prince-
dom is further identified as—

TOU TVEvMLATOS TOD Viv évepyooVTOS ev Tots Viols THs aTreOelas
—of the spirit which now worketh in the children of dis-
obedience.” The connection with the preceding clause is
somewhat difficult of explanation. Flatt supposes it, though it
is in the genitive, to be in apposition to the accusative apyovra,
So, apparently, Ambrosiaster, who has the translation—spiri-
tum. Bullinger cuts the knot by rendering—qui est spiritus,
and so Luther by his—ndmlich nach dem Geist. Others, as
Piscator, Crocius, Riickert, and de Wette, suppose a deviation
from the right construction in the use of the genitive for the
accusative. Some, again, take wvevyartos in a collective sense,
as Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, and Holzhausen. Governed by
dpyovra, the meaning would then be—‘the prince of that
spirit-world,” the members of which work in the children of
disobedience. Winer, § 67,3. Meier and Ellicott take zvev-
patos as governed by apyovra, and they understand by wrvedpa
that spirit or disposition which reigns in worldly and ungodly
men, of which Satan may be considered the master. Meyer,
adopting the same construction, defines mvedua as a principle
emanating from Satan as its lord, and working in men. Har-
less, Olshausen, Matthies, and Stier take the word in apposition
with é£oveias, and governed by apyovra, and suppose it to
mean that influence which Satan exercises over the disobedient;
or, as Harless names it—wirksame teuflische Versuchung—
“actual devilish temptation ;” or, as Stier characterizes it—
eine verfinsternde tidtende Inspiration—* a darkening and killing
inspiration.” But how does this view harmonize with the —
phraseology ? Surely an influence, or principle, or inspiration

EPHESIANS IL. 2. 129

is not exactly in unison with dpywv. We cannot well say—
prince of an influence or disposition. We would therefore
take mvevpartos in apposition with éfovcias, but refer it to the
essential nature of the éfovela. It is a spiritual kingdom
which the devil governs, an empire of spirits over which he
presides. And the singular is used with emphasis. The
entire objective é€ovc/a, no matter what are its numbers and
varied ranks, acts as one spirit on the children of disobedience,
is thought of as one spirit, in perfect unity of operation and
purpose with its malignant apywv. Nay, the prince and all
his powers are so combined, so identified in essence and aim,
that to a terrified and enslaved world they stand out as one
mvevpa. In Luke iv. 33 occurs the phrase—mvedpua Saipovlou
axaQaprov. This “spirit” is in its subjective form called ro
mvejua ToD Kocpov. 1Cor.ii.12. And it isa busy spirit-world
—TOov vov évepyodvTos.

*AmeiOeva is not specially unbelief of the gospel, as Luther,
Bengel, Scholz, and Harless suppose, but disobedience, as the
Syriac renders it. It characterizes the world not as in direct
antagonism to the gospel, but as it is by nature—hostile to
the will and government of God, and daringly and wantonly
violating that law which is written in their hearts. Deut. ix.
23,24; Heb.iv.6. The phrase viol rijs amecBe/as is a species
of Hebraism, and is found v. 6; Col. iii. 6,etc. Compare Rom.
ii. 16, and Fritzsche’s remarks on it. The idiom shows the
close relation and dependence of the two substantives. As its
“children,” they have their inner being and its sustenance from
“ disobedience ;” or, as Winer says, they are “those in whom
‘disobedience has become a predominant and second nature,”
-§ 34, 3,3, 2. The adverb voy denotes “at the present time”
—the spirit which at the present moment is working in the
disobedient. Meier, not Meyer as Olshausen quotes, gives
‘the adverb this peculiar but faulty reference—“ The spirit
‘which yet reigns, though the gospel be powerfully counter-
“working it ;” and Olshausen as baselessly supposes it to mark
t the working of the devil is restricted, in contrast to the
mal working of the Holy Ghost. The viv appears to stand
contrast to the woré—“ Ye, the readers of this epistle, were

in such a condition, and those whom you left behind
hen you became the children of God, are in the same con-

I

,

130 EPHESIANS II. 3.

dition s¢zl.” There is, accordingly, no reason to render the
word nunc maxime, as if, as Stier argues, there was more than
usual energy on the part of Satan. As little ground have
Riickert and Holzhausen to suppose, that the clause denotes
some extraordinary manifestation of evil influence. The verse
is but a vivid description of the usual condition of the uncon-
verted and disobedient world. The world and the church are
thus marked in distinct and telling contrast. The church has
its head—xegarn ; the world has its—dpywv. That Head is
a man, allied by blood to the community over which He pre-
sides; that other prince is an unembodied spirit—an alien as
well as a usurper. The one so blesses the church that it
becomes His “ fulness,” the other sheds darkness and distress
all around Him. The one has His Spirit dwelling in the
church, leading it to holiness; the other, himself the darkest,
most malignant, and unlovely being in the universe, exercises
a subtile and debasing influence over the minds of his vassals,
who are “children of disobedience.” Matt. xiii. 38; John
viii. 44; Acts xxvi. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4. The apostle honestly
describes their former spiritual state, for he adds—including
himself—ouvtattes kal éavrov—as Theodoret says—

(Ver. 3.) "Ev ols kal jets dvres avertpddnpev tote év—
“ Among whom also we all had our conversation once in. . .”
The ofs does not refer to 7rapamtTa@pact, as is supposed by
the paraphrase of the Syriac version, and as is imagined by
Jerome, Estius, Cocceius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and Stier; but
it agrees with viois, as is argued by de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Meyer, Harless, Meier, Matthies, and Riickert. The
first év refers to persons, “among whom” as a portion of
them; and the second, in immediate connection with the
verb, to things. It appears altogether too refined to suppose,
with Stier, that in ver. 2, and in connection with the duaprias
of ver. 1, the apostle refers to the heathen world, and that in
this verse, and in connection with aapamtwya, he character-
izes the Jewish world. Least of all can the change from
“you” to “we” vindicate such a meaning. We wait till the
apostle, in a subsequent verse, makes the distinction himself.
The mets wavres is—we all, Jew and Gentile alike. See also
Rom, iv. 16, viii. 32; 1 Cor. xii, 13; 2 Cor. iii. 18. There
is not in this section such a characteristic definition of sins, as

EPHESIANS II. 3. 131

should warrant us to refer the one verse to Jews, and the other
to Gentiles. We cannot accede to such a view, though it is
advocated by Harless and Olshausen, and almost all the modern
commentators, with the exception of de Wette; advocated, too,
in former times by no less names than Pelagius and Calvin,
Zanchius and Grotius, Clarius and Bengel. As much ground is
there for Hammond's strange idea, that the Christians of Rome
are here described. Nor is there in the verse any feature of
criminality, such as should lead us to say that the apostle classes
himself among these sinners, simply, as some would have it, by
a common figure of speech. There is nothing here of which the
apostle does not accuse himself in other places. 1 Tim. i. 13.
dveotpadnpuév tote. 2 Cor. i. 12; Gal. i. 13; 1 Tim. iii.
15. This has much the same meaning with the similar
terms of the preceding verse, perhaps with the additional idea
of greater attachment to the scene or haunt; speciosius quam
ambulare, says Bengel. All we—all of us—Jew and Gentile,
were once so distinguished. For we walked—
év tais émuOupiats THs capKos nu@v—in the lusts of our
flesh.” This clause marks out the sphere of activity. 2ap§
signifies man’s fallen and corrupted nature, in its antagonisin
to the Spirit of God, and it probably has received such a
name because of its servitude to what is material and sensuous.
Not that we at all espouse the notion that sin has no other
origin than sensuousness, or that it is but the predominance
of sensuous impulse over the intellect and will. This theory,
befriended in some of its aspects by Kant and Schleiermacher,
has been overthrown with able argument by Miiller; and the
reply of de Wette, who had also adopted it, is a failure as a
defence. But though cap, in apostolic language, include the
will, and have a meaning which neither o@pa nor xpéas has,
the question still recurs, How has our whole nature come to
Hbe represented by a term which truly and properly denotes
only one part of it? Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie, p. 325.
Sap does sometimes stand in opposition to the human mvevpa,
1 Cor. v. 5, Col. ii. 5; but in such places its meaning 18
tricted by the antithesis. Gen. vi. 3. If what properly
ifies a portion of our nature come to signify the whole of
under a certain aspect, there must be some connection.
t is material, as odp£ naturally is, may represent what is

132 EPHESIANS II. 3.

external and so far unspiritual; while what is non-spiritual is
sinful, as being opposed to the Spirit of God. See Ebrard,
Christliche Dogmatik, § 323, vol. i. p. 463; Messner, Die
Lehre der Apostel, p. 207. °EmOuyia in such a connection,
has a stigma upon it, for it represents desires or appetites
which are irregular and sinful—such inclinations as are
formed and pursued by unregenerate humanity. The spiritual
life is dead, and therefore the odp& is unchecked in all its
impulses and desires. And the apostle adds—

movouvtes Ta OeAnuata THs capKos Kal Tov Stavol@v—
“doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts.” The
principal differences of interpretation respect the word dvavoay,
which has a good sense in the classics. The exegesis of the
Greek fathers is too vague. Chrysostom sums up the mean-
ing by saying —ovtéotw, ovdév mvevpatixoy povovvtes.
Stier denies that by capxés and Ssavoidy different species of
sin are indicated, but adds that the last term refers to reasons
or arguments—denkerei—which check or guide the flesh in
its sinful propensities. The view of Bengel is coincident.
This interpretation does not bring out the distinction between
the two terms—a distinction which the article before each
seems to intimate. The exegesis of Flatt is his usual hen-
diadys: “flesh and thoughts” stands for fleshly thoughts ; or,
as Crellius also latinizes it—cogitationes carnales. Some under-
stand by the terms “depraved fancies,” as Hase; others, like
Olshausen, “sinful thoughts, which have no sensual lust for
their basis;” and others, like Harless, “unresolute, shifting
thoughts, which determine the will.” Riickert and Meier
make it “immoral thoughts.” MAavovac in the plural is
found only here, and in the singular it stands often in the
Septuagint for the Hebrew 2>. In the plural, as if for Sa-
vonuata, it apparently denotes thoughts or sentiments, ideal
fancies and resolves. See Num. xv. 39; Isa. lv. 9. apé
in the first clause may signify humanity ss it is fallen and
debased by sin; while here the meaning is more defined and.
restricted to our fleshly nature. The general “ conversation ”
of disobedient men may be said to be “in the lusts of the
flesh,” but when their positive activity is described—o.odvtes
and when these émOvpia become actually OeAnuata—whe
inclinations become resolves, a distinction at once arises, an

sins of a grosser are marked out from those of a more spiritual
nature. Such is the view of Jerome. The “desires of the
flesh” are those grosser gratifications of appetite which are
palpable and easily recognized; and the “desires of the
thoughts,” those mental trespasses which may or may not be
connected with sensuous indulgences. Matt. xv. 19; Luke
xi. 17. Our Lord has exposed such “thoughts” as violations
of the Divine law. The cap€ is one, all its appetences are
like; but the word Scdvovaz is plural, for it describes what is
complex and multiform. See codéa:, Aristoph. Rana, v. 688 ;
and Sapientia, Cicero, Tusc. ii. 18. Thought follows thought,
as the shadows flit across the field on a cloudy summer day.
Men may scorn intemperance as a degrading vice, and shun it,
and yet cherish within them pride high as Lucifer’s, and
wrath foul and fierce as Tophet. Under the single head of
odp€ (Gal. v. 19, 20) the apostle includes both classes of
sins—*“ hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies,” as well as “adultery, fornication, murder, drunken-
ness, and revellings.’ The historian Polybius describes men
sinning, as many of them, &:a tv ddoyoriav—from want of
thought, as dua tiv dvow, by nature. Lib. xvii. cap. viii.
apud Raphel. But there is an awful and additional clause—
kal hyev téxva pice. opyjs—“and we were by nature
children of wrath.” This common reading is retained by
Tischendorf, followed by Riickert. Lachmann, however,
after A, D, E, F,G, J, has gvce réxva dpyjs. But ‘there
appears no good ground for departing from the order of the
Textus Receptus, the changed order wearing the aspect of an
emendation. ’Opy7 is not simply “punishment,” but that
just indignation which embodies itself in punishment. _ The
word is often so used in the New Testament. Téxva opyijs
resembles the previous viol tis deBelas, but implying, as
Alford says, “closer relation.” That phrase does not denote,
liable to disobedience, but involved in it; and therefore texva
épyiis does not signify—liable to wrath, but actually under it.
‘Thus, Deut. xxv. 2, M23 }2—a son of stripes—not liable to be
-scourged, but actually scourged. The idiom, then, does not
mean “worthy of wrath,” as the Greek fathers, when they
‘render it épyfs d£vot, and as Grotius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and
‘others have understood it; but it describes a present and

EPHESIANS Il. 3, . 133

134 EPHESIANS II. 3.

actual condition. The awful wrath of God is upon sinners, for
sin is so contrary to His nature and law, that His pure anger
is kindled against it. Nor is this dpyyn to be explained away
after the example of the early Fathers,’ as if it were simply
chastisement, xoNao1s—not judicial infliction, but benignant
castigation ; for as Alford well says—then the phrase would,
from its nature, imply that they had been “actually punished.”
"Opy7 is God’s holy anger against sin, which leads Him justly
to punish it. Rom.i.18. But God’s manifestation of wrath is
not inconsistent with His manifestation of love; for, to repeat
the oft-quoted words of Lactantius —Si Deus non irascitur
ampiis et injustis, nec pios gustosque diligit.

The apostle says further, réxva dvoe.—“ children by nature ;”
the dative, as Madvig says, defining “the side, aspect, regard,
or property on and in which the predicate shows itself,” § 40.
See also Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 688; Kiihner, 585,
Anmerk 1. ®vo1s—“nature”—in such an idiom, signifies
what is essential as opposed to what is accidental, what is
innate in contrast with what is acquired; as Harless puts the
antithesis—das Gewordene im Gegensatz zum Gemachten. This
is its general sense, whatever its specific application. Thus
—dappaxov diors’ is the nature of a drug, its colour, growth,
and potency. vous rod Alyvrrov® is the nature of the land
of Egypt—a phrase referring to no artificial peculiarity, but to
results which follow from its physical conformation. It stands
opposed to vomos or dvayxn, as marking what is spontaneous,
in contrast to what is enjoined or is inevitable. Thus Plato,
De Leg. lib. x—Some say that the gods are od dice: adda
tial vouois. Again, the noun is often used in the dative, or
in the accusative with «ata or wapd in descriptions of condi-
tion or action, and then its signification is still the same:
gicet tuprA0s— blind by nature,” not by disease ;* Tov ducer
dod\ov—“ the slave by nature,” that is, from birth, and not
by subjugation ;° of dvoec moXéucor—* warriors by nature,”
by constitutional tendency, and not by force of circumstances.°
And so in such phrases as, cata dvo.w—“ agreeably to nature,”
not simply to education or habit; mapa dvow—contrary not

1 Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce, 2 Odyss. x. 303.
3 Herodot. ii. 5, 4 Aristot. Nicomach. iii. 7.
* Dio Chrysost, xv. p. 239. § £lian, Var, Hist. iii. 22.

EPHESIANS II. 3. 135

to mere conventional propriety, but to general or ordinary
instinctive development; thus—o xara gvcw vids—*the
natural,” not the adopted “son.” The usage is similar in
the Hellenistic writers. Wisdom vii. 20, dices Lowv—* the
natures of animals,” not the habits induced by training.
Dice. mavres eicly didavror—“ all are by nature,” not by
training, “self-lovers.”’ vce rovnpds ov. being evil by
nature,”? and not simply by education. So also in the same
author—of the constitutional clemency of the Pharisees—
duce emvetxas Eyovow.’ Likewise in Philo, elpnvaios dice
' —* peaceful by nature,” not from compulsion ;* and in many
- other places, some of which have been collected by Loesner.
The usage of the New Testament is not different. Save
in Jas. iii. 7 and 2 Pet. i. 4, where the word has a significa-
tion peculiar to these passages, the meaning is the same
with that which we have traced through classical and
_ Hellenistic literature. If the term characterize the branches
of a tree, those which it produces are contrasted with such as
are engrafted (Rom. xi. 21-24); if it describe action or
character, it marks its harmony with or its opposition to
instinctive feeling or sense of obligation (Rom. i. 26, ii. 14;
1 Cor. xi. 14); if it point out nationality, it is that of descent
or blood. Rom. ii. 27; Gal. ii. 15. See Fritzsche on the
references to Romans. And when the apostle (Gal. iv. 8)
speaks of idols as being vac. “ not Gods,” he means that
idols become objects of worship from no inherent claim or
quality, but simply by “art and man’s device.” And so “we
are children of wrath,” not accidentally, not by a fortuitous
- combination of circumstances, not even by individual sin and
actual transgression, but “ by nature ”—by an exposure which
preceded personal disobedience, and was not first created by it;
an exposure which is inherent, hereditary, and common to all
the race by the very condition of its present existence, for
they are “so born” children of wrath. For vows does not
_ refer to developed character, but to its hidden and instinctive
sources. We are therefore not atomically, but organically
"children of wrath ; not each simply by personal guilt, but the
entire race as a whole; not on account of nature, but by

1 Joseph. Antig. iii. 8, 1. * Ibid. xi. 2, 2
+ Ibid. xiii. 10, 6. ‘ De Confusione Ling. C.

136 EPHESIANS II. 3.

nature. Wholly contrary, therefore, to usage and philology
is the translation of the Syriac Lu{s\so—plene ; that of Theo-
phylact, @icumenius, and Cyril, ai7@as or yvnoias—* really”
or “ truly ;” that of Julian, prorsus, and that even of Suidas
—‘“a constant and very bad disposition and long and evil
habits ”—dAXa tiv Eupovor Kai kaxiotny did0ecw Kal xpoviav
kal tovnpav cvvyGevav, for on the contrary, dvow and cuvy-
@eva are placed by the Greek ethical writers in contrast.
Harless adduces apt quotations from Plutarch and Aristotle.
Pelagius, as may be expected, thus guards his exegesis—Vos
paterne traditionis consuetudo possederat, ut omnes ad damna-
tionem nasci VIDEREMUR. Erasmus, Bengel, Koppe, Morus,
Flatt, de Wette, Reiche, and others, take the word as descrip-
tive of the state of the Ephesian converts prior to their con-
version, or, aS Bengel phrases it—citra gratiam Dei in Christo.
But, as Meyer observes, the status naturalis is depicted in the
whole description, and not merely by ¢vces. Such an inter-
pretation is also unsatisfactory, for it leaves untouched the
real meaning of the word under dispute. That the term may
signify that second nature which springs from habit, we deny
not. Natura had such a sense among the Latins'\—quod con-
suetudo in naturam vertit—but in many places where it may
bear this meaning, it still implies that the habit is in accord-
ance with original inclination, that the disposition or character
has its origin in innate tendencies and impulses. When Le
Clerc’ says that the word, when applied to a nation, signifies
tndoles gentis, he only begs the question; for that indoles or
vows in the quotations adduced by him, and by Wetstein
and Koppe, from Isocrates, the so-called Demetrius Phalereus,
Polyzenus, Jamblichus, Cicero, and Sallust, is not something
adventitious, but constitutional—an element of character
which, though matured by discipline, sprang originally from
connate peculiarities. The same may be said of Meyer's
interpretation—durch Entwickelung natiirlicher Disposition—
“through the development of natural disposition ;” for if that
disposition was natural, its very germs must have been in us
at our birth, and what is that but innate depravity? And
yet he argues that gvovs cannot refer to original sin, because

' Quintilian, i. 2; Sallust, Jugurtha, 87 ; Freund, Latein. Woérterbuch, sub voce.
2 Ars Critica, Londini, 1698, p. 194.

EPHESIANS II. 3. 137

the church doctrine on that subject is not the doctrine of Paul,
and one reason why Koppe will not take even the interpreta-
tion of Le Clerc is, that it necessarily leads to the doctrine of
original sin. Grotius, Meyer, de Wette, and Usteri (Paulin,
Lehrbegriff, p. 30) object that the word cannot refer to original
depravity, because it is only of actual sin that the apostle
speaks in the preceding clauses. So little has Grotius gone
into the spirit of the passage, that he says—that it cannot
refer to original sin, as the preceding verses show, in which
vices are described from which many of the ancients were free
—a quibus multi veterum fuere immunes. Usteri is disposed
to cancel dice: altogether, and Reiche (Comment. Criticus,
1859) dilutes it to a habitus naturalis connatus quasi, p. 147.
See also Episcopius, Jnstit. ii. 5, 2; Limborch, Thelog. Christ.
iii. 4, 17, p. 193; Amsteledami, 1686. We may reply with
Olshausen, that in this clause actual sins are naturally pointed
out in their ultimate foundation—“ in the inborn sinfulness of
each individual by his connection with Adam.” Besides, the
apostle means to say that by natural condition, as well as by
actual personal guilt, men are children of wrath. Had he
written «al dvres, as following out of the idea of moodvres,
there might have been a plea against our view of innate
depravity—“ fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the
_ mind, and being, or so being, children of wrath.” But the
apostle says, cal #jev—“ and we were,” at a point of time
prior to that indicated in wovodvtes. This exegesis is also
_ supported by the following clause—
cs wal of Aovroi—as also are the rest of mankind ;” not
- Gentiles simply, nor the remainder of the unbelieving Jews,
as is held by Stier and Bisping. Turner apparently imputes
our exegesis, which is simply and plainly grammatical, to want
_ of candour and to a desire to support a “preconceived doctrinal
theory.”

Having described the character of unregenerate men, the
apostle adverts to their previous condition. We and the
entire human family are by nature children of wrath, even as
Crellius himself is obliged to paraphrase it—velut haereditario
jure. Those who hold that jets refers to the Jews injure
their interpretation, and Harless and Olshausen unnecessarily
suppose that the apostle contrasts the natural state of the

|

_—_— se. re

138 EPHESIANS II. 3.

Jews with their condition as the called of God, though they
do not, like Hofmann, join dices to dpyis, as if the allusion
were to the Jews, and the meaning were—objects of God's
love as the children of Abraham, but of His anger as
children of Adam. Schriftb. i. p. 564. Thus Estius opposes
Jilit natura to filii adoptione ; and Holzhausen’s idea is—that
they were children of wrath “which rises from the ungodly
natural life.” To get such a meaning the article must be
repeated, as Harless says—rijs dices opyfns; or as Meyer, THs
TH pvoe, or, ex THs pvcews opyns. We do not imagine,
with many commentators, that @vcev stands in contrast with
xapitt. The former denotes a condition, and cannot well be
contrasted with an act or operation of God. Death by or in
sin, walk in lust, vassalage to Satan, indulgence of the dis-
orderly appetites of a corrupted nature, and the fulfilling of
the desires of the flesh and of the mind—these form a visible
and complex unity of crime, palpable and terrific. But that
is not all; there is something deeper still; even by nature, and
prior to actual transgression, we were “the children of wrath.”
The apostle had just referred to the e¢dp£—feeble and depraved
humanity, and knowing that “that which is born of the flesh
is flesh,” and that the taint and corruption are thus hereditary,
he adds, “and we were by nature,” through our very birth,
“children of wrath ;” that is, we have not become so by any
process of development. Thus also Miiller (Die Lehre von
der Stinde, ii. p. 378) says—*“ that they, that is, Christians,
from among the Jews as well as others, had been objects of
Divine punitive justice ”—wnach ihrer natiirlichen angebornen
Beschaffenheit Gegenstinde; and Lechler also calls man’s
natural condition—eine angeborne Zorneskindschaft d. h. eine
angeborne Verderbniss der Menschennatur. Das Apost. und das
nachap. Zeitalter, etc., p. 107. Barnes and Stuart’ deny,
indeed, that the use of this term can prove what is usually
called the doctrine of original sin. It is true that the apostle
does not speak of Adam and his sin, nor does he describe the
germs and incipient workings of depravity. It is not a
formal theological assertion, for ¢vcec is unemphatic in posi-
tion; but what is more convincing, it is an incidental allusion
—as if no proof were needed of the awful truth, How and
! Biblical Repository, 2nd ser, vol. ii. 38.

EPHESIANS Il. 3. 139

when sin commences is not the present question. Still the
term surely means, that in consequence of some element of
_ relation or character, an element inborn and not infused, men
are exposed to the Divine wrath. The clause does not, as
these critics hold, simply mean that men in an unconverted
state are obnoxious to punishment, but that men, apart from
all that is extrinsic and accidental, all that time or circum-
stance may create or modify, are “children of wrath.” As
Calvin says—Hoce uno verbo quasi fulmine totus homo quantus-
quantus est prosternitur. It would be, at the same time,
wholly contrary to Scripture and reason to maintain, with
Flacius, that sin is a part of the very essence and substance of
-our nature. The language of this clause does not imply it.
Sin is a foreign element —an accident — whatever be the
depth of human depravity.

It belongs not to the province of interpretation to enter into
any illustration of the doctrine expressed or implied in the
clause under review. The origin of evil is an inscrutable
mystery, and has afforded matter of subtle speculation from
Plato down to Kant and Schelling, while, in the interval,
Aquinas bent his keen vision upon the problem, and felt his
gaze dazzled and blunted. Ideas of the actual nature of sin
naturally modify our conceptions of its moral character, as
may be seen in the theories which have been entertained from
those of Manichean dualism and mystic pre-existence,’ to
those of privation,? sensuousness,® antagonism,‘ impreventi-
_ bility,®> and the subtle distinction between formal and real
_ liberty developed in the hypothesis of Miiller.° While admit-
_ ting the scriptural account of the introduction of sin, many
have shaped their views of it from the connection in which
they place it in reference to Divine foreknowledge, and so have

sprung up the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian hypotheses.
'Miiller, Die Christliche Lehre von der Stinde, vol. ii. p. 495, 3rd od. See
_ also Beecher’s Conflict of Ages.

_ *Leibnitz, Hesais de Théodicée sur la Bonté de Diew, etc., pp. 85, 86, 288.
_ Amsterdam, 1726. os

3De Wette, Christliche Sittenlehre, § 10, and Studien und Kritiken, 1849;
Rothe, Zthik, vol. i. pp. 98, 99 ; Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, § 66.
‘Lactantius, Instit, Divin. lib. ii cap. 8; 9; Hegel, Philosophie des Rechts,
§ 139.

5 The Mystery, or Evil and God. By John Young, LL.D. London, 1856.
§ Miiller, vol. ii. pp. 6-48,

, :
J

140 EPHESIANS II. 4.

Attempts to form a perfect scheme of Theodicy, or a full
vindication of the Divinity, have occupied many other minds
than that of Leibnitz. The relation of the race to its Pro-
genitor has been viewed in various lights, and analogies
physical, political, and metaphysical, with theories of Crea-
tionism and Traducianism, have been employed in illustration,
from the days of Augustine and Pelagius’ to those of Eras-
mus and Luther, Calvin and Arminius, Taylor and President
Edwards. Questions about the origin of evil, transmission of
depravity, imputation of guilt, federal or representative posi-
tion on the part of Adam, and physical and spiritual death as
elements of the curse, have given rise to long and laboured
argumentation, because men have looked at them from very
different standpoints, and have been influenced in their treat-
ment of the problem by their philosophical conceptions of the
Divine character, the nature of sin, and that moral freedom
and power which belong to responsible humanity. The modus
may be and is among “the deep things of God,” but the res
is palpable; for experience confirms the Divine testimony that
we are by nature “children of wrath,” per generationem, not
per imitationem.

(Ver. 4.) ‘O && Ocds, mrovatos dv ev éhéei— But God,
being rich in mercy.” The apostle resumes the thought
started in ver. 1, The Sێ not only intimates this, but shows
also that the thought about to be expressed is in contrast with
that which occupies the immediately preceding verses. The
fact of God’s mercy succeeds a description of man’s guilt and
misery, and the transition from the one to the other is indi-
cated by the particle 8é Hartung, vol.i. p. 173; Jelf, § 767.
Jerome rashly condemns the use of dé; but Bodius stigma-
tizes the patristic critic as judging—nimis profecto audacter et
hypercritice. ”E)eos signifies “ mercy,” and is a term stronger
and more practical than oixtipyds. It is not mere emotion,
but emotion creating actual assistance—sympathy leading to
succour. The participle #y does not seem to have here a
causal significance, as such an idea is expressed by the follow-
ing &d. And in this mercy God is rich. It has no scanty
foothold in His bosom, for it fills it. Though mercy has been
expended by God for six millenniums, and myriads of myriads

‘Wiggers, August. und Pelag. Kap. 20; Nitzsch, § 105, 107.

j

EPHESIANS II. 5. 141

have been partakers of it, it is still an unexhausted mine of

wealth—
Sia Thy TOMY ayarnv adTod, Ay Hydrncev Huas—< on
account of His great love with which He loved us.” The

former clause describes the general source of blessing; this

marks out a direct and special manifestation, and is in im-

_ mediate connection with the following verb. On the use of

a verb with its cognate noun carrying with it an intensity of
meaning, the reader may turn to i. 3, 6, 20; Winer, § 32, 2;
Kiihner, § 547. The *pas are Paul and his contemporary
believers, and, of course, all possessing similar faith. That

“love is oAA7j—great indeed ; for a great God is its possessor,

and great sinners are its objects, The adjective probably
marks the quality of intensity; indeed, while its generic

_ Meaning remains, its specific allusion depends upon its

adjuncts. The idea of frequency may thus be included, as
it seems to be in some uses of the word'—number being
its radical meaning. IIoAX7 dyarn, therefore, is love, the
intensity of which has been shown in the fervour and
frequency of its developments. See under i, 5. And what
can be higher proof than this—

(Ver. 5.) Kal dvras nuds vexpods tots tapartwpaciw—“ Us
being even dead in trespasses.” The «a/ does more than
mark the connection. It does not, however, signify “also,”
as Meier supposes—“ us, too, along with you;” nor, as Flatt,
Riickert, Matthies, and Holzhausen think, does it merely
show the connection of the tuas of ver. 1 with this judas of
ver. 5. Nor does it mean “yet,” “although,” as Koppe
takes it. In this view, to give any good sense, it must be
joined to the preceding verb—‘“He loved us, even though
we were dead in sins.” But such a construction destroys
the unity of meaning. With Meyer and Harless, we prefer
joining the «ai to the participle dvras, and making it signify
“indeed,” or when we “were truly” dead in sins. Hartung,

vol. i, p. 132. See chap. i. 11, 16.

ouvvetworolncey TH Xpiot@ —“ quickened together with

- Christ.” Some MSS. and texts have the preposition éy
_ before r@ Xpior@, but for this there is no authority, as the
_ dative is governed by the ovy- in composition with the verb,

1 Passow, Pape, Lez. sub voce.

142 EPHESIANS II. 5.

The cvy is repeated before the dative in Col. ii 13. The
entire passage, and the aorist form of the three verbs, show
that this vivification is a past, and not a future blessing. It
is a life enjoyed already, not one merely secured to us by our
ideal resurrection with Christ. The remark of Jerome is
foreign to the purpose, that the aorist is used with reference to
the Divine prescience—id quod futurum est, quasi factum esse
jam dixerit. We have already exhibited the validity of our
objection under i. 19. Theodoret’s interpretation is out. of
place,—éxeivou yap dvactavtos, kal fuels éAmifowev dvactn-
cecOat. Meyer's view has been already rejected under the
1st verse of this chapter; for as the death there described is
not a physical death to come upon us, but a death already
experienced, so this is not a physical resurrection to be enjoyed
at some distant epoch, but one in which, even now, we who
were dead have participated. Therefore, with the majority of
interpreters, we hold that it is spiritual life to which the apostle
refers. The exegesis of Harless, found also in the old Scottish
commentator Dickson, though it be cleverly maintained, is too
refined, and is not in accordance with the literal and sincere
appeal of the apostle to present Christian experience, for in his
opinion, life, resurrection, and glorification are said to be ours,
not because we actually enjoy them, but because Jesus has
experienced them, and they are ours in Him, or ours because
they are His. Olshausen advocates a similar view, though not
so broadly. Slichtingius and Crellius suppose that the verb
refers to the jus, not the ipsum factum ; and it is of necessity
the theory of all who, like Rollock and Bodius, maintain that
the resurrection and enthronement described are specially con-
nected with the body and its final ascension and blessedness,
The interpretation of Chrysostom—ei yap 1 dmapyn &4, Kab
nuets—“if the first-fruits live, so do we,” does not wholly
bring out the meaning. Theophylact’s exposition, which is
shared in by Augustine and Erasmus, is more acute. God
raised up Christ, éxetvoy évepye(a—Him in fact, but us duvdpes
vov—potentially now, but afterwards in fact also, Harless
compares the language with that in Rom. viii. 30, which Meyer
also quotes, where the verbs are all aorists, and where the last
verb refers to future but certain glory. But the apostle in
that verse describes, by the aorists, God’s normal method of

EPHESIANS II. 5. 143

‘procedure viewed as from the past—the call, justification, and
glorification being contained in a past predestination, and
regarded as coincident with it. The apostle is not appealing
to the Roman Christians, and saying, “God has called and
glorified you;” he is only describing God's general and
invariable method of procedure in man’s salvation, But here
he speaks to the Ephesian converts, and tells them that God
quickened them, raised them up, and gave them a seat with
Jesus. He is not unfolding principles of divine government -
but analyzing human experience, and verifying that analysis
by an appeal to living consciousness, Were no more intended
_by the words than Harless imagines, then they would be quite
as true of Christians still unborn as they were of Ephesian
believers at that time in existence, since all who shall believe
to the end of time were spiritually comprised in the risen
Saviour. Nay more, the sentiment would be true of men in
an unconverted state who were afterwards to believe. But
here the apostle speaks of union with Jesus not only as a
realized fact, but of its blessed and personal results. The
death was a personal state, and the life corresponds in cha-
‘Tacter. It is not a theoretic abstraction, but as really an
| individual blessing as the death was an individual curse. The
life and resurrection spoken of are now possessed, and their
connection with Christ seems to be of the following nature.
When God quickened and raised Christ, this process, as we
have seen, was the example and pledge of our spiritual vivi-
‘fication. When He was raised physically, all His people
were ideally raised in Him; and in consequence of this con-
| nection with Him, they are, through faith, actually quickened
and raised, i 19, 20. The object of the apostle, however, is
not merely to affirm that spiritual life and resurrection have
been secured by such a connection with Jesus, but that, having
been so provided, they are also really possessed. The writer
tells the Ephesians that they had been dead, and he assures
‘them that life in connection with Christ had been given them,
‘and not merely through Christ potentially secured for them,
‘and reserved for a full but future enjoyment. The verb
guvexadOicev, on which Olshausen and Harless lay stress as
Supporting their view, does not, as we shall see, at all support
their exegesis, In a word, the apostle appears to intimate

144 EPHESIANS II, 5.

not only that the mediatorial person of Jesus had a peculiar
and all-comprehending relation to His whole people, so that,
as Olshausen says, “Christ is the real type for every form of
life among them,” but that the Ephesian believers possessed
really and now these blessings, which had their origin and
symnbol in Jesus, the Saviour and Representative. And there-
fore the notion of Beza and Bloomfield, that cuv- in the
verb glances at a union of Jew and Gentile, is as wide of the
truth on the one side, as is on the other the opinion that it
means “after the example of”—the opinion of Anselm,
Marloratus, Koppe, Grotius, a-Lapide, and Rosenmiiller. See
on cata ini. 19. Calvin limits the possession too much to
objective happiness and glory laid up for us in Christ. The
‘ language of Crocius is better—vnos excitatos esse in Christo, ut
in capite membra; idque non potentia, non spe, sed actu et re
pst.

Now, the life given corresponds in nature to the death
suffered. It is therefore spiritual life, such as is needed for
man’s dead spirit. The soul restored to the divine favour
lives again, and its new pulsations are vigorous and healthful.
As every form of life is full of conscious enjoyment, this
too has its higher gladness; truth, peace, thankfulness, and
hope swelling the bosom, while it displays its vital powers in
sanctified activity: for all its functions are the gift of the
Vivifier, and they are dedicated to His service. That life may
be feeble at first, but “the sincere milk of the word” is
imbibed, and the expected maturity is at length reached.
Its first moment may not indeed be registered in the con-
sciousness, as it may be awakened within us by a varying
process, in harmony with the quickness or the slowness of
mental perception, and the dulness or the delicacy of the moral
temperament. The sun rises in our latitude preceded by a_
long twilight, which gradually brightens into morning; but
within the tropics he ascends at once above the horizon with —
sudden and exuberant glory. (For an illustration of God’s |
power in giving this life, the reader may consult under verses —
19 and 20 of the previous chapter.) Then follows the inter-
jected thought—

xapitl éore cerwopévoi—* by grace have ye been saved.”
The 6€ or yap found in some MSS. is a clumsy addition, and

j

EPHESIANS IL. 6. 145

ov, the genitive of the relative pronoun, occurring in Dt, E,
F, G (ob rH xdpere, or ob xdprrt), and plainly followed by the
Vulgate and Ambrosiaster, is rejected alike by Lachmann and
Tischendorf. The grace referred to is that of God, not of
Christ—as Beza supposes. The thought is suddenly and
briefly thrown in, as it rose to the apostle’s mind, for it
is a natural suggestion; and so powerfully did it fill and
move his soul, that he suddenly writes it, but continues the
illustration, and then fondly returns to it in ver. 8. This
mental association shows how closely Paul connected life
with safety—how mercy and love, uniting us to Christ, and
vivifying us with Him, are elements of this grace, and how
this union with Jesus and the life springing from it are iden-
tical with salvation. But he proceeds—
(Ver. 6.) Kai cvvyyepev— And raised us up with.” The
meaning of gup- is of course the same as in the preceding
cuveSworroince. Believers are not only quickened, but they
are also raised up; they not only receive life, but they ex-
perience a resurrection. The dead, on being quickened, do
not lie in their graves; they come forth, cast from them the
-cerements of mortality, and re-enter the haunts of living
humanity. Jesus rose on being vivified, and left His sepulchre
with the grave-clothes in it. His people enjoy the activities
as well as the elements of vitality, for they are raised out of
the spiritual death-world, and are not found “the living
among the dead.” It is a violation of the harmony of sense
to understand the first verb of spiritual life, and the second of
physical resurrection, or the hope of it, as do Menochius,
Bodius, Estius, and Grotius. Still more—
kal ovvexdOicev—“ and seated us together with.” This
verb is to be understood in a spiritual sense as well as the two
preceding ones. It is the spirit which is quickened, raised,
and co-enthroned with Christ. And the place of honour and
dignity is—
év Tois érovpaviows év Xpictw ‘Incob—“ in the heavenly
places in Christ Jesus.” This idiom has been already con-
sidered both under ver. 3 and ver. 20 of the 1st chapter.
It does not denote heaven proper, but is the ideal locality
of the church on the earth, as “the kingdom of heaven ”"—
‘above the world in its sphere of occupation and enjoyment.
| K

146 EPHESIANS II. 6.

The addition of éy Xpiot@ ’Inocod occurs also i. 3; and in
both places the epithet 7a ésrovpdwa points out the exalted
position of the church. Union to Christ brings us into them,
His glory is their bright canopy, and His presence diffuses
joy and hope. The év before Xpucr@ *Incod has perplexed
commentators, for cvy- is also in composition with the verb,
and would have been supposed to govern these nouns, had
not év been expressed. But éyv again, as frequently in the
previous portion of the epistle, defines the sphere, and refers
to the three aorists—so anxious is the apostle to show that
union to Christ is the one source of spiritual honour and
enjoyment. This spiritual enthronement with Jesus is not
more difficult to comprehend than our “royal priesthood.”
The loose interpretations of it by Koppe and Rosenmiiller rob
it of its point and beauty. Nor is the mere “ arousing of the
heavenly consciousness” all that is meant, as Olshausen
supposes. Indeed, Riickert, Meier, Matthies, and Conybeare
are nearer the truth. Our view is simply as follows—Our
life, resurrection, and enthronement follow one another, as in
the actual history of the great Prototype. But this “ sitting
with Jesus” is as spiritual as the life, and it indicates the
calmness and dignity of the new existence. The quickened
soul is not merely made aware that in Christ, as containing
it and all similar souls, it is enlivened, and raised up, and
elevated, but along with this it enjoys individually a con-
scious life, resurrection, and session with Jesus. It feels
these blessings in itself, and through its union with Him, It
lives, and it is conscious of this life; it has been raised, and it
is aware of its change of spiritual position. It is more than
Augustine allows—Nondum in nobis, sed jam in Illo—for it
feels itself in the meantime sitting with Jesus, not solely
because of its relation to Him in His representative character,
but because of its own joyous and personal possession of royal
elevation, purity, and honour. “He hath made us kings.”
Rev. i. 6. What is more peculiar to the spirit in this series
of present and beatific gifts, shall at length be shared in by
the entire humanity. The body shall be quickened, raised,
and glorified, and the redeemed man shall, in the fulness of
his nature, enjoy the happiness of heaven. The divine
purpose is—

EPHESIANS II. 7, 147

(Ver. 7.) "Iva évdeiEnrar év tots aldow ois érepyousvous—
“Tn order that He might show forth in the ages which are
coming ”—iva indicating design. The meaning of this verse
depends on the sense attached to the last word. Harless,
‘Meyer, Olshausen, de Wette, and Bisping, take them as
descriptive of the future world. Thus Theophylact also—Nov
pev yap Toddol amictovow, év b€ TH péAXovTe aldve wavtes
yrooovta: ti nuiv éxapicato, opaytes év adatw S0fn rods
aylovs ; the idea being that the blessings of life, resurrection,
and elevation with Christ now bestowed upon believers, may
be hidden in the meantime, but that in the kingdom of glory
they shall be seen in their peculiar lustre and pre-eminence.
Thus Wycliffe also—“in the worldlis above comying.” But

the language of this verse is too full and peculiar to have
only in it this general thought. Why should the greatness of
the grace that quickened and elevated such sinners as these
Ephesians, not be displayed till the realms of glory be reached ?
Or might not God intend in their salvation at that early age
to show to coming ages, as vicious as they, what were the
riches of His grace? The verb évde(Enrar, which in the New
Testament is always used in the middle voice, means to show
for oneself—for His own glory. Jelf, § 363, 1. Still,
the language of the verse suggests the idea of sample or
specimen. Paul, who classes himself with the Ephesians in
the *uas, makes this use of his own conversion. 1 Tim. i. 16.
The peculiar plural phrase ai@ves, with the participle
émepxopevor, denotes “ coming or impending ages.” Luke xxi.
26,37; Jas.v.1. The aiwy is an age or period of time,
and these ala@ves form a series of such ages, which were to
‘commence immediately. These ages began at the period of the
‘apostle’s writing, and are still rolling on till the second advent.
The salvation of such men as these Ephesians at that early
‘period of Christianity, was intended by God to stand out as a
choice monument to succeeding generations of “ the exceeding
Tiches of His grace ”—

70 brrepBddXdov TrODTOS THs xapiTos avTOD. The neuter form
is preferred by Tischendorf and Lachmann on the authority
of A, B, D'. F,G. Gersdorf, Beitrage, p. 282; Winer, § 9, 2,
hote 2. The participle imepSdddov has been already
explained i. 19. The conversion of the Ephesians was &

148 EPHESIANS II. 7.

manifestation of the grace of God—of its riches, of its over-
flowing riches. That was not restricted grace—grace to a few,
or grace to the more deserving, or grace to the milder forms
of apostasy. No; it has proved its wealth in the salvation of
such sinners as are delineated in the melancholy picture of
the preceding verses. Nay, it is couched—

ev xpnotoTnte ép nuas ev Xpiot@ ’Inoot—“in kindness
toward us in Christ Jesus.” Four terms are already employed
by the apostle to exhibit the source of salvation—édeos, ayarn,
xapis, ypnotoTns—conveying the same blessed truth in differ-
ent aspects. The first respects our misery ; the second defines
the co-essential form of this—édeos; the third characterizes
its free outgoing, and the last points to its palpable and
experienced embodiment. Trench, Syn. p. 192. Winer
suggests that é’ juds is connected with drepBarroy, § 20, 2, d.
But the structure of the sentence forbids altogether such a
connection, and the construction proposed by Homberg and
Koppe is as violent—rijs yapitos xal xpnororntos, supplying
évtas also to the phrase €vy Xpiot@ “Inood. The noun
xpnotorns may be followed itself by éaé, as in Rom. xi. 22, or
as when the adjective occurs, Luke vi. 35. We do not under-
stand, with Olshausen, that év ypnorornte is a closer
definition of the more general yapis. Nor is there any need
of a metonymy, and of taking the term to denote a benefit or
the result of a kindness. This kindness is true generosity, for
it contains saving grace. It is not common _ providential
kindness, but special “kindness in Christ Jesus,” no article
being inserted to show the closeness of the connection, and the —
preposition év again, as so often before, marking Christ Jesus
as the only sphere of blessing. See under i. 16. There is
an evident alliteration in yapis, ypnototns, Xpictos. The
kindness of God in Christ Jesus is a phrase expressive of the
manner in which grace operates. His grace is in His goodness.
Grace may be shown among men in a very ungracious way,
but God’s grace clothes itself in kindness, as well in the time
as in the mode of its bestowment. What kindness in sending
His grace so early to Ephesus, and in converting such men as”
now formed its church! 0, He is so kind in giving grace, and |
such grace, to so many men, and of such spiritual demerit and |
degradation ; so kind as not only to forgive sin, but even to

~

EPHESIANS II. 8, 149

forget it (Heb. viii. 12); so kind, in short, as not only by His
grace to quicken us, but in the riches of His grace to raise us
up, and in its exceeding riches to enthrone us in the heavenly
places in Christ! And all the grace in this kindness shown
in the first century is a lesson even to the nineteenth century.
What God did then, He can do now and will do now; and
one reason why He did it then was, to teach the men of the
present age His ability and desire to repeat in them the same
blessed process of salvation and life.

(Ver. 8.) TH yap xapiti éore cecwopévor ba Tis ric Tews —
“For by grace ye have been saved, through your faith.” The
particle yap explains why the apostle has said that the exceed-
ing riches of God’s grace are shown forth in man’s salvation,
and glances back to the interjectional clause at the end of
ver. 5. Salvation must display grace, for it is wholly of grace.
The dative yapcrs, on which from its position the emphasis
lies, expresses the source of our salvation, and the genitive
mlorews with Sid denotes its subjective means or instrument.
Salvation is of grace by faith—the one being the efficient, the
other the modal cause; the former the origin, the latter the
method, of its operation. The grace of God which exists
without us, takes its place as an active principle within us,
being introduced into the heart and kept there by the connect-
ing or conducting instrumentality of faith.

xapis— favour,” is opposed to necessity on the part of
God, and to merit on the part of man. God was under no
obligation to save man, for His law might have taken its
natural course, and the penalty menaced and deserved might
have been fully inflicted. Grace springs from His sovereign
will, not from His essential nature. It is not an attribute
which must always manifest itself, but a prerogative that may
either be exercised or held in abeyance. Salvation is an
abnormal process, and “grace is no more grace” if it is of
necessary exhibition. Grace is also opposed to merit on man’s
part. Had he any title, salvation would be “of debt.” The

two following verses are meant to state and prove that salva-

tion is not and cannot be of human merit. In short, the human
by

race had no plea with God, but God's justice had a high and

holy claim on them. The conditions of the first economy had
- been violated, and the guilty transgressor had only to antici-

150 EPHESIANS II. 8.

pate the infliction of the penalty which he had so wantonly
incurred. The failure of the first covenant did not either
naturally or necessarily lead to a new experiment. While man
had no right to expect, God was under no necessity to provide
salvation. It is “by grace.”?

But this grace does not operate immediately and univer-
sally. Its medium is faith— da ths wiotews. The two
nouns “grace” and “faith” have each the article, as they
express ideas which are at once familiar, distinctive, and
monadic in their nature; the article before yaputs, referring
us at the same time to the anarthrous term at the close of the
fifth verse, and that before wictews, giving it a subjective
reference, is best rendered, as Alford says, by a possessive.
Lachmann, after B, D’, F, G, omits the second article, but
the majority of MSS. are in its favour. It is the uniform
doctrine of the New Testament, that no man is saved against
his will; and his desire to be saved is proved by his belief of
the Divine testimony. Salvation by grace is not arbitrarily
attached to faith by the mere sovereign dictate of the Most
High, for man’s willing acceptance of salvation is essential to
his possession of it, and the operation of faith is just the
sinner’s appreciation of the Divine mercy, and his acquies-
cence in the goodness and wisdom of the plan of recovery,
followed by a cordial appropriation of its needed and adapted
blessings, or, as Augustine tersely and quaintly phrases it—
Qui creavit te sine te, non salvabit te sine te. Justification by
faith alone, is simply pardon enjoyed on the one condition of
taking it.

And thus “ ye have been saved ;” not—ye will be finally
saved ; not—ye are brought into a state in which salvation is
possible, or put into a condition in which you might “ work
and win” for yourselves, but—ye are actually saved. The
words denote a present state, and not merely “an established
process.” Green’s Gram. of New Test. 317. Thus Tyndale
translates—‘“ By grace ye are made safe thorowe faith.” The

1 This generic meaning of the word is the true one here, and it is not to be
regarded specially and technically as in the scholastic theology, and divided
into gratia preveniens, operans, co-operans; the first having for its object
homo convertendus ; the second, homo, qui convertitur; and the third, homo
conversus sed sanctificandus.

.

;
;

~

J
“4
A
\
5
vi

Ru

| EPHESIANS II. & . 151

context shows the truth of this interpretation, and that the
verb denotes a terminated action. If men have been spiritually
dead, and if they now enjoy spiritual life, then surely they
are saved. So soon as a man is out of danger, he is safe or
“saved.” Salvation is a present blessing, though it may not
be fully realized. The man who has escaped from the wreck,
and has been taken into the lifeboat, is from that moment a
saved man. Even though he scarce feel his safety or be
relieved from his tremor, he is still a saved man; yea, though
the angry winds may howl around him, and though hours may
elapse ere he set his feet on the firm land. The apostle adds
more precisely and fully—

kat TovTo ov« €€ bu@v— and that not of yourselves "—éx,
as it often does, referring to source or cause. Winer, § 47, b.
The pronoun rovdro does not grammatically agree with rictews,
the nearest preceding noun, and this discrepancy has origin-
ated various interpretations. The words «al tovro are
‘rendered “and indeed” by Wahl, Riickert, and Matthies.
This emphatic sense belongs to the word in certain connec-
tions. Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 6; Phil. i 28. The plural
is also similarly used. 1 Cor. vi. 8; Heb. xi. 12; Matthiae,
§ 470, 6. The meaning of the idiom may here be—“ Ay, and
this” is not of yourselves. But what is the point of reference ?

Many refer it directly to mioris—*“And this faith is not of
yourselves.” Such is the interpretation of the fathers Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, and Jerome. Chrysostom says—ovde 4
miotis é& nuav, ef yap ovx HrOev, ei yap pn exadece, TAS
novvdueba mistedoat, Jerome thus explains—Lt hac ipsa fides
non est ex vobis, sed ex eo qui vocavit vos. The same view is
taken by Erasmus, Beza, Crocius, Cocceius, Grotius, Estius,
Bengel, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and Hodge.
Bloomfield says that “all the Calvinistic commentators hold
this view,” and yet Calvin himself was an exception. There
are several objections to this, not as a point of doctrine, but
of exegesis. 1. If the apostle meant to refer to faith—miotss,
why change the gender? why not write «al airy To say,

with some, that faith is viewed in the abstract as To Wic-

Tevet, does not, as we shall see, relieve us of the difficulty.
2. Granting that «al todro is an idiomatic expression, and
that its gender is not to be strictly taken into account, still

;

152 EPHESIANS II. 8.

the question recurs, What is the precise reference of dapov ?
3. Again, 7iotis does not seem to be the immediate reference,
as the following verse indicates. You may say—‘“ And this
faith is not of yourselves: it is God’s gift;” but you cannot
say— And this faith is not of yourselves, but it is God’s gift ;
not of works, lest any man should boast.” You would thus
be obliged, without any cause, to change the reference in
ver. 9, for you may declare that salvation is not of works, but
cannot with propriety say that faith is not of works, The
phrase ov« €& épywy must have salvation, and not faith, as its
reference. The words from «at Tovro to the end of the verse
may be read parenthetically—* By grace are ye saved, through
faith (and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God), not of
works ;” that is, “By grace ye are saved, through faith,”
“not of works.” Even with this understanding of the para-
graph, the difficulty still remains, and the idea of such a
parenthesis cannot be well entertained, for the é& duar corre-
sponds to the €€ épywv. Baumgarten-Crusius argues that the
allusion is to iors, because the word dapoy proves that the
reference must be to something internal—auf Jnnerliches.
But is not salvation as internal as faith? So that we adopt
the opinion of Calvin, Zachariae, Riickert, Harless, Matthies,
Meyer, Scholz, de Wette, Stier, Alford, and Ellicott, who
make «al tovto refer to éote ceowopéevoir—“ and this state of
safety is not of yourselves.” This exegesis is presented in a
modified form by Theophylact, Zanchius, Holzhausen, Chandler,
and Macknight, who refer xat todro to the entire clause—
“this salvation by faith is not of yourselves.” Theophylact
saysS—ov Thy Tiati réyer SHpov Oeod, ddrAa Td Sia TloTews
owOivat, TovTo Sépov éott Ocod. But some of the difficulties
of the first method of interpretation attach to this. The «atl
touto refers to the idea contained in the verb, and presents
that idea in an abstract form. At the same time, as Ellicott
shrewdly remarks, “the clause xai tovro, etc., was suggested |
by the mention of the subjective medium—riotis, which
might be thought to imply some independent action on the >
part of the subject.” This condition of safety is not of your-

selves—is not of your own origination or procurement, though ©
it be of your reception. It did not spring from you, nor did |
you suggest it to God; but—,

|

4 EPHESIANS IL. 9. 153

Ocod 70 Sapov—* God's is the gift.” God's gift is the gift
—the genitive cod being the emphatic predicate in opposition
to buoy. Bernhardy, p. 315. Lachmann and Harless place
this clause in a parenthesis. The only objection against the
general view of the passage which we have taken is, that it is
somewhat tautological. The apostle says—‘“ By grace ye are
saved,” and then—“ It is the gift of God;” the same idea
being virtually repeated. True so far, but the insertion of the
contrasted ov« 連 tuay suggested the repetition. And there
is really no tautology. In chap. iii. 7 occur the words—xata
thv Swpedv THs xapiTos ToD Oeod; yapis being the thing
given, and dwpedy pointing out its mode of bestowment. Men
are saved by grace—tq ydpitt; and that salvation which has
its origin in grace is not won from God, nor is it wrung from
Him ; “ His is the gift.’ Look at salvation in its origin—it
is “by grace.” Look at it in its reception—it is “through
faith.” Look at it in its manner of conferment—it is a “gift.”
For faith, though an indispensable instrument, does not merit
salvation as a reward; and grace operating only through faith,
does not suit itself to congruous worth, nor single it out as its
sole recipient. Salvation, in its broadest sense, is God's gift.
While, then, «al rovdro seems to refer to the idea contained in
the participle only, it would seem that in Qceovd 7o d@pov there
is allusion to the entire clause—God's is the whole gift. The
complex idea of the verse is compressed into this brief ejacu-
_ lation. The three clauses, as Mever has remarked, form a
species of asyndeton—that is, the connecting particles are
_ omitted, and the style acquires greater liveliness and force.
- Dissen, Exc. ii. ad Pind. p. 273; Stallbaum, Plato—Crut.
ip. 144. 7
| Griesbach places in a parenthesis the entire clause from Kal
_ tovro to é& épywr, connecting the words iva yx Tes KavynonTas
with 8a rijs rictews, but the words ov« é& épywy have an
immediate connection with the %a—a connection which can-
E not be set aside. Matthies again joins ov« ¢§ épywv to the
foregoing clause—“ and that not of yourselves; the gift of
God is not of works.” Such an arrangement is artificial and
inexact. The apostle now presents the truth in a negative
~ contrast— ,

(Ver. 9.) Ovw && pywov—" Not of works "—the explanation

>

154 EPHESIANS II. 9.

of ovx €€ tuav. The apostle uses dua with the article before
m.otews in the previous verse, but here é€ without the article
before épywy—the former referring to the subjective instru-
ment, or causa apprehendens; the latter to the source, and
excluding works of every kind and character. Ex again refers
to source or cause. Schweighaiiser, Lex. Herodot. p.192. Sal-
vation is by grace, and therefore not of us; it is through faith,
and therefore not of works; it is God’s gift, and therefore not
of man’s origination. Such works belong not to fallen and
condemned humanity. It has not, and by no possibility can
it have any of them, for it has failed to render prescribed
obedience; and though it should now or from this time be
perfect in action, such conformity could only suffice for
present acceptance. How, then, shall it atone for former
delinquencies? The first duty of a sinner is faith, and what
merit can there be where there is no confidence in God?
“Without faith it is impossible to please Him.” The theory
that represents God as having for Christ’s sake lowered the
terms of His law so as to accept of sincere endeavours for
perfect obedience, is surely inconsistent in its commixture of
merit and grace. For if God dispense with the claims of His
law now, why not for ever—if to one point, why not altogether
—if to one class of creatures, why not to all? On sucha
theory, the moral bonds of the universe would be dissolved.
The distinction made by Thomas Aquinas between meritum
ex congruo and meritun. ex condigno, was too subtle to be
popularly apprehended, and it did not arrest the Pelagian
tendencies of the medizval church.

iva pn Tis Kavynontai— lest any one should boast.”
According to the just view of Riickert, Harless, Meyer, and
Stier, the conjunction marks design, or is telic; according
to others, such as Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Macknight,
Chandler, and Bloomfield, it indicates result—‘“so as that no
one may boast.” So also Theophylact—ro, yap, tva, ov«
aitioroyiKov EgTt, AXX’ Ex THs aToBdcews ToD TpaypyaTos ;
that is, the tva is not causal, but eventual in its meaning.
Koppe suggests as an alternative to give the words an im-
perative sense—“ Not of works: beware then of boasting.”
Stier proposes that the tva be viewed from a human stand-
point, and as indicative of the writer’s own purpose; as if the

EPHESIANS II. 10, 155

‘apostle had said—*Not of works, I repeat it, lest any one
‘Should boast.” This exegesis is certainly original, as its
author has indeed mentioned; but it is as certainly unnatural
-and far-fetched. Macknight has argued that fva cannot have
its telic force, for it would represent God as appointing our
‘Salvation to be by faith, merely to prevent men’s boasting,
“which certainly is an end unworthy of God in so great an
affair ;” but this is not a full view of the matter, for the apostle
‘does not characterize the prevention of boasting as God's only
end, but as one of His purposes. For what would boasting
‘imply? Would it not imply fancied merit, independence of
‘God, and that self-deification which is the very essence of sin ?
A pure and perfect creature has nothing to boast of ; for what
has he that he has not received? “ Now, if thou didst receive
‘it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?”
‘When God purposes to preclude boasting, or even the possi-
bility of it, He resolves to effect His design in this one way,
‘by filling the mind with such emotions as shall infallibly
banish it. He furnishes the redeemed spirit with humility
-and gratitude—such humility as ever induces man to confess
his emptiness, and such gratitude as ever impels him to ascribe
‘every blessing to the one source of Divine generosity. We
* ze no reason, therefore, to withhold from iva its natural and
‘primary sense, especially as in the mind and theology of the
‘apostle, event is so often viewed in unison with its source, and
‘result is traced to its original design, in the Divine idea and
notive. And truly boasting is effectually stopped. For if
‘Man be guilty, and being unable to win a pardon, simply
Teceive it ; if, being dead, he get life only as a Divine endow-
‘ment; if favour, and nothing but favour, have originated
his safety, and the only possible act on his part be that of
Teception; if what he has be but a gift to him in his weak
‘and meritless state—then surely nothing can be further from
him than boasting, for he will glorify God for all. 1 Cor. i
29-31. Ambrosiaster truly remarks—hac superbia omni
t 9 mocentior omni genere est elationis insanior. And
further, salvation cannot be of ourselves or of works— .
| (Wer. 10.) Abrod yap éopey rroinua— For we are His
yorkmanship.” The yap has its common meaning. It ren-

Wo.
a”

| srs the reason for the statement in the two previous verses.

156 - EPHESIANS II. 10.

It does not signifiy “ yet,” as Macknight has it. Others care-
lessly overlook it altogether. Nor can we accede to the opinion
of Theophylact, Photius, and Bloomfield, that this verse is
introduced to prevent misconception, as if the meaning were
—‘Salvation is not of works,’ yet do them we must, “for we
are His workmanship.” This notion does not tally with the
simple reasoning of the apostle, and helps itself out by an
unwarranted assumption. Riickert and Meier join this verse
in thought to the last clause of the preceding one—“ No man
who works can boast, for the man himself is God’s workman-
ship.” But the apostle has affirmed that salvation is not of
works, so that such works are not supposed to exist at all;
and therefore there is no ground for boasting. Nor can we,
with Harless, view the verse as connected simply with the
phrase—@eov ro S@pov. We regard it, with Meyer, as designed
to prove and illustrate the great truth of the 9th verse, that
salvation is not of works. “By grace ye are saved, through
faith, and that not of yourselves—not of works, for we are
His workmanship.” Hooker, vol. ii. 601; Oxford, 1841.

But the terms may be first explained. The apostle changes:
from the second to the first person without any other apparent.
reason than the varied momentary impulse one yields to in’
writing a letter. The noun zroénua, as the following clause
shows, plainly refers to the spiritual re-formation of believers,
and it is as plainly contrary to the course of thought to give
it a physical reference, as did Gregory of Nazianzus, Tertullian,
Basil, Photius, and Jerome. The same opinion, modified by
including also the notion of spiritual creation, is followed by
Pelagius, Erasmus, Bullinger, Riickert, and Matthies, The
process of workmanship is next pointed out—

ktiabévtes ev Xpiote ’Incov—“ created in Christ Jesus.”
This added phrase explains and bounds the meaning of
moinua. The reference here is to the xawn xtiois (2 Cor,
v.17; Gal. vi. 15), and the form of expression carries us back
to many portions of the Hebrew prophets, and to the use of
872 in Ps. li. 10, and in Ps. cii. 18 (Schoettgen, Hore Hebraica,
i. p. 328). See also verse 15 of this chapter. Chrysosto
adds, with peculiar and appropriate emphasis—é« Tod un ovt
eis TO elvat mapnyOnuev. Again is it ¢v Xpict@ Inaoid, f
Christ Jesus is ever the sphere of creation, or, through thei

EPHESIANS IT. 10. 157

vital union with Him, men are formed anew, and the spiritual
change that passes over them has its best emblem and most
expressive name in the physical creation, when out of chaos
sprang light, harmony, beauty, and life. The object of this
Spiritual creation in Christ is declared to be—

émi Epyous wyaGois—in order to,” or “for good works.”
‘This meaning of émi may be seen in Gal. v. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 7.
Winer, § 48, c; Kiihner,§ 612, 3,c; Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck,
p. 474. Palairet, in his Observat. Sac. in loc., has given several
good examples of é7é with such a sense. Our entire renova-
tion, while it is of God in its origin, and in Christ as its
medium, has good works for its object.

Now, as already intimated, we understand this verse as a
proof that salvation is not of works. For, 1. The statement
that salvation is of works involves an anachronism. Works,
in order to procure salvation, must precede it, but the good
works described by the apostle come after it, for they only
appear after a man is in Christ, believes and lives. 2. The
statement that salvation is of works involves the fallacy of
mistaking the effect for the cause. Good works are not the
cause of salvation; they are only the result of it. Salvation
causes them; they do not cause it. This workmanship of
God—this creation in Christ Jesus—is their true source,
implying a previous salvation. Thus runs the well-known
confessional formula—Bona opera non precedunt justificandum,
sed sequuntur justificatum. The law says—*“ Do this and
live;” but the gospel says—‘ Live and do this.” 3. And
_even such good works can have in them no saving merit,
for we are His workmanship. Talia non nos eficimus, says
Bugenhagen, sed Spiritus Dei in nobis ; or, as Augustine puts
_ it—ipso in nobis et per nos operante, morita tua nusquam jactes,
| quia et ipsa tua merita Dei dona sunt. Comment. in Ps. exliv.

The power and the desire to perform good works are alike
from God, for they are only fruits and manifestations of Divine
"grace in man; and as they are not self-produced, they cannot
entitle us to reward. Such, we apprehend, is the apostle’s
argument. Salvation is not é& épywv; yet it is émi Epryous
_ @ya0ois— in order to good works ”"—the fruits of salvation
and acceptance with God, proofs of holy obedience, tokens of
the possession of Christ's image, elements of the imitation of

, _ ww

158 . EPHESIANS II. 10.

Christ’s example, and the indices of that holiness which
adorns the new creation, and “ without which no man can see
the Lord.” Peter Lombard says well—Sola bona opera dicenda
sunt, que fiunt per dilectionem Dei. But there can be no
productive love of God where there is no faith in His Son,
and where that faith does exist, salvation is already possessed.
The disputes on this point at the period of the Reformation
were truly lamentable ; Solifidians and Synergists battled with
mischievous fury: Major arguing that salvation was dependent
on good works, and Amsdorf reprobating them as prejudicial to
it; while Agricola maintained the Antinomian absurdity, that
the law itself was abolished, and no longer claimed obedience
from believers. And these “good” works are uo novelty nor
accident—

ols mpontoiwacev 0 Oeds, iva ev adtois mepimaticwwev—
“which God before prepared that we should walk in them.”
The interpretation of this sentence depends upon the opinion
formed as to the regimen of the pronoun ols.

1. Some, taking the word as a dative, render—*To which God
hath afore ordained us, in order that we should walk in them.”
Such is the view of Luther, Semler, Zachariae, Morus, Flatt,
Meier, Bretschneider, and virtually of Fritzsche, Alt,? and
Wahl. But the omission of the pronoun nyas is fatal to this
opinion. The idea, too, which in such a connection is here
expressed by a dative, is usually expressed by the accusative
with efs. Rom. ix. 23; 2 Tim. ii. 21; Rev. ix. 7.

2. Valla, Erasmus, Er. Schmidt, and Riickert give ols a
personal reference, as if it stood for dcous nwav— among
whom God before prepared us.’—But the antecedent npeis
is too remote, and the ols appears to agree in gender with
€v avtois.

3. Bengel, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and Baumgarten-Crusius
take the phrase as a kind of Hebraism, or as a special idiom, in
which, along with the relative pronoun, there is also repeated
the personal pronoun and the preposition—D3 Wwx—ev ols va
TE PUTT NO we éy avtois, mpontoiuacey oO @cés. But this
exegesis is about as intricate as the original clause.

4. The large body of interpreters take the ols for & by
attraction. Winer, § 24, 1. This opinion is simple, the

1 Comment. in Matt. iii, 12, ?Gram, Ling. Grac. N. T. p. 229.

EPHESIANS II, 10, 159

change of case by attraction is common, and a similar use
of iva is found in John v. 36. So the Vulgate—Qua
preparavit.

Y 5. Acting upon a hint of Bengel’s, Stier suggests that the
‘verb may be taken in a neuter or intransitive sense, as the
‘simple verb thus occurs in 2 Chron. i, 4, and in Luke ix. 52.
Could this exegesis be fully justified, we should be inclined
to adopt it—* For which God has made previous preparation,
‘that we should walk in them.” The fourth opinion supposes
the preparation to belong to the works also, but in a more
‘direct form—the works being prepared for our performance of
them. In this last view, the preparation refers more to the
_persons—preparation to enable them to walk in the works,
‘The fourth interpretation is the best grammatically, and the
‘meaning of the phrase, “which God has before prepared,”
‘seems to be—“in order that we should walk in those works,”
‘they have been prescribed, defined, and adapted to us.

It is wrong to ignore the po in mpontoipaceyr, as is done
by Flatt and Baumgarten-Crusius. Wisdom ix. 8; Philo, De
Opif. § 25. Nor can we, with Augustine, de Wette, and
Harless, give the verb the same meaning as poopie, or
assign it, with Koppe and Rosenmiiller, the sense of velle, or
jubere; Harless saying that it is used of things as the verb
st referred to is used of persons, but without sufficient proof;
and Olshausen supposing that the two verbs differ thus—that
mpoetoiuatey refers to a working of the Divine eternal will
hich is occupied more with details. Perhaps the difference
4s more accurately brought out in this way :—*poop: few marks
‘appointment or destination, in which the end is primarily kept
in view, while in mpoetoiuatew the means by which the end
is secured are specially regarded as of Divine arrangement, the
mpo referring to a period anterior to that implied in «ria Oévres.
We could not walk in these works unless they had been pre-
pared for us. And, therefore, by prearranging the works in
their sphere, character, and suitability, and also by preordaining
‘the law which commands, the inducement or appliances which
‘impel, and the creation in Christ which qualifies and empowers
God hath shown it to be His purpose that “we should
walk in them.” Tersely does Bengel say, ambularemus, non
Salvaremur aut viveremus, These good works, though they

8
i

160 EPHESIANS II. 11.

do not secure salvation, are by God’s eternal purpose essen-
tially connected with it, and are not a mere offshoot accident-
ally united to it. Nor are they only joined to it correctionally,
as if to counteract the abuses of the doctrine that it is not of
works. The figure in the verb repurratjcwper is a Hebraism
occurring also in ver. 2. See under it. Tit. ii, 14, ii 8.
Though in such works there be no merit, yet faith shows its
genuineness by them. In direct antagonism to the Pauline
theology is the strange remark of Whitby—“ that these works
of righteousness God hath prepared us to walk in, are con-
ditions requisite to make faith saving.” The same view in
substance has been elaborately maintained by Bishop Bull in
his Harmonia Apostolica. Works, vol. iii. ed. Oxford, 1827.
Nor is the expression less unphilosophical. Works cannot
impart any element to faith, as they are not of the same nature
with it. The saving power of faith consists in its acceptance
and continued possession of God’s salvation. Works only
prove that the faith we have is a saving faith. And while
Christians are to abound in works, such works are merely
demonstrative, not in any sense supplemental in their nature.
Kal éxticOns ov iva dpyns, aX’ iva épyatn (Theophylact).
But the Council of Trent—Sess. vi. cap. 16—declares “that
the Lord’s goodness to all men is so great that He will have
the things which are His own gifts to be their merits ”"—wt
eorum velit esse merita que sunt ipsius dona. See Hare, Mission
of the Comforter, i. 359.

(Ver. 11.) The second part of the epistle now commences,
in a strain of animated address to the Gentile portion of the
church of Christ in Ephesus, bidding them remember what
they had been, and realize what by the mediation of Christ
they had now become—

Avo pvnpwovevere—“ Wherefore remember.” The reference
has a further aspect than to the preceding verse—6v0 com-
mencing the paragraph, as in Rom. ii. 1, and in this epistle,
iii. 13, iv. 25; though in some other places it winds up a
paragraph, as in 2 Cor. xii. 10; Gal. iv. 31. These things
being so, and such being the blessings now enjoyed by them,
lest any feeling of self-satisfaction should spring up within
them, they were not to forget their previous state and character.
This exercise of memory would deepen their humility, elevate

: EPHESIANS II. 11. 161

‘their ideas of Divine grace, and incite them to ardent and
continued thankfulness. The apostle honestly refers them to
their previous Gentilism. Remember—

_ «- Gre rote iets Ta Evy ev capxli—* that ye, once Gentiles
‘in the flesh.” “Ovres is understood by some, and je by
others; but of such a supplement there is no absolute need
—the construction being repeated emphatically afterwards.
The article td before €6v7 signifies a class, and it is omitted
before év capxi to indicate the closeness of idea. “E@vn—
‘Byi2—has a special meaning attached to it. Not only were
they foreigners, but they were ignorant and irreligious. Matt.
xviii. 17. If €@vm simply signified non-Israelites, then they
were so still, for Christianity does not obliterate difference of
Tace; but the word denotes men without religious privilege,
and in this sense they were 7oré—once—heathen. But their
ethnical state no longer existed. Some render év capxi—
“by natural descent,” as Bucer, Grotius, Estius, Stolz, and
Kistmacher. This meaning is a good one, but the last clause
of the verse points to a more distinct contrast. Ambrosiaster,
Zanchius, Crocius, Wolf, and Holzhausen take the term in its
theological sense, as if it signified corrupted nature; but «ara
@dpxa would have been in that case the more appropriate
idiom. Jerome supposes the phrase to stand in opposition to
an implied év wvevpare. But the verse itself decides the
‘Meaning, as Drusius, Calvin, Beza, Rollock, Bengel, Rickert,
Hiarless, Olshausen, Meyer, de Wette, and Stier rightly sup-
‘pose. Natural Israel was so—é¢v capxi; the Gentiles were
‘also so—év capxi. Col. ii. 13. Both phrases have, therefore,
the same meaning, and denote neither physical descent nor
corrupted nature, but simply and literally “in flesh.” The
‘absence of the “seal” in their flesh proved them to be Gen-
tiles, as the presence of it showed the Jews to be the seed of
Abraham. If év cap«i denoted natural descent, then the
fact of it could not be changed. Heathens, and born 80,
they must be so still, but they had ceased to be heathen on
their introduction into the kingdom of God. The world
beyond them, whose flesh had been unmarked, was on that
account looked down upon by the Jews, and characterized as
7a vn. The apostle now explains his meaning more fully—
+ oi Neydpevor ’AxpoBvatia—* who are called the Uncircum-
| L

|

a
“Y

162 EPHESIANS II. 12.

cision.” The noun axpoBvoria is, according to Fritzsche (on
Rom. ii. 26), an Alexandrian corruption for dxporocGia.
This term has all the force of a proper name, and no article
precedes it. Middleton, Greek Art. p. 43. It was, on the part
of the Jews, the collective designation of the heathen world,
and it sigmatized it as beyond the pale of religious privilege.
Gen. xxxiv. 14; Lev. xix. 23; Judg. xiv. 3; 1 Sam. xiv. 6;
Isa. liii 1; Ezek. xxviii. 10. And the Gentiles were so
named—o1y—

vie THs Neyouevns ITepurouys— by the so-called Circum-
cision ”—this last also a collective epithet. This was the
national distinction on which the Jews flattered themselves.
Other Abrahamic tribes, indeed, were circumcised, but the
special promise was—“In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
The next words—éey capxi yetporromntov— hand-made in the
flesh,” as a tertiary predicate, do not belong to Aeyouévns. “In
the flesh made by hands” was no portion of their boasted
name, but the phrase is added by the apostle, and the Syriac

rightly renders it—T-mas Tegal OS otutato— and it is

a work of the hands in the flesh.” He cannot, as Harless and

Olshausen remark, be supposed to undervalue the right of cir-

cumcision, for it was signum sanctitatis. Indeed, his object in

the next verses is to show, that the deplorable condition of the

Gentiles was owing to their want of such blessings as were

enjoyed by the chosen seed. Still, the apostle, by the words
now referred to, seems to intimate that in itself the rite is
nothing—that it is only a symbol of purity, a mere chirurgical
process, which did not and could not secure for them eternal
life; Rom. 11.28.29: Gal. y..6. Philip. 3 Col, in dis
iii. 11. The word is used in a good sense in Acts x. 45,
“i. 2s: Rom xv. 63 Gali i,7,:8, 9 Coli, 11=-Tit, 1, 1
The apostle alludes mentally to the “ true circumcision” made
without hands, which is not “ outward in the flesh,” and which
alone is of genuine and permanent value. Remember—

(Ver. 12.) “Ort Hre TO Katp@ exeivp yopls Xprrtod— That |
at that same time ye were without Christ.” The preposition év)

is of doubtful authority, and is rejected by Lachmann and
Tischendorf. Kiihner, § 569; Winer, § 31, 9, 6, External
authority, such as that of A, B, D’, F, G, is against it, though

4

|

a

‘EPHESIANS IL 12 163

the Pauline usage, as found in Rom. iii. 26, xi. 5, 1 Cor.
xi. 23, 2 Cor. viii. 13, etc., seems to be in its favour. The
reference in the phrase—“at that time,” is to the period of
previous Gentilism. The conjunction 67 resumes the thought
with which the preceding verse started, and t@ xatp@ points
back to moré. The verb jre, as de Wette suggests, and
as Lachmann points, may be connected with the participle
amndX oT prwpévor—“ that at that time, being without Christ,
ye were excluded from theocratic privileges.” Ellicott and
Alford call this construction harsh, and make év Xpiot@ a
predicate. We will not contend for the construction, but we
do not see such harshness in it. In this syntactic arrange-
ment, ywpis Xpictod would give the reason why they were
aliens from the Hebrew commonwealth. Xwpis Xpicrod
corresponds to év Xpict@ "Incod in ver. 13." But in what
sense was the Gentile world without Christ? According to
Anselm, Calovius, Flatt, and Baumgarten-Crusius, the phrase
means—“ without the knowledge of Christ.” Olshausen,
Matthies, and Riickert connect with the words the idea of the
actual manifestation and energy of the Son of God, who dwelt
among the ancient people prior to His incarnation. Koppe,
Meyer, and Meier give this thought prominence in their
interpretation—“ without any connection with Christ,”—an
exegesis, in an enlarged form, adopted by Stier. De Wette
rightly gives it—* without the promise of Christ,” and in this
he has followed Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, and Grotius. Harless
takes it as a phrase concentrating in its two words the fuller
exposition of itself given in the remaining clauses of the verse.
‘Now it is to be borne in mind, that the apostle’s object is to
describe the wretched state of Gentilism, especially in contrast
with Hebrew theocratic privilege. The Jewish nation had
Christ in some sense in which the Gentiles had Him not. It

_ ‘ According to Tittmann (De Synon. p. 94), anv Xgurrev would be only—Christ
‘was not with you ; but xwgls Xgeror is—ye were far from Christ, xa referring
‘to the subject as separate from the object. Not to contradict this refinement,
we might add that dv, allied to in, un, ohne, might, in a general sense, signify
Sprivation ; but xees marks that privation as caused by separation. The
Gentiles are viewed as being not merely without Him, but far away from Him.
Their relation to Him is marked by a great interval—yeg's. But, as Ellicott
mays, “this distinction must be applied with caution, when it is remem bered
‘that xoeis is used forty times in the New Testament, and due only three times,

164 EPHESIANS II. 12.

had the Messiah—not Jesus indeed—but the Christ in promise.
He was the great subject—the one glowing, pervading promise
of their inspired oracles. But the Gentiles were “without
Christ.” No such hopes or promises were made known to
them. No such predictions were given to them, so that they
were in contrast to the chosen seed—* without Christ.” The
rites, blessings, commonwealth, and covenants of old Israel
had their origin in this promise of Messiah. On the other
hand, the Gentiles being without Messiah, were of necessity
destitute of such theocratic blessings and institutions. Such
seems to be the contrast intended by the apostle. In this
verse he says—ywpls Xpictod, as Xpuotds was the official
designation embalmed in promise; but he says in ver. 13—
év Xpiot® *Inood, for the Messiah had appeared and had
actually become Jesus.

amndXoTpiwopévor THS ToALTELas TOD ’IopanA— being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel.” The first thing to be
examined is, what is meant by the 7rodutela Tov "Iopanr. The
conversatio (referring, it may be, to citizen-life) of the Vulgate,
Jerome, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Estius, is not to be
thought of. As Israel was the theocratic appellation of ©
the people, the vodrteia is so far defined in its meaning.
It does not signify mere political right, as Grotius and
Rosenmiiller secularize it; nor does it denote citizenship,
or the right of citizenship, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger,
Beza, and Michaelis understand it. Though Aristotle defines
the word—roy tiv ToAW oixovyTwy Takis Tis, yet it often
denotes the state or commonwealth itself, especially when
followed, as here, by a possessive or synonymous genitive
containing the people’s name. Polit. iii. 1; Xenophon, Memo- |
rabilia, ii. 1, 138; 2 Mace. iv. 11, viii 17, ete. “The]
commonwealth of Israel” is that government framed by God,
in which religion and polity were so conjoined, that piety
and loyalty were synonymous, and to fear God and honour
the king were the same obligation. The nation was, at the
same time, the only church of God, and the archives of th
country were also the records of its faith. Civil and sacre
were not distinguished; municipal immunity was identic
with religious privilege; and a spiritual meaning was attache
to dréss and diet, as well as to altar and temple. And thi

EPHESIANS II. 12. 165

entire arrangement had its origin and its form in the grand
national characteristic—the promise of Messiah. The Gen-
tiles had not the Messiah, and therefore were not included in
such a commonwealth. This negation is expressed by the
strong term arnAXoTprmpévos. Eph. iv. 18; Col. i 21; Ezek.
xiv. 7; Hos. ix. 10; Homberg, Parerga, p. 291; Krebs, Ob-
servat. p. 326. The contrast is cummodira: in the 19th verse.
The verb itself is used by Josephus to denote a sentence of
expatriation or outlawry. <Antig. xi. 4. May not the term
imply a previous condition or privilege, from which there
has been subsequent exclusion? Harless and Stier, led by
Bengel in his note on iv. 18, hold this view. Historically,
this interpretation cannot be maintained indeed, as the Gen-
tiles never were united with the actual theocracy. But if the
term rodktela be used in an ideal sense, as Rickert thinks,
meaning eine wahrhaft gittliche Regierung—“a true Divine
government ”—then the exegesis may be adopted. Olshausen
finds this notion in the form of the word itself, for the heathen
are not simply ad\Xortpcoe but amrnddXoTpewpévor—men who had
been excluded from the Hebrew commonwealth. Chrysostom
notices the word, and ascribes to it woAAn éugacis. National
distinction did not, indeed, exist in patriarchal times, but by
the formation of the theocracy the other races of men were
formally abalienated from Israel, and no doubt their own
vices and idolatry justified their exclusion. And therefore
they were destitute of religious privilege, knowledge of God,
modes of accepted worship, enjoyment of Divine patronage
and protection, oracle and prophet, priest and sacrifice. And
still more awful—

wal Eévo. tov SiaOnxav ths émayyeMas— and strangers
from the covenants of the promise ”—covenants having the
promise as their distinctive possession, and characterized by
it. The collocation of the words forbids the exegesis of
‘Anselm, Ambrosiaster, a-Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, and Gran-
‘ville Penn,! who join the two last terms to the following clause
—“having no hope of the promise.” The term daGjxas is
nsed in the plural, not to show that there were distinct cove-
nants, but to indicate covenants often renewed with the chosen
people—the Mosaic covenant being a re-ratification of the
‘ 2 Annotations to the Books of the New Covenant, in loc.

166 EPHESIANS II. 12.

Abrahamic. Rom. ix. 4. It is erroneous, then, either to say,
with Elsner and Wolf, that the plural merely stands for the
singular ; or to affirm that the two tables of the law are referred
to; or to suppose, with Harless and Olshausen, that the cove-
nant made with the Jewish people by Moses is alone the
point of allusion. The covenant founded with Abraham,
their great progenitor, and repeated to his children and their
offspring, was at length solemnly confirmed at Mount Sinai.
That voyobectia succeeds dsaOjxac in Rom. ix. 4, is no
argument against the idea that there was a covenant in the
Mosaic law. Stier restricts the covenants to those made
with the fathers, and denies that the transactions at Mount
Sinai were of the nature of a covenant. But the covenant
was bound up in the Sinaitic code, and ratified by the blood
of sacrifice, when Moses formally sprinkled “the book and all
the people.” The covenant was made with Abraham, Gen.
xu. 3, xxl. 18; with Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 3; with Jacob, Gen.
Xxvilil. 13; with the people, Ex. xxiv. 8; and with David,
2 Sam. vii. 12. See also Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Mal. i. 1;
Rom. xi. 27. The use of the plural was common. Sirach
xliv. 11; Wisd. xviii. 22; 2 Macc. viii. 15. And when we
look to this covenant in its numerous repetitions, we are at
no loss to understand what is meant by “the promise ”—the
article being prefixed. The central promise here marked out
by the article was the Messiah, and blessing by Him. That
promise gave to these covenants all their beauty, appropriate-
ness, and power. “Covenants of the promise” are therefore
covenants containing that signal and specific announcement of
an incarnate and triumphant Redeemer. To such covenants
the heathen were strangers—£évor. This adjective is followed
by a genitive, not as one of quality, but as one of negative
possession. Bernhardy, p. 171. Or see Matthiae, § 337;

Scheuerlein, § 18, 3, a. Thus Sophocles, dip. Tyr. 219—
Févos Tod Noyou. This second clause represents the effect of

the condition noted in the former clause—not only gives a
more special view of it, as Harless too restrictedly says, but
it also depicts the result. Being aliens from the theocracy,
they were, co ipso, strangers to its glorious covenants and their
unique promise. The various readings in the MSS. are futile
efforts to solve apparent difficulties. Another feature was—

. EPHESIANS IL 12. 167

edriéa mn Exovres—“not having hope.” The subjective
negative particle 4, so often employed with a participle,
shows the dependence of this clause on those preceding it.
Winer, § 55, 5;' Kiihner, § 715; Hartung, vol. ii. pp. 105-130;
Gayler. It is an erroneous and excessive restriction to confine
this hope to that of the resurrection, as is done by Theophylact,
from a slight resemblance to 1 Thess. iv. 13. Neither can
we limit it to eternal blessing, with Bullinger, Grotius, and
Meier ; nor to promised good, with Estius; nor to the redemp-
tion, with HarleSs. ‘Edis, having the emphasis from its
position and without the article, has the wide and usual sig-
nificance which belongs to it in the Pauline epistles. Thus
Wycliffe—* not having hope of biheest.” The Ephesians
had no hope of any blessing which cheers and comforts, no
hope of any good either to satisfy them here, or to yield
them eternal happiness. They had hope of nothing a sinner
should hope for, of nothing a fallen and guilty spirit writhes
to get a glimpse of, of nothing which the “ Israel of God” so
confidently expected. Their future was a night without a star.

kal a0eo.—“ and without God”—not “atheists” in the
modern sense of the term, for they held some belief in a supe-
rior power; nor yet antitheists, for many were “ feeling after
the Lord,” and their religion, even in its polytheism, was
proof of an instinctive devotion. The word is indeed used of
such as denied the gods of the state, by Cicero and by Plato
—De Nat. Deor. i. 23; Opera, vol. i. p. 311, ed. Bekker,
Lond.; but it is also employed by the Greek tragedians as an
epithet of impious, or, as we might say, “ godless” men. It
- occurs also in the sense “ without God’s help,” as in Sophocles,
Gdipus Tyrannus, 661:

"Ere dbeos ddiros 6, Te vparov
"Odroipav.. .
“Since I wish to die godless, friendless,” ete.

Perhaps the apostle uses the term in this last sense—not so
much without belief in God, as without any help from Him.
_ Though the apostle has proved the grovelling absurdity of poly-
theism and idolatry, and that the Gentiles sacrificed to demons
and not to God, he never brands such blind worshippers as

1 Moulton, p. 606.

168 EPHESIANS II. 12.

atheists. Acts xvii. 23; Rom. i. 20-25; 1 Cor.x.20. Theo-
doret understands by the phrase pywou Oeoyvwolas—* devoid
of the knowledge of God;” and the apostle himself uses the
phrase ov« eiSotes Ocov, Gal. iv. 8. Compare 1 Thess. iv. 5;
2 John 9. The Gentile world were without God to counsel,
befriend, guide, bless, and savethem. In this sense they were
godless, having no one to cry to, to trust in, to love, praise,
and serve; whereas Jehovah, in His glory, unity, spirituality,
condescension, wisdom, power, and grace, was ever present
to the thinking mind and the pious heart in the Israelitish
- theocracy, and the idea of God combined itself with daily duty
as well as with solemn and Sabbatic service.

év T® Koouo—“in the world.” The connection of this
clause has been variously understood. Koppe refers it to the
entire verse; and the view of Calovius is similar. Such an
interpretation is a mere nihility, and utters no additional
idea. Storr (Opuseula Academica, ili. p. 304) paraphrases
—In his terris versabamini; and Flatt renders—‘“ Ye were
occupied with earthly things, and had mere earthly hopes.”
(Ecumenius, Matthies, and Meier understand the clause—of
an ungodly life. Olshausen and Stier explain—‘“in this
wicked world in which we have so pressing need of a sure
hope, and of a firm hold on the living God.” Riickert wan-
ders far away in his ingenuity—*“In the world, of which the
earth is a part, and which is under God’s government, ye
lived without God, separated from God.” Bloomfield takes
the phrase as an aggravation of their offence—‘“to live in
a world made by God, and yet not to know Him.” But
we are inclined to take év tO koopy as a separate epithet, and
we would not regard it simply as—dnter cateros homines
pravos. According to Stier and Passavant, these terms crown
the description with the blackness of darkness—“the sin of | ;
sins, death in death,” and they regard it as in apposition with
év gapxi. Schutze intensifies it by his translation—in per-
ditorum hominum sentind. With Harless and Calovius, we
regard éy T@ Koop as standing in contrast to the ronctela.
The xécpos is the entire region beyond the zrodvte/a, and, as
such, is dark, hostile, and under Satan’s dominion, and, as the
next verse mentions, it is “ far off.’ The phrase then may —
not qualify the clause immediately before it, but refer to the

EPHESIANS II, 13, 169

whole description, and mark out the sad position of ancient
Heathendom, ii. 2. And all their misery sprang from their
being “without Christ.” Being Christless, they are described
in regular gradation as being churchless, hopeless, godless, and
homeless.

(Ver. 13.) Nuvi 8é, év Xpiot@ 'Incod—“ But now, in Christ
Jesus.” The apostle now reverses the picture, and exhibits
a fresh and glowing contrast. Nuvi is in contrast to év ro
xatpw éxeivw. The present stands in opposition to the past—
dé. "Ev Xpict@ Inood is also the joyous contrast to the
previous dark and melancholy ywpis Xpiotod. Once apart
from Messiah, from the very idea and hope of Him, they were
now in Him—in Him, not only as Messiah, but as Messiah
embodied in the actual Jesus of Nazareth. And the phrase
stands to this entire verse as ywpis Xpiorod does to the verse
in which it occurs. It states adverbially the prime ground or
reason of the subsequent declaration. But “now in Christ
Jesus,” that is, ye being in Christ Jesus; though there is no
reason to espouse the opinion of Luther, Calvin, Harless, and
Stier, and supply évres to supplement the construction. We
understand the apostle thus: But now—through your union
to Christ Jesus—

tpeis of rote bvtes paxpay, eyyis éyevnOnre—“ ye, who
sometime were far off, became nigh.” Lachmann reads—
éyernOnre éyyvs, but without sufficient authority. The adverbs,
paxpdy and éyyvs, had a literal and geographical meaning
under the old dispensation. Isa. lvii. 19; Dan. ix. 7; Acts
ii 39. The presence of Jehovah was enjoyed in His temple, -
and that temple was in the heart of Judwa, but the extra-
Palestinian nations were “far off” from it, and this actual
measurement of space naturally became the symbol of moral
distance! Israel was near, but non-Israel was remote, and
would have remained so but for Jesus. His advent and death
changed the scene, and destroyed the wide interval, as the
apostle shows in the subsequent verses. They who had been

1 Wetstein (in loco) and Schoettgen (p. 761) have jllustrated by a variety of
examples the modes of Jewish speech on this subject. The Jewish religionists
Speak of themselves as near, and of the heathen as remote, and when aman Was
made a proselyte he was said ‘‘ to be brought near ;" thus, propisqewm facere
equivalent to proselytum facere,

170 EPHESIANS II. 14.

“aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,” were now incor-
porated into the spiritual community, were partakers of “a
better covenant established on better promises,” were filled
with “good hope through grace,” knew God, or rather “ were
known of God,” and were no longer “in the world,” but of
the “household of God.” The Gentile Christians enjoyed
spiritually all that was characteristic of the Hebrew theocracy.
As the “true circumcision,” they were “near,” spiritually as

near as the Israelites whom a few steps brought to the temple, -

altar, and Shechinah, The apostle, having described the
position of the Ephesian converts as being in Christ Jesus,
next alludes to the means by which this nearness was secured,
and the previous distance changed into blessed propinquity—

év T@ aluate tod XpictoJ—“in the blood of Christ.”
Compare i. 7, where dca is employed with a difference of view.
The proper name, more emphatic than the simple pronoun, is
repeated. The preposition év is sometimes used instrument-
ally. Winer, § 48, a,d. Still, in such a usage, the power to
produce the effect is supposed to dwell in the cause. That
power which has changed farness into nearness, resides in the
blood of Christ, or as Alford says, but not very precisely—
“the blood is the symbol of a faith in which your nearness to
God consists.” Their being in Jesus was, moreover, the

reason why the blood of Christ had produced such an effect .

on them. How it does so is explained in the next verses.
The apostle’s object is to show that by the death of Christ
the exclusiveness of the theocracy was abolished, that Jew
and Gentile, by the abrogation of the Mosaic law, are placed
on the same level, and that both, in the blood of Christ, are
reconciled to God.

The following passage is magnificent in style as well as
idea. No wonder that the pious taste of Bengel has written
—LIpso verborum tenore et quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur :—

(Ver. 14.) Adros yap éotww 7 eipnvn nuav—* For He is our
peace.” I dp introduces the reason of the previous statement.
There is peculiar force in the avrds. It is not simply “ He,”
but “He Himself”—*“ He truly,” or “He and none other.”
Winer, § 22, 4,6. The suey cannot, as Locke supposes, refer
to converted Gentiles, but to Jew and Gentile alike. In its
widest sense, as this paragraph teaches, “Christ is the peace,”

ee

opment

F

and not merely the peacemaker ; the Author of it, for He “makes
both one,” and “ reconciles them to God;” the Basis of it, for
He has “abolished the enmity in His flesh,” and “by His
cross ;” the Medium of it, for “through Him we both have
access to the Father;” and the Proclaimer of it, for “He
came and preached peace.” For such reasons Paul may have
used the abstract personified form—elpyyn. “He Himself,”
says Olshausen, followed by Stier, “in His essence is peace.”
Yet we question if this be the apostolic idea, for the apostle
illustrates in the following verses, not the essence, but the
operations of Christ. This peace is now stated by the inspired
writer to be peace between Jew and Gentile viewed as anta-
gonist races, and peace between them both united and God.
The first receives fullest illustration, as it fell more imme-
diately within the scope of the apostle’s design. Gentiles are
no longer formally excluded from religious privilege and
blessing, and Jewish monopoly is for ever overthrown. And
it is Christ—

0 Toincas Ta audotepa Ev—“ who made both one.” The
participle is modal in sense, and ta dudotepa are clearly the
two races, Jew and Gentile, and not, as Stier and others
maintain, man and God also. The words are the abstract
neuter (Winer, § 27, 5), and in keeping also is the following
adjective év. Jew and Gentile are not changed in race, nor
amalgamated in blood, but they are “one” in point of
privilege and position toward God. The figure employed by
Chrysostom is very striking:—‘“ He does not mean that He
has elevated us to that high dignity of theirs, but He has
raised both us and them to one still higher. . . . I will give
you an illustration. Let us imagine that there are two statues,
one of silver and the other of lead, and then that both shall
‘be melted down, and the two shall come out gold. So thus
He has made the two one.” And this harmony is effected in
the following way—
kal 75 pecdroryor Tod dpaypod Avcas—“ and b |
‘the middle wall of partition”—paries intergerinus. Kal is
explanatory of the foregoing clause, and precedes a descrip-
tion of the mode in which “both were made one.” Winer,
§ 53, 3, obs! We see no reason to take the genitive—rov

' Moulton, p. 544.

EPHESIANS Il. 14. 171

roke down

172 EPHESIANS II. 14.

gpaywov—as that of apposition; nor could we, with Piscator,
change the clause into tov dpaypov Tod pecototyov. It is, as
de Wette calls it, the genitive of subject or possession—the
middle wall which belonged to the fence or was an essential
part of it. Donaldson, 454, aa. Ppayyos does not, however,
signify “partition ;” it rather denotes inclosure. The Mosaic
law was often named by the Rabbins a hedge—’‘D. Buxtorf,
Lex, Talmud. sub voce. What allusion the apostle had in
pecotovxyov has been much disputed. Dismissing the opinion
of Wagenseil, that it refers to the vail hung up before a royal
or a bridal chamber; and that of Gronovius, that it signifies
such partitions as in a large city, inhabited by persons of
different nations, divide their respective boundaries, very much
as the Jewish Ghetto is walled off in European capitals—we
may mention the popular view of many interpreters, that the
allusion is to the wall or parapet which in Herod’s temple
severed the court of the Jews from that of the Gentiles. The
Jewish historian records that on this wall was inscribed the
prohibition— pa Sety adrodurov éevtds tod ayiov trapeivar.
Joseph. Antig. xv. 11; Bellum Jud. v. 2. Such is the idea
of Anselm, Wetstein, Holzhausen, Bengel, and Olshausen.
Tyndale translates—‘“ The wall that was a stop bitwene vs.”
The notion is quite plausible, but nothing more; for, 1. There
is no proof that such a wall ever received this appellation.
2. That wall described by Josephus was an unauthorized
fence or separation. There was another wall that separated
even the Jewish worshippers from the court of the priests,
3. Nor could the heathen party in the Ephesian church be
supposed to be conversant with the plan of the sacred fane in
Jerusalem. 4. And the allusion must have been very inap-
posite, because at the time the epistle was written, that wall
was still standing, and was not broken down till eight years —
afterwards. So that, with many expositors, we are inclined

to think that the apostle used a graphic and intelligible figure, ©
without special allusion to any part of the architecture of the

temple, unless perhaps to the vail. But such a primary
allusion to the vail as Alford supposes is not in harmony at
all with the course of thought, for it was not a bar between
Jew and Gentile, but equally one between them both and
God, and could not be identified with the enmity of race _

EPHESIANS lL. 15. 173

which sprang from the ceremonial law, as described in the
next verse. Any social usage, national peculiarity, or religious
exclusiveness, which hedges round one race and shuts out all
others from its fellowship, may be called a “middle wall of
partition ;” and such was the Mosaic law. Avcas—* Having
pulled down,” is a term quite in unison with the figure.
John ii. 19. Having pulled down—

(Ver. 15.) Thv éyOpav—“To wit, the enmity.” These
words might be governed by Avoas without incongruity, as
Wetstein has abundantly shown. And perhaps we may say
with Stier, they are so; for if they be taken as governed
by «xatapynoas, as in our version and that of Luther,
the sentence is intricate and confused. Tiv éyOpav—* the
enmity,” proverbial and well known, is in apposition to
pecotoryov ; “having broken down what formed the wall of
separation, to wit, the hatred.” This éy@pa is not in any
direct or prominent sense hatred toward God, as Chrysostom,
Theophylact, CEcumenius, and Harless suppose, for it is not
the apostle’s present design to speak of this enmity. His
object is to show first how Jew and Gentile are reconciled.
Some again, like Photius and Cocceius, imagine that hatred
between Jew and Gentile, and also hatred of man to God, are
contained in the word. This hypothesis only complicates the
apostle’s argument, which is marked by precision and simplicity.
| The arguments advanced by Ellicott in defence of this hypo-
_ thesis are not satisfactory ; for the phrases—“ who hath made
both one,” “wall of partition,” “law of commandments,” or
_ Mosaic code—plainly refer to the position of Jew and Gentile,
and reconciliation with God is afterwards and formally intro-
duced. At the same time, the idea of enmity towards God
could not be absent from the apostle’s mind, for this enmity
of race had its origin and tincture from enmity towards God.
Nor can we accede to the interpretation of Theodoret, Calvin,
Bucer, Grotius, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, and Conybeare,
who understand by the éy@pa the ceremonial law, as the ground
of the enmity between Jew and Gentile. The objection of
‘Stier, however, that to represent law as the cause of enmity is
saying too much, as it leaves nothing for the other factor the
- flesh—is, as Turner says, not very forcible. We prefer, with
“Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Rickert, and Meyer, to take the

174 EPHESIANS II. 15.

term in its plain significance, as the contrast of eipyjvn, and as
denoting the actual, existing enmity of Israel and non-Israel—
an enmity of which the ceremonial law was the virtual but
innocent occasion. It was this hatred which rose like a party
wall, and kept both races at a distance. Deep hostility lay in
their bosoms; the Jew looked down with supercilious contempt
upon the Gentile, and the Gentile reciprocated and scowled
upon the Jew as a haughty and heartless bigot. Ample
evidence is afforded of this mutual alienation. Insolent scorn
of the Gentiles breaks out in many parts of the New Testament
(Acts xi. 3, xxii. 22; 1 Thess. ii. 15), while the pages of
classic literature show how fully the feeling was repaid.’ This
rancour formed of necessity a middle wall of partition, but
Jesus, who is our peace, hath broken it down. The next
sentence gives the requisite explanation—

év TH capkl avTod Tov vopov Ta évToONwr ev Soypacw KaTap-
ynoas—* having abolished in His flesh the law of command-
ments in ordinances.” The course of thought runs thus:
Christ is our peace. Then there follows first a statement of
the fact, Jew and Gentile are made one; the mode of operation
is next described, for He has quenched their mutual hatred,
and He has done this in the only effectual way, by removing |
its cause—the Mosaic law. The words—é€v 1H capi avtod
cannot refer to éy@pa, as the clause is pointed by Lachmann,
as Chrysostom and Ambrose quote, and as Bugenhagen and
Schulthess argue, giving odp& the sense of kinsfolk—hatred
existing among his own people; or as Cocceius, who adopts
that view of the connection, renders—donec appareret in
carne. Such a construction would require the insertion of
the article tnv. Xdp& cannot bear such a meaning here, and

1 When Haman wished to destroy the Jews, he impeached them as a strange
people whose ‘‘ laws are diverse from all people.” (Esth. iii. 8.) Tacitus says :—
‘« Moyses, quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque ceteris —
mortalibus indidit. Profana illic omnia que apud nos sacra... . Cetera —
instituta sinistra, foeda, pravitate valuere. . . . Apud ipsos fides obstinata, |
misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios odium. . . . Projectis- —
sima ad libidinem gens, alienarum concubitu abstinent, inter se nihil illicitum,

. . . Judxorum mos absurdus sordidusque.” (Histor. v. 4, 5.)

And Juvenal sings :—
‘* Nil preter nubes, et coeli numen adorant
Nec distare putant humana carne suillam,” ete.

EPHBSIANS IL 15, 175

the enmity, moreover, was not confined to the Jews; it was
not all on their side.’ Nor can we, with Theodoret, (2cume-
nius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Riickert
and Matthies, join the phrase to Avcas, as it is more natural,
and in better harmony with the course of thought, to annex
them to catapyyoas, as explanatory of the means or manner
of the abolition. This last opinion is that of Harless,
QOlshausen, Meier, Meyer, and de Wette. Sap is Christ's
humanity, but not that humanity specially in its Jewish
blood and lineage, as Hofmann contends—as if because He
died as a Jew, His death secured that participation in His
_ kingdom did not depend on Israelitism. Katapynoas means
“having made void ”—“ having superseded.” om. iii. 31.
The phrase tov vopov tay évtor@v év doypace is a graphic
description of the ceremonial law. But the meaning and
connection of év doypace have been disputed :—I. It has been
regarded as the means by which the law has been abolished,
to wit, “ by doctrines ”—Christian doctrines or precepts. Such
is the reading of the Arabic and Vulgate, the Syriac being
doubtful; and such is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, Estius, Zeger, a-Lapide, Bengel, Holzhausen,
Scholz, and Fritzsche—Disser. ad 2 Cor. p. 168. Winer in his
third edition proposed this view, but renounced it in the fourth.
Thus Chrysostom says—Soypata yap caret thy wistw. Theo-
doret and Theophylact as usual follow him, while GEcumenius
vindicates the use of the word as applied to Christ’s teaching,
by quoting from the Sermon on the Mount such phrases as “ I
say unto you,” these being proofs of authoritative diction, and
warranting the truth propounded to be called Soypa. To this
theory there are insuperable objections—1. The participle in
this case would have two connected words introduced alike by
év. 2. The sense given to S0ypa is wholly unbiblical. Acypa
is equivalent to the participial form—ro Sedoypévov, and has

1 Horace sneers at them, too :—

aon “ Hodie tricesiina sabbata, vin’ ta

: Curtis Judwis opperdere.” (Satie. Lib. I. ix. 70.)

Diodorus Siculus speaks of their institutions as—a pasa gi nal pps fa
(Lib. xxxiv.) Shakespeare’s “* Shylock” was the univ picture of a Jew ip
times not very far distant from our own, and still, alas! the Jew isa ‘ hissing

and a proverb.”

176 EPHESIANS II. 15.

its apparent origin in the common phrase which prefaced a
proclamation or statute—édofe T@ Aaw Kal tH Bovdy. In the
New Testament it signifies decree, and is applied, Luke ii. 1,
to the edict of Cesar, and in Acts xvii. 7 it occurs with
a similar reference. But not only does it signify imperial
statute, it is also the name given to the decrees of the eccle-
siastical council in Jerusalem. Acts xvi. 4. It is found, too,
in the parallel passage in Col. ii, 14. In the Septuagint its
meaning is the same; and in the sense first quoted, that of
‘royal mandate, it is frequently used in the book of Daniel.
To give the term here the meaning of Christian doctrine or
precept, is to annex a signification which it did not bear till
long after the age of the apostles. It is finical and out of
place on the part of Grotius to suppose that Paul used a philo-
sophical term to describe the tuition of the great Teacher,
because he might be writing to persons skilled in the idiom
of philosophical speech. 3. It is not the testimony of Scrip-
ture that Jesus by His teaching abolished the ceremonial law,
but the uniform declaration is, that the shadowy economy was
abrogated in His death. 4. The phrase év Soypacr is too
general to have in itself such a direct meaning, and avrod, or
some distinctive appendage, must have been added, did the
words bear the sense we are attempting to refute.

II. Harless, Olshausen, and von Gerlach connect év doypace
with xatapyjcas, but in a different way. They understand
év Soypace as describing one peculiar phase of the Mosaic law,
in which phase Jesus abolished it. The phrase is supposed -
by them to represent the commanding aspect of the law, and
so far as these doyuara are concerned, the law has been abro-
gated. “Having abolished as to its ordinances—Satzwngen—
the law of commandments,” that is, the law of commandments
is still in force, but its doypata are set aside. In this view
those scholars were preceded by Crellius—mnon de tota lege sed
ejus parte que dogmata continebat. Von Gerlach understands
the “ condemning power” of the law to be abolished. But it
is rather of the Levitical than of the moral law that the
apostle is speaking. But, surely, to show us that Soypara is
a part of the vopos, the article rots should have been prefixed,
or an adjective should have been added. Besides, the spirit
of the apostle’s doctrine is, that the entire law is abrogated,

4

; EPHESIANS II. 15, 177

and not a mere section of it. The whole Mosaic institute was
fulfilled in the death of Jesus. Hofmann’s idea, somewhat
similar—that Christ has put an end to ddéypara, statutes,
Satzungen—is, as Meyer says, contradicted by many parts
of the New Testament. Rom. iii. 27; Gal. vi. 2. Nay, out
of it might be developed an antinomian theory. Gal. iii. 18;
Col. ii. 14.

III. The correct junction of the phrase év Soypace is with
vouov Tav évrodk@v. Had it referred to vouos alone, one would
have expected the article to be repeated —voyov tay évtoXwy Tov
év Soypact, This is in general the view of Erasmus, Calvin,
Beza, Rollock, Bodius, Crocius, and Zanchius in former times,
and in more recent times of Theile, Tholuck, Riickert, Meier,
de Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Matthies. Winer,
§ 31,10,note 1.’ The ceremonial institute is named vopos, as
it was a code sanctioned by supreme legislative authority.
But, as a code, it comprised a prodigious number of minute,
varied, and formal regulations or prescriptions—évroAai, the
genitive being that of contents; while the phrase év doyyacs
defines the nature of these évrodai, for they were d0ypata—
issued under Divine sanction, and resting on the immediate
will of God; and they had constant reference to health,
business, and pleasure, as well as to Divine service. They
‘were ordonnances—proclamations in the name of God. In an
especial sense, the ceremonial institute seemed good to God—
‘Boxei, and it became a déyua. It was not a moral law, having
its origin and basis in the Divine nature, and therefore un-
‘changed and unchangeable, binding the loftiest creatures and
Most distant worlds; but a positive law, having its foundation
simply in the Divine will, established for a period among one
‘people, and then, its purpose being served among them, to be
get aside. Viewed as an organic whole, the Mosaic institute
was vouos—a law; analyzed and looked upon in its separate
‘constituents, it was vouos évtoday; and when these évrodaé
‘are inspected in their essence and authority, they are found to

Soyuata—to be obeyed, because the Divine Dictator was
pleased to enjoin them. The article, therefore, is not prelixed
to Sdypacr, which is descriptive of the form and authority
those statutory regulations, the phrase representing one

1 Moulton, p. 275.
M

178 EPHESIANS II. 15.

connected idea. Winer, § 20, 2, The éy is not to be taken
for avy, as Heinsius and Flatt take it, nor can it signify
propter, as Morus renders it. Now, this legal apparatus was
abolished “in His flesh,’ that is, in His incarnate state,
especially by the death which in that state He endured. The
language of Ambrosiaster is appropriate—legem que data erat
Judeis in circumcisione et in neomeniis et in escis et in sacrificiis
et in sabbatis evacuavit. By the abrogation of the Mosaic
institute, the éy@pa was destroyed, and the party wall, which
separated Palestine from the great outfield of the world, laid
low. Difference of race no longer exists, and Abrahamic
distinction is lost in the wider and earlier Adamic descent.

The apostle now states more fully the purpose of the abro-
gation of the old law—

iva tovs S00 Kticn év éavt@ eis Eva Kaivov avOpwrov—
“that He might create the two in Himself into one new
man.” This clause is no mere repetition of the preceding
declaration—“ Who hath made both one.” It is more special
and distinctive in its description. The two races are per-
sonified, and they are formed not into one man, but into one
mew man. Kavos avOpwos is found elsewhere as an epithet
descriptive of spiritual change, as in iv. 24; 2 Cor. v.17;
Gal. vi. 15; Col. ii. 10. The phrase is very different from
the novus homo of the Latins, and therefore Wetstein’s learned
array of quotations from Roman authors is wholly useless.
And the idea of moral renovation is not to be so wholly
excluded here as some critics argue. One new man—both
races being now enabled to realize the true end of humanity ;
Gentile and Jew not so joined that old privilege is merely
divided among them. The Gentile is not elevated to the
position of the Jew—a position which he might have obtained
by becoming a proselyte under the law; but Jew and Gentile
together are both raised to a higher platform than the circum-
cision ever enjoyed. The Jew profits by the repeal of the
law, as well as the Gentile. Now he needs to provide no
sacrifice, for the One victim has bled; the fires of the altar
may be smothered, for the Lamb of God has been offered; the
priest, throwing off his sacred vestments, may retire to weep
over a torn vail and shattered temple, for Jesus has passed
through the heaven “into the presence of God for us;” the

:

|

EPHESIANS II. 16, 179

water of the “brazen sea” may be poured out, for believers
enjoy the washing of regeneration; and the lamps of the
golden candelabrum have flickered and died, for the church
enjoys the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit. Spi-
ritual blessing in itself, and not merely pictured in type, is
possessed by the Jew as well as the Gentile. The Jew gains
by the abolition of a law that so restricted him to time, place,
and typical ceremony in the worship of God. As unity of
privilege distinguishes both races, and that alike, they are
formed into one man, and as that unity and privilege are to
Doth a novelty, they are shaped into one new man. And this
metamorphosis is effected évy éauvr@ (A, B, F have atté)—not
8’ éavrov, as CEcumenius has it; nor per doctrinam suam, as
Grotius paraphrases it; nor is the phrase synonymous with
“in His flesh.” It signifies in union with Himself, or, as
Chrysostom illustrates—“ laying one hand on the Jew and
the other on the Gentile, and Himself being in the midst.”
This harmony of race is effected by the union of both with
Christ; that is to say, the unconverted Jew and the unbe-
ieving Gentile may be, and are, at enmity still, but when
they are united to Christ, they both feel the high and novel
lace which His abrogation of the law has secured for them.
Both are elevated to loftier and purer privilege than the old
theocracy could ever have conferred.
mowv eipnyvnv—“ making peace.” This efpyvn must be the
peace described—peace with Jew and Gentile ; not, as Harless
holds, “ peace with God,” nor, as Chrysostom takes it, with
Alford and Ellicott, “ peace with God and with one another”
pos Tov Oedv Kai mpos dddAxdous, for peace with God is in
he order of thought, the formal theme of the next verse,
although both results spring together from the same work of
Shrist. The present participle, referring back to avros, is
used, because it does not, like the aorist in the next clause,
express a reason for the result contained in the «tion, but it
jis contemporaneous with it. The participle covers the entire
Iprocess—abolition of enmity, abrogation of law, and creation
if the new person ; for in the whole of it Jesus is “ making
peace.” Scheuerlein, § 31, 2,a. There is yet a higher aim—
P (Ver. 16.) Kai droxatadrd£y tos dpudporépous dv ot
bpatt Te Ocwo—“ And that He might reconcile the twain in

180 EPHESIANS II. 16.

one body to God.” This verse indicates another and separate
purpose of the annulment of the law. Not only are Jew and
Gentile to be incorporated, but both are to be united to God.
This idea is not, as Olshausen intimates, virtually identical
with that of the preceding clause. It is a thought specifically
different, and yet closely united. Indeed, the idea of the
preceding clause to some extent presupposes it. The two acts,
mutual union and Divine reconciliation, are contemporaneous.
The principal difference of opinion regards the phrase—
év évt owpate; viz. whether it refer to united Jew and Gentile,
or to the one humanity of Christ. The latter opinion is held
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Crocius, Bengel, Riickert,
Harless, Matthies, and Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 379; but it is
untenable. For, 1. The order of the words would indicate
another meaning—rovs dudortépous év évi c@pati— the two
in one body,” the very truth which the apostle had been
illustrating and enforcing. He views the union as effected—
does not now say Tovs dvo, but names the united races—the
twain in one body. The els xawvos dvOpwros is viewed as ev
coapua. Vhotius explains it—éva pev tod ev evi copats, THY
mMpos adAnAous euhaiver Katarddrayyv. 2. If the phrase refer.
to Christ’s humanity, then the words must be understood of
that humanity offered as an oblation. The meaning would be
much the same as that of sa tod otavpod, and the same idea
would be again and again repeated in the paragraph. But, 3.
Why should Christ's body be called His one body? why
attach such an epithet to His single humanity? and we
should have expected an avtod to have spected the possessoy
of the body, even though the idea should be—“ one body ”—
they in Him enjoying fellowship with God. It appee
better, then, to adopt the other exegesis, and to take the phrase
as meaning Jew and Gentile incorporated. Such is the view
of CGicumenius, Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius
Meier, Meyer, Olshausen, de Wette, and Baumgarten- -Crusius,
Besides what we have said in its favour, this idea is
harmony with the context, and with what is advanced in thi
next chapter. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 20,27; Col. iii 15. In the
apostle’s idiom the phrase is confined to the church; for the
church in the preceding chapter is affirmed to be His bod
In that body there is no schism, and though it is made up ob

EPHESIANS II. 16, 181

two different races, it is yet but one body. So that the év évi
copa of this verse is in agreement with éy évi mvevyars of
the 18th verse.
_ The action is defined by the verb droxaradddty. The
double compound is found only in Col. i. 20, 21. The dao in
composition with the verb may either signify “again,” as Pas-
sow, Harless, Olshausen, and Ellicott affirm, which is perhaps
doubtful; or it may strengthen the original signification, as
seen in such words as amepyafopyat, atrobvickw, dréyw.
Much has been written on the difference between dcad\\acow
and xatad\d\acow. Verbs compounded with ded have often a
mutuality of signification, but they cease in many instances
to bear such a distinction. Katad\Xdaoow is not practically
different from S:a\Adoow, and so Passow holds (sub voce) that
Kata\dacow in the middle voice signifies—sich unter einander
versihnen—“ to effect a mutual reconciliation” + The radical
idea is to cause enmity to cease—to make up friendship again ;
but the mode, time, and form of reconciliation must be learned
from the context. The meaning of the apostle is not that
Jew and Gentile have been reconciled into one body by the
cross. Such, indeed, is the view of (Ecumenius, Photius,
Anselm, Calvin, a-Lapide, and Grotius, but it gives the év the
sense of es, and takes away the full force of the dative—rto
@e@, making it mean—ut Deo serviant. But 7@ Oe@, as in
other passages where the words occur, defines the person with
1Tittmann has entered at length into the discussion in his book on the
Synonyms of the New Testament. According to him, %«aAdeew refers to the
cessation of mutual enmity, and xaradadeew is employed in cases where the
enmity has existed only on one side. The passage which he refers to in
“Matthew will not bear out such a distinction as he enforces. Matt. v. 23, 24:
*¢1f thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath
ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; firwt
be reconciled to thy brother”—Barrdynts cy adage. But “be reconciled to
thy brother” is plainly not—Cease to be at enmity with him, as if you had
hated him, and need your own ill-will also to be quenched ; for the supposition
is not ‘‘Thou hast ought against thy brother,” but it is ‘‘If thy brother has
“ought against thee.” Be reconciled to him, that is, induce him to lay aside
his quarrel against thee. At the same time, while sucha philological argument
“may be maintained, it is not the less true that mutual agreement is the result.
The phrase—‘‘ Thy brother hath ought against thee,” implies that something
been done justly to offend him, and that, upon explanation or apology, his
iy -will was to be restored. Tholuck (Bergpredigt, p. 192) has well exposed
“the futility of Tittmann’s subtle distinction. Usteri, Lehr. p. 102; Fritzsche,
_ Ad Rom. i. p. 276.

182 EPHESIANS II. 16.

whom the reconciliation has been secured, while év évl c@partt
describes the result of a contemporaneous but minor unity
between the two races. Winer, § 50, 5. It is probable, how-
ever, that év and e’s were originally one—évs, like peis—apeér.
Donaldson’s New Cratylus, § 170.

Reconciliation to God is not the removal in the first
instance of man’s enmity toward God, but Jesus reconciles
us to God by turning away the Divine anger from us, As,
in 1 Sam. xxix. 4, David was supposed to “ reconcile himself ”
to his master by doing some feat to secure his favour, so Jesus
reconciles us to God by the propitiation which He presented
to God, and through which He is enabled even as a righteous
God to justify the ungodly. This statement is proved by the
phrase—6.a tod otavpod—for the cross has reconciliation to
God for its immediate object. Restoration to the Divine favour
is the primary and peculiar work of the great High Priest,
“who offered Himself without spot to God.” <A sacrifice had
always reference to the guilt of the offerer, and it averted that
penalty which a righteous governor might justly inflict. Another
proof of our position is found in ver. 18, in which the result
of this peace is declared to be “access to the Father,” which
has been created by the blood of the atonement. True, indeed,
God is love, but the provision of an atonement is the glorious
expression of it. And His government must be upheld in its
majesty ; for the pardon, without any peculiar provision, of all

who break a law, is tantamount to its repeal. The fact of an_
atonement seems to prove its own necessity. God has shown

infinite love to the sinner, and infinite hatred to his sin, in the
sufferings of the cross, so that we tremble at His severity,
while we are in the arms of His mercy. The justice of the
great Lawgiver is of unchanging claim and perpetuity. The
reader will find in Dr. Owen’s dissertation on “Divine Justice”!
many striking remarks on the theory that sin might be pardoned
by a mere act of grace on God’s part, apart from any satisfaction

to His justice—a theory vindicated even by Samuel Rutherford

and Mr. Prolocutor Twisse.. Jew and Gentile are thus recon-
ciled to God, and the same act which gives them social unity,
confers upon them oneness with God, for the abrogation of the
ceremonial law was in itself the glorification of the moral law,

1 Works, vol. x. p. 495. Edin. 1853. |

EPHESIANS Il. 16. 183

in the presentation of a perfect obedience to it, and in the
endurance of its penalty.

arroxteivas Thy ExOpav év ait@—‘ having slain the enmity
in it.” The enmity referred to has been variously understood.
But €y9pa cannot exist on God's part, for what He feels toward
sin is opyn. That it signifies human enmity towards God, is
the opinion of many, while others connect with this idea also
hatred between Jew and Gentile. But if our view of the nature
of reconciliation be correct, and we agree with Meyer, Olshausen,
and de Wette, this last can hardly be meant. It is not of
man’s hatred the apostle speaks, but of God propitiated.
Besides, the participle dzroxreivas describes an action which
precedes that of its verb dmoxata\xakyn—“ and that, having
slain the enmity, He might reconcile both in one body to God.”
Bernhardy, p. 382. The occurrence of the word éy@pa here is
one of Alford’s principal arguments for giving it the extended
sense of enmity toward God, as well as enmity between the
two races. But the argument will not hold, for—1. The
slaying of the enmity being an act prior to the reconciliation,
refers to the sentiments of the preceding verses—the enmity
between Jew and Gentile. 2. The word éy@pa has special
reference to the phrase—év évi cwyati—“ and having slain
the enmity between them, He might reconcile them both in
one body unto God.” 3. The stress lies on tovs dudotépous év évi
@wpati—the twain are in one body as they are in the act of
being reconciled—the previous enmity between them being
subdued. 4. The idea of union between the races fills the
‘apostle’s mind, as is plain from the first half of the following
chapter—that is, by the abrogation of the Levitical law the
Gentiles come into a new relationship and new privileges.
These the apostle dwells on and glories in.

The Vulgate renders év ait@—in semet ipso, and Luther
—in sich selbst, with which the reading év éav7@ coincides,
and which is naturally vindicated by such exegetes as Bengel,
‘Semler, Hofmann, and others, who refer to cwpats as the
‘antecedent, and understand by c@pa Christ’s humanity. But
‘the more natural interpretation is to refer the pronoun to
Tov oravpov. The Syriac reads—* and by His cross has slain
the enmity.” The word doxteivas, as Grotius suggests,
‘seems to have been employed because the cross referred to

184 EPHESIANS II. 17.

was an instrument of death. The cross which slew Jesus
slew this hostility ; His death was the death of that animosity
which rose up between Israel and non-Israel like a wall of
separation.

(Ver. 17.) Kai é\Oav evayyericato eipnyvnyv—“< And having
come He preached peace.” “ Peace,” in this clause, is to be
taken in its widest acceptation ; that peace which had just
been described—peace between Jew and Gentile, and peace
between both and God. It is an error in Chrysostom to
restrict it to peace with God, and in Meyer, de Wette, and
Olshausen apparently, to confine it to peace between the two
races. The clause plainly carries us back to ver. 14—“ for
He Himself is our peace,” and the apostle then proceeds to
explain the two kinds of peace. The following verse also
proves our view. “For,” says the apostle, “we both have
access to the Father.” And that peace was good tidings, as
the verb implies. The middle voice was used also by the
earlier writers. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 266. Kai does
not simply indicate that this clause follows in idea the
announcement—avros yap éotw % elpnvn nuav, as if the
intervening verses were parenthetical in their nature. For
these intermediate verses expound the starting proposition,
and the verse before us continues the illustration. Peace
was first secured, and then peace was proclaimed. The
publication of the peace is ascribed to Jesus equally with its
procurement—xat €d@wv. The notion of Raphelius, Grotius,
Koppe, and others, that these words are superfluous, is alto-
gether an inaccurate and negligent exegesis. The “coming”
referred to is plainly not to be restricted to His personal
manifestation in flesh, as Chrysostom, Anselm, Estius, Holz-
hausen, Matthies, and Harless argue, for here it is an event

a

posterior to the crucifixion; as it is a coming to proclaim
what the death on the cross had secured. Nor can we, with

tiickert and Bengel, restrict the coming to the resurrection
of Jesus. As little can we hold the sense realized in our

Iord’s personal preaching, as is the hypothesis of Beza and
Calovius, for “ Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision
only.” He illustrated this truth to the Syrophenician woman,
and His instructions during His life to His apostles were—
“Go not into the way of the Gentiles.” We would not confine

EPHESIANS Il. 17. 185

the “coming,” with Olshausen and Meyer, to His advent by the
Spirit ; nor, with Calvin, identify it wholly with the mission
_of the apostles, for both these are included. Christ brought
peace to the Ephesian Christians by means of this Spirit in
the apostles—gui facit per alium, facit per se. The preaching
of the apostles having the truth of Christ for its theme, the
commission of Christ for its authority, and the Spirit of Christ
for its seal and crowning distinction, may surely in its doc-
trines and triumphs be ascribed to the exalted Lord and
King of the church, the one origin and sole dispenser of
“Peace.” The apostle felt that his gifts and graces were of
Christ’s bestowment—that all his opportunities and successes
were the results of Christ’s presence and power—that his
whole message was from Christ and about Him—that not
only was the peace which he announced secured in Christ's
mediation and death, but that also his very journeys to pro-
claim it were prompted and shaped by Him; and therefore
all being Christ’s, from the inspiration that moved his heart
to the secret and irresistible influence that prescribed his
missionary tours ; his whole work in its every element being
so truly identified with Christ—he humbly retired into the
shade, that Christ might have all the glory: and therefore he
writes—“ and He came and preached peace to you.” This
interpretation appears to us more direct and harmonious than
that of Harless, who regards this verse as a parallel to ver. 14,
as if the meaning were—“ Christ is peace ‘in deed’ (ver. 14),
and also ‘in word’” (ver. 17). This would be an anti-climax,
for surely the creation of peace was a greater work than its
disclosure. And then the two ideas are not parallel. In the
former case, Jesus personally and immediately secured peace ;
in the latter case it was only mediately, and by others, that
he proclaimed it. Harless, indeed, regards ¢A@av generally
as denoting Christ’s appearance upon earth, as in John i. 9,
“11, iii. 19, ete. Our objection to such a view is, that Christ's
“appearance on earth was as necessary to the making of peace
as to its proclamation, and more s0, as is implied in the
_ phrases—“ in His flesh,” and “ by the cross,” nay, “ those who
“were nigh,” or those who heard Christ in person, are placed
last in the enumeration. Jesus, too, had left the earth ere this
“peace was formally published by His heralds. Moreover, the

186 EPHESIANS II. 18.

coming is plainly marked as posterior to the effecting of peace.
As the preaching to the Ephesians is here as distinctly ascribed
to Jesus as the coming, both must be understood in a similar
way. Similar phraseology is found in Acts xxvi. 23; John
x. 16. And the peace was preached—

vuiy Tots paxpav Kal eipnyny Tois éyyus—*“ to you who were
far off, and peace to them who were nigh.” The dative is
governed by the previous verb, and the second eipyynv has,
on the authority of A, B, E, F, G, and of several versions and
fathers, been received by Lachmann and Tischendorf into the
text. Isa. lvii.19. The repetition is emphatic. Rom. iii. 31,
vill. 15; 2 Cor. ii, 16. The idea contained in paxpdv has
been already explained under ver. 13. The Gentiles are here
placed first; the apostle of the Gentiles magnified his office.
Though those “ who were nigh” were the first who heard the
proclamation based on the commission—*“ beginning at Jeru-
salem,” yet those “who were afar off” are mentioned first, as
they had so deep an interest in the tidings, and as the invita-
tion of Gentiles into the church—a theme the apostle delighted
in, proving, as it did, the abolition of class privileges, and the
commencement of an unrestricted economy—was the result
and proof of the truths illustrated in this paragraph.

(Ver. 18.) "Ore dv’ adtod éyowev THY Tpocaywyny oi augo-
tepot—* For by Him we both have access ”—access specially
theirs, as the article intimates. The 67: does not mark the
contents of the message of peace, as Morus, Baumgarten,
Koppe, and Flatt imagine; nor yet its essence, as Riickert
maintains: but it points out its proof and result. Peace has
been made, and has also been proclaimed, for, as the effect of
it, and as the demonstration of its reality—*“ by Him we both
have access.” Calvin well explains it—probatio est ab effectu.

IIpocaywyn, formed with the Attic reduplication from dyo, is ©
“introduction,” entrance into the Divine presence—an allusion, —

according to some, to approach into the presence of a king by

the medium of a mpocaywyets—sequester (Bos, Observat. p. —

149); according to others, to the entrance of the priest into
the presence of God. Herodotus, ii. 58. Rom. v. 2; and
see under iii, 12. Whichever of these allusions be adopted,
or whether the word be used in its proper signification, the
meaning is apparent, the word being used probably in its

t

A

EPHESIANS Il. 18. 187

original and transitive sense—not access secured, but intro-
duction enjoyed, and which we are having, that is, have and
keep. It is something more than @vpa, John x. 9. Free
approach to God is the result of reconciliation. 1 Pet. iii, 18.
Those who were “ far off” can now draw “nigh.” The Divine
Being is not clothed in thunder—no barrier stands between
Him and us, for all legal obstacles are removed; so that the
soul which feels peace with God can come into His sacred
presence without shrinking or tremor. It approaches by
Christ—8.’ avrod; and the emphasis from their position lies
on these words. Our frail humanity realizes His humanity,
and by Him enters into the presence of Jehovah. John
xiv. 6. Thus Chrysostom says—ovx« elev mpocodov adda
Tpocaywynv, ov yap ad’ éavtav mpocydOopev, addr’ ir’ abo
mpoonxOnuev. And this access is—

mpos tov Ilarépa—‘“unto the Father;" mpos—into His
presence. Christians do not approach some dark and spectral
phantom, nor a grim and terrible avenger. It is not Jehovah
in the awful attitude of Judge and Governor, but Jehovah as
Father—who has a father’s heart to compassionate and a
father’s hand to bestow. And His paternity is no abstraction.
He is Christ’s Father and our Father. Nay more, and espe-
cially, this privilege is enjoyed by Jew and Gentile alike:
oi audotrepo.—the twain have it. It belonged to the theo-
cracy in one form of it, when the high priest, the representa-
tive of the people, passed beyond the vail and sprinkled the
-mercy-seat. But now the most distant Gentile who is in
Christ really and continuously enjoys that august spiritual
‘privilege, which the one man of the one family of the one
‘tribe of the one nation, on the one day of the year, only
typically and periodically possessed. We have seen the 04
duorepos forming év cya (ver. 16)—now they are having
access to the Father— ;
év &l avedpatr—“ in one Spirit.” The collocation o6
dpdorepo—ev évi mvevpars again brings out solemnly and
‘emphatically the leading thought in the passage. The ev is
ot to be identified with 6d, as Chrysostom and Theophylact
hint; as if the apostle meant to say, by Him and by the
Spirit we approach. The vedpa is not “disposition, nor
‘is @& vedya only “unanimity,” and so synonymous with

RE SS

188 EPHESIANS II. 19.

opoOvpadoyv, as is the baseless view of Anselm, Homberg,
Zachariae, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius. That the words
refer to the Holy Spirit, is the correct opinion of CEcumenius,
Cocceius, Bodius, Meyer, Harless, de Wette, and Stier. The
Spirit that dwells in the one body is the one Divine Spirit
(iv. 4)—“ one and the self-same Spirit.” 1 Cor. xii.11. The
one Holy Ghost inhabits the church, and in Him and by
Christ believers have access to God. He prompts them to
approach, “ helpeth their infirmities,” deepens their conscious-
ness of sonship as they come to the Father, nay, “ makes
intercession for them,” imparts such intenseness to their
aspirations that they cannot be formed into language, but
escape from the surcharged bosom in unutterable groanings—
otevaypois addadyTows. Rom. viii. 26. As again and again
in previous sections, the Triune relation is brought out: we
are having access—zpos—unto the Father, whom we worship
as we gaze upon His tenderness and majesty; and this—éd
—by Jesus, through whom we approach in confidence His
Father and our Father; but also—évy—in the Spirit, who fills
and lifts the heart, and is closely united with Father and Son.

The need of a mpocaywyevs has been extensively felt by —
our sinful race. And yet, after the Man-God has been re-—
vealed—He of the double nature—whom the Divine Sovereign —
appointed and man confides in, there are philosophers who
deify themselves, and depose the one Mediator. M. Cousin,
in the preface to his Fragm. Philos. says, for example, in
eulogizing the reason as a higher power than the understand-
ing:—La raison est le médiateur nécessaire entre Diew et
Vhomme, ce doyos de Pythagore et de Platon, ce Verbe fait
chair qui sert Vinterprete & Diew et de précepteur de Vhomme.
But we have a Mediator, not our own “reason” even absolute
and transcendental; for it strays and wavers and quakes, as
Moses on Sinai, and cannot reassure itself; and we have a
Aoyos, not la raison, but One “in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge ””—One who reveals God
unerringly, for He lay in His Father's bosom—One who
instructs men perfectly, for “grace has been poured into His
lips,” as He stoops to the senses and speaks to the heart of
humanity.

(Ver. 19.) “Apa otv ovxéts éore Eévor kal mapoixo.—* Now

EPHESIANS II. 19, 189

therefore, ye are no longer strangers and sojourners.” The
first two words are a favourite idiom of the apostle. Rom.
v. 18, vii. 3, 25, viii. 12, etc.; Gal. vii 10; 1 Thess. v. 6.
The formula apa ody is not used in Attic Greek, save in the
case of the interrogative dpa. Hermann, Vigerus, 292. The
particle apa marks progress in the argument, as if equivalent
to xal an’ éxeivov. Thucyd. vi. 89 ; Donaldson’s New Cratylus,
§ 192. The particle ody—allied to the substantive verb, and
not to avros as Hartung wrongly supposes—has a stronger
ratiocinative force than dpa (Klotz-Devar. ii. 717), and occurs
far more frequently ; and the combined use of both introduces
a conclusion based on previous reasoning, equivalent to “ these
things being so,” or the well-known Ciceronian formula—qua
cum wa sint. A double image is, or two pairs of figures are,
employed by the writer—the one referring to civil franchise,
and the other to domestic privilege. Hévo.—“ strangers "—
they had been so while the old theocracy stood, the Jews
being the children, but they miserable outcasts. Once, too,
they were mdpocxo., literally “ by-dwellers,” men who sojourn
in a house without the rights of the resident family. This is
the only instance in which the apostle uses the term, but it
occurs Acts vii. 6, 29; also in many places in the Septuagint,
as the representative of the Hebrew 73, and also of 2847. The
two words are found together many times, as in Lev. xxv.,
etc. It is natural here to view the otxetoe of the last clause
as the contrast of mdpoccot, so that the significations of the
word usually given are too vague to sustain this antithesis.
In Lev. xxii. 10, the noun denotes an inmate of the
family, but without its domestic rights; mdporxos iepéws there
signifies a guest with the priest, and stands along with 4
pucOwros—or a hired servant. Sirach xxix. 26. The priest's
guest, though living in his house, was not to eat the holy
things. May not the word bear such a meaning in this place,
especially as we are pointed to it by the spiritual antagonist
of oixeios? De Wette will not allow it, and says that Koppe,
Bengel, Flatt, Harless, and Olshausen wunrichtig erklaren.
His idea is, that the two terms févor and mdpotxos express
- generally the thought nicht-biirger—“ non-citizens.” Ellicott
and Alford hold a similar view, regarding WapoKos as the
same with pérotxos, its classic equivalent—a form which

190 EPHESIANS II. 19.

occurs only once in the Septuagint. But it is natural to sup-
pose that the apostle used it in the Septuagint sense—that
most familiar to him. The pair of terms in the two clauses
suggests also a double contrast. That there is any allusion
in the epithet wdpocxos to the equivocal relation of proselytes,
such as is contended for by Anselm, Whitby, Calixtus, Baum-
garten, and Baumgarten-Crusius, is out of the question; for
if the proselytes feared God, they could not be described as
are those Ephesian Gentiles in the context. The theocracy
excluded all but Israel from its pale—the world beyond it were
foreigners. Under the idea of its being God’s house, it arro-
gated to itself a spiritual supremacy over all the nations, and
so the heathen were regarded as simple sojourners on God’s
world. But this character of tolerated aliens no longer
marked out the Gentile converts in Ephesus. No longer were
they strangers to be frowned on, or foreigners to be excluded
from domestic privileges ; they were now naturalized—

aXN éoté cvvTroritar TOV ayiev—“ but fellow-citizens with
the saints.” The spelling cuvv7oNXtra., instead of cupronditat,
has the authority of A, B',C, D, E, F, G. Instead of the
simple a\Ad of the Received Text, the best MSS., such as A,
B, C, D', G, warrant the reading a\X’ éore, which has been
adopted by the editors Hahn, Lachmann, and Tischendorf.
It gives a vivid solemnity to the contrast: the mind of the
apostle dwells on the blessed and present reality of their
spiritual state, which he is about to depict. Suvzonitns, a
word occurring both in AXlian, Var. Hist. 3,44, and Josephus,

Antig. 19, 2, 2, belongs chiefly, however, like other similar —

compound words, to the later and inferior Greek. Phrynichus,
ed. Lobeck, p. 172, says, with characteristic affectation—
moAlTns A€ye, 42) GuuTroAitns. In the declining period of a
language, when its first freshness is gone, and its simple terms
are not felt in their original power, compound words are
brought into use without any proportionate increase of sense.
These Gyvor are God’s people; and there is no occasion to

add, with Calvin—et cum ipsis angelis, The reader may turn

to the first verse of the epistle for the meaning of &yvos.1 The

1 Tn what an awful state is the Protestant church, when there are so many
thousands, nay, tens, hundreds of thousands belonging to it, who, in their
blindness and ignorance, take the very name of God’s servants—the very name

f

EPHESIANS II. 19. 191

“saints” are not the Jews as a race, as is supposed by Vor-
stius, Hammond, Morus, Bengel, and Adam Clarke; nor yet
only contemporary Christians, as Harless and Meyer argue;
nor yet simply saints of the Old Testament, as Gcumenius
and Theodoret describe the alliance. Chrysostom exclaims—
“Opas drt oby arras Tav Iovdaimy Gra Thv dylwv Kai peyd-
Aewv exeivwv avdpav tav Twepi ’ASpadp cal Mwiciy nai ‘Hdiav
eis THY aUTHY TOdALW aTreypadnuev. These &y.oe are viewed as
forming a 7odus—a spiritual organization. It was so under
the old law—it is so still; for the theocracy is only fully
realized under Christianity. To take an illustration from
Athenian citizenship—they live no longer, as foreigners did
in many Greek states, in the wavédoxeiov, nor as the pérorxos
at Athens are they degraded by the symbolical védpodopia,
but they possess the coveted icoréXea. With all, then, who
belong to this wodte/a, Christians are now fellow-citizens.
They are under that form of government which specially
belongs to the saints. These are, therefore, not saints of any
time or any class, but saints of all times and all lands, of
which the community then existing was the living represen-
tative; and in this commonwealth they were now enfranchised.
Their names are engraven on the same civic roll with all
whom “the Lord shall count, when He writeth up the people.”
It is as if they who had dwelt “in the waste and howling
wilderness,” scattered, defenceless, and in melancholy isola-
tion, had been transplanted not only into Palestine, but had
been appointed to domiciles on Mount Zion, and were located
in the metropolis not to admire its architecture, or gaze upon
its battlements, or envy the tribes who had come up to worship
in the city which is “compact together;” but to claim its
municipal immunities, experience its protection, obey its laws,
live and love in its happy society, and hold communion with
its glorious Founder and Guardian.

kal oixeloe tov Ocot—“and of the household of God.”
‘The church is often likened to a family or house. Num.

Throne of His glory—to be fellow-citizens with whom is the highest privilege
‘of man—and make it a nickname to mock at—‘saixts!!' The very term with
Woultitudes is a name of scorn.”—M‘Ghee’s Lectures on Ephesians, vol. Lp
; London, 1848.

Throne of whom some serve Him here on earth, and some surround the

192 EPHESIANS II. 20.

xii. 7; Hos. vii. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii, 2,5, 6;°1 Bet
iv. 17. When Harless thinks that Christians receive this.
designation, because they are stones in the house, the con-
clusion is not only a needless anticipation of the figure in the
following verse, but is also contrary to the usual meaning of
the term, and destructive of the contrast between the terms
oixeto. and mdpoxot. True, as Ellicott says under Gal. vi. 10,
oixetos is often used with abstract nouns, as olxetoe dido-
copias, etc., and in such cases the idea proper of family is
dropped. But the contrasts in this paragraph are too vivid
to allow any dilution of the term. These oixetou tod Ocod are
God’s family ; they form His household. They are not guests
—here to-day and away to-morrow; treated with courtesy,
but still kept without the hallowed circle of domestic sociality,
and strangers as well to the paternal protection as to the
brotherly harmony which the family enjoys. The members
of that “house which is the church of the living God,” can
call the oixodecmozns their father; for they are “begotten of
God,” and they have access to Him, enjoy His love, and hold
daily and delightful fellowship not only with Him, but with —
one another—as “ heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.”
(Ver. 20.) ’ErrotxodopnBévres eri TO Ocuedio TOY aTroTTON@Y —
Kal mpopnrav-— built up upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets.” The preposition é7/ in composition is not, as
Koppe affirms, without additional meaning, nor can it, as in
Theophylact’s exegesis, have the sense of “again;” but it
gives prominence to the idea of the foundation on which the
structure rests. Not the form or purpose, but the basis of the
building, was the special thought in the writer's mind—_
supereedificati, as in the Vulgate. 1 Cor. ii. 10,12, 14; Col.
ii. 7. This architectural allusion is a change of figure, or
rather, it is the employment of a term in a double meaning.
“ House” has a similar twofold signification with us, as the
“House of Bourbon” or “ House of Stuart ”—phrases in
which the word is employed in a secondary and emphatic
signification. We speak too of such houses being “ built up”
by the wisdom or valour of their founders. In such cases,
as Alford says, there is a transition from a political and social
to a material image. Having described the believers as
oixetot, the apostle enlarges the metaphor, by explaining on

EPHESIANS II. 20. 193

what the ofos rests, what its symmetry is, and what its glorious
purpose. That “house” is composed of the ofxetos, and each
of them is a living stone, resting on the one foundation.

What the writer means by drocrodwyv is plain; but what
is meant by the subjoined rpodntdv? With every wish,
arising from the usage of quotation, to refer the term to the
inspired messengers of the Old Testament, we feel that the
force of evidence precludes us. The Greek fathers and critics,
along with Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Estius, Baum-
garten, Michaelis, Riickert, Bisping, and Barnes, hold the
view which we are obliged to abandon. Ambrosiaster also
explains—/oc est, supra Novum et Vetus Testamentum collocati.
Tertullian says that Marcion, believing the reference to be to
prophets of the Old Testament, expunged the words et pro-
arum. Contra Marc. v. 17; Opera, vol. ii. p. 326, ed.
Oehler. The apostle often refers to the prophets of the Old
Testament ; but in such places as Rom. i. 2 the reference
is at once recognized. We prefer, then, with the great body
of interpreters, to understand “the prophets” of the New
Testament. Our reasons are these—

1. The apostles are placed before the prophets, whereas, in
point of time and position, the prime place should be assigned
> the prophets.’ Estius says that the two classes are ranged
lignitatis habita ratione, as the apostles had seen and heard
hrist, enjoyed more endowments than the old prophets,
nd were immediately instrumental in founding these early
shurches. Did the phrase occur nowhere else, these ingenious
guments might be of some weight ; though still, if the church
ye regarded as an edifice, the prophets laid the foundation
zarlier than the apostles, and should have been mentioned
irst in order. The dignity of Moses, Samuel, David, and
siah, under the old dispensation, was not behind that of the

My four Scottish predecessors have here shown somewhat of our national
canniness.” They do not recognize any difficulty at all, or at least they
yuietly relieve themselves of it, by the simple and apparently unconscious
real of the order of the terms. Fergusson and Dickson briefly pass it over
in this way, but Principal Rollock no less than six times quotes the phrase as if
Paul had written ‘‘ prophets and apostles.” Principal Boyd (Bodius) in his
Domment, exhibits the same transparent ingenuity, as well as in hosts of sub-

ant references, nay, even in his Latin notation of the inspired original, he

Sundamento prophetarum et apostolorum.
N

194 ‘EPHESIANS II. 20.

apostolical college. The ruddy tints of the morning, ere the
gun rises, are as fresh and glowing as the softened splendours
of the evening, after he has set. And the argument,that the
apostles are named first because they personally founded the
churches, is precisely the reason why we believe that prophets
of an earlier time, and living under a different economy, are
not meant at all.

2. Other portions of this epistle are explanatory of the
apostle’s meaning. In iii. 5 he speaks of a mystery, “ which
was in other ages not made known to the sons of men, as it
is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit ”"—rols aylows amoctonos adtod Kal mpodyras. In
this declaration, the prophets are plainly perceived to be the
inspired contemporaries of the apostles, enjoying similar reve-
lations of truth from the same Spirit. What more natural than
to suppose, that the apostle means the same persons by the
very same names in a previous section! This opinion is the
more likely, when we consider that the mystery declared to
“apostles and prophets” is the union of Jew and Gentile,
Again, iv. 11, “ And He gave some apostles, and some pro-
phets”—tovds prev dtroctoXous, Tods 5é mpodytas. So that
the prophets are a special class of functionaries, and rank
next to the apostles, personally instrumental as they were in
founding and building up the churches. Why may not the
allusion be to them e this verse, as they are twice named i
combination by the writer in the same epistle? The pre-
sumption is, that in the three places the same high offic
bearers are described.

3. We deny not the relation of the prophets of the Ol
Testament to the church of the New Testament. They pr
ceded, the apostles followed, and Jesus was in the midst
But in writing to persons who had been Gentiles, who wereé
strangers to the Hebrew oracles, and had enjoyed none of thei
prophetic intimations—persons whose faith in Christ reste
not on old prediction realized in Him, but on apostolic procla:
mation of His obedience and death—a reference to the seers
the Hebrew nation would not have been very intelligible an
appropriate. To Jews with whom the apostle had “reason
.out.of the Scripture,” and whom he thus had convinced th
Jesus was the Christ, the reference would have been nat

;

and stirring ; but not so in an address to the Gentile portion
of a church situated in the city of Diana.

: The prophets of the New Testament were a class of suffi-
vient importance and rank to be designated along with the
postles. The passages quoted from this epistle show this.
And there are many other references. Acts xix. 6; Rom. xii.
5; 1 Cor. xii 10, xiii. 8; the greater portion of the 14th
thapter ; and 1 Thess. v. 20. These passages prove that the
office was next in order and dignity to the apostolate. The
prophets spoke from immediate revelation—“ with demonstra-
ion of the Spirit and with power;” and prior to the com-
pletion of the canon they stood to those early churches in such
a relation as the written oracles stand to us. They were the
law and testimony, and their work was not simply a dis-
slosure of future events. (For illustration of the office of New
Pestament prophets, see under iv. 11.)

_ 4, Had the apostle meant to distinguish the prophets
mf the Old Testament as a separate class, the article would
robably have preceded the noun. Winer, § 19, 4; Kiihner,
493, 9; Matthiae, § 268, Anm.i.; Middleton, p. 65, ed.
Rose. Comp. Matt. iii 7, xv. 1; Luke xiv. 3, in which
es different classes of men, but leagued together, are
escribed. See also Col. i 19; 2 Thess. iii. 2; Tit. i 15;
deb. iiii 1. Not that, as Harless, Riickert, Hofmann
riftb. vol. ii. p. 103), and Stier seem to say, apostles and
ophets are identical—or that apostles were also prophets, as
ing men inspired. The want of the article clearly shows
both classes of office-bearers are viewed in one category
S$ one in duty and object—one incorporated band. This
mmbination of function and labour shows, that these “ pro-
hets ” were those of the church of the New Testament.

' The relation in which apostles and prophets stood to the
hurch is defined by the words éi 7@ Oewerip. The preposi-
ion describes the building as resting on the foundation with the
dea of close proximity. Kiihner, 612, 1, a, 8; Bernhardy, p.
149—the dative signifying “ absolute superposition.” Donald-
on, Gr. Gram. § 483, b. The stones are represented not as
n the act of being brought, but as already laid, and so the
ative is employed rather than the accusative, which occurs
a 1 Cor. iii. 12.

‘EPHESIANS II. 20, 195

196 EPHESIANS II. 20.

But what is the exact relation indicated by the genitive—
Tov atrooToOhwy Kal mpodntay? It has been supposed to
mean, 1. The foundation on which the apostles themselves
have built—the apostles’ and prophets’ foundation—the
genitive being that of possession. Such is the view of Anselm,
Bucer, Aretius, Cocceius, Piscator, Alford, and Beza, the last
of whom thus paraphrases it—Supra Christum qui est apos-
tolicee et prophetice structure fundamentum. But the object of
the apostle is not to show the identity of the foundation on
which the Ephesian church rested with that of prophets and
apostles, and Christ is here represented, not as the foundation,
but as the chief corner-stone. Thus, as Ellicott says, this
exegesis tacitly mixes up Oewéduos and the axpoywviaios.

2. In the phrase—“ foundation of the apostles and pro-
phets ”—the genitive has been thought to be that of apposi-
tion, that is, these apostles and prophets are themselves the
foundation. Winer, § 59, 8, a. Such is the opinion of
Chrysostom and his imitators, Theophylact and Ccumenius,
of a-Lapide, Estius, Zanchius, Morus, de Wette, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, Meier, von Gerlach, Turner, Hofmann, and
Olshausen. QOcpédtos drroxelvtai, says Theophylact, oi zpo-
dita. Kal of amoatondot, dyeis 5é THv RAowwny oiKodopny
avatAnpwcate. This view is supposed to be confirmed by a
passage in the Apocalypse (xxi. 14)—“The wall of the city
had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve
apostles of the Lamb.” But these foundations belong to a
wall, a symbol of defence, not to the great Christian temple;
and unless Judas be regarded as deposed, and Matthias as_
prematurely chosen and never divinely sanctioned, Paul, the
founder of the Ephesian church, cannot be reckoned among
these twelve. It does not matter for the interpretation
whether OeueAl@ be masculine or neuter, nor is the argument
of Hofmann (Schriftb. vol. ii. sec. part, p. 101) of any avail,
that as the last clause has a personal reference this must hav
the same. In one sense the apostles, in their personal teachi
and labours, may be reckoned the foundation; but should sue
a sense be adopted here, Christ would be brought into com-
parison with them. Hofmann (i.c.) gets out of this objectio
by taking the following avrod as referring to Oeuerle—* Jes
Christ being its chief corner-stone ”—that is, if He is

EPHESIANS II. 20. 197

- corner-stone of the foundation, the language prevents Him
being regarded as primus inter pares. But, as we shall see,
the exegesis is not tenable. The whole passage, however, gives
Jesus peculiar prominence, and the apostle never wearies of
_ extolling His dignity and glory. Still, there is nothing doc-
_ trinally wrong in this interpretation, for, personally, prophets
_ and apostles are but living stones in the temple, the next tier
_ above the “corner-stone;” but officially they were not the
- foundation—they rather laid it. And therefore—

_ 3. The phrase—“ foundation of the apostles and prophets,”
_ means the foundation laid by them, the genitive being sub-
' jective, or that of originating agency—der thatigen Person oder
| Kraft. Scheuerlein, § 17, 1; Winer, § 30,1; Hartung, Casus,
_p. 12. Such is the exegesis of Ambrosiaster, Bullinger,
_Bodius, Calvin, Calovius, Piscator, Calixtus, Wolf, Baum-
_ garten, Musculus, Réell, Zanchius, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe,
_ Flatt, Riickert, Harless, Matthies, Meyer, Holzhausen, and
_ Ellicott. The apostles and prophets laid the foundation broad
_ and deep in their official labours. In speaking of the founda-
_ tion in other epistles, the apostle never conceives of himself
_ as being that foundation, but only as laying it. He stands, in
his own idea, as external to it. Referring to his masonic
operations, he designates himself “a wise master-builder,”
and adds—*“ Other foundation can no man lay, than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Similar phraseology occurs in
Rom. xv. 20. In this laying of the foundation, apostles and
prophets were alike employed, when they preached Jesus and
organized into communities such as received their message.
The foundation alluded to here is e¢pyyn—not so much Christ
in person, as Christ “our peace ”—a gospel, therefore, having
“no restrictive peculiarity of blood or lineage, and by accepting
which men come into union with God. And no other foun-
dation can suffice. When philosophical speculation or critical
erudition, political affinity or human enactment, supplants it,
‘the structure topples and is about to fall. The opinions of
‘Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, Knox, or Erskine (and
these were all “ pillars”), are not the foundation; nor are the
edicts and creeds of Trent, Augsburg, Dort, or Westminster
Such writings may originate sectional distinctions, and give
| peculiar shape to column or portico, shaft or capital, on the

SE Re See

198 “EPHESIANS II. “20.

great edifice, but they can never be substituted fur the one
foundation. Yea and further—

évT0s aKpoywviaiov avtod 'Inood Xpiorob— Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief corner-stone.” A and B, with the
Vulgate, Gothic, and Coptic, reverse the position of the proper
names, and their authority is followed by Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, and Alford; but the majority of uncial MSS. are in
favour of the present reading. The pronoun is, by Bengel,
Cramer, Koppe, and Holzhausen, referred to the preceding
OeuérArvov-—* Jesus Christ being its chief corner-stone.” That
the translation of our English version may be maintained, it
is not necessary, as these critics affirm, that the article should
precede the proper name. Fritzsche, Comment. in Matt. iu. 4 ;
Luke x. 42; John iv. 44. It is, besides, not of the foundation,
but of the temple that He is the chief corner-stone. The
avtov contrasts Christ with apostles and prophets. They lay
the foundation, but Jesus Himself in person is the chief
corner-stone—4érTos, “being all the while ”—dx«poywriatov—
scilicetc—rOov.. The reference in the apostle’s mind seems to
be to Ps. cxviii. 22; Isa. xxviii. 16; Jer. li. 26. These pas-
sages suggested the figure which occurs also in Matt. xxi. 42 ;
Acts iv. 11; 1 Pet. 11.4-6. There are two different Hebrew
phrases—i38 Wx5'!—xepary Tis ywvias (Ps. exviii. 22), whereas
in Isa. xxviii. 16 the words are 738 j38, rendered by the Seventy
—)iPov axpoywviaiov. The first expression certainly denotes
not the copestone, nor yet the head or point where two walls
meet, but the most prominent stone in the corner. In the
latter phrase the reference is to a stone specially employed at
the angle or junction of two walls, to connect them, as well as
to bear their weight. In the first formula, allusion is made
more to the position than to the purpose of the block. In-
Jer. li. 26, the corner-stone and the foundations seem to be
distinguished. The corner-stone, placed at the angle of the
building, seems to have been reckoned in Oriental architectune |
of more importance than the foundation-stone. The foundation- .
stones, QeuwéAvo-—plural, were first laid, and indicated the
plan of the structure ; but the corner-stone—that is, the foun-
dation-stone placed at the corner—required peculiar size and
strength. ~In short, the “ chief corner-stone” is that pring

1 Gesenius, Thesaurus, sub voce.

Ve

_ ‘EPHESIANS: IL. :20. 199

- foundation which was carefully laid ‘at the angle of the

building, and on which the connected walls rested. From
_ its position and design it was styled “the head of the corner.”
While the apostles and prophets generally placed the founda-
_ tion, the primary stone—on which, in Hebrew idea or image,
_ the structure mainly rests, and by which its unity is upheld
| was Jesus Christ. Without this its walls would not have
' been connected, but there must have been a fissure. As
_ Theodoret, Menochius, Estius, and Holzhausen think, there
_ may be a reference to Jew and Gentile united on the one rock.
_ The laying of the foundation prepares for the setting down of
the corner-stone, which connects and concentrates upon itself
the weight of the building. That man, “Jesus,” who was
' “Christ,” the divinely - appointed, qualified, and accepted
_ Saviour, unites and sustains the church. Saving knowledge
' is the apprehension of that truth about Him which Himself
' has announced—saving faith is dependence on the atoning
_ work which He has done—hope rests in His intercession—
_ the sanctifying Spirit is His gift—the unity of the church
_ has its spiritual centre in Him—its government is from Him
' as its King—and its safety is in Him its exalted Protector.
_ Whether, therefore, we regard creed or practice, worship or
_ discipline, faith or government, union or extension, is He not
- in His truth, His blood, His power, His legislation, and His
_ presence to His church, “ Himself the chief corner-stone”? In
short, He is “the Alpha and the Omega,” and combined at the
_ same time with every evangelical theme. Should we describe
_ the glories of creation, He is Creator; or enlarge on the wisdom
_ and benignity of Providence, He is Preserver and Ruler. Is
the Divine Law the theme of exposition ?—He not only enacted
it, but exemplified its precepts and endured its penalty. Are
we summoned to speak of death ?—He has “abolished it ;”
or if we wander among the tombs, He lay in the sepulchre
and rose from it “the first-fruits of them that sleep.” If
ministers preach, Christ crucified is their text; and if churches
“grow in grace,” such holiness is conformity to the life of
' their Lord. He is, moreover, “all in all” in the entire circuit

of the operations of the Spirit, who applies His truth to the
mind, sprinkles His blood on the heart, and seals the inner
an with His. blessed image.

200 EPHESIANS II. 21.

(Ver. 21.) "Ev & waca oixodopn cvvapporoyoupévn avfer—
“In whom the whole building, being fitly framed together, is
growing.” The relative agrees with the nearest substantive,
"Incod Xpictod—not with r@ Oepediw, as is the opinion of
Holzhausen ; nor with dxpoywaiov, and meaning “ on which,”
as is asserted by Theophylact, Luther, Beza, Koppe, and
Scholz. Nor can the words signify “through whom,” as is
held by Castalio, Vatablus, Menochius, Morus, and Flatt.
“In whom,” that is, in Christ Jesus; the building being fitly.
framed together in Him. Its unity and symmetry are origi-
nated and maintained in Him. The article 1) before waca in A
and C, and in the Textus Receptus, appears to be spurious ; it
is not found in B, D, E, F, G, I, K, and is rejected by the latest
editors, Lachmann and Tischendorf. Middleton and Trollope,
for mere grammatical reasons, affirm that vaca 7 is the right
reading. Reiche says—Paulum scripsisse waca 7 oixodopyn cum
articulo nullus dubito, and he ascribes the omission to the
homoioteleuton—olkodou 7 7. Comment. Crit. p. 149; Gotting.
1859. Hofmann, /.c., renders, “all which is built ”—was gebaut
wird. Must,then, waca oixodoun be rendered “every build-
ing,” as is the opinion of Chrysostom, Beza, Zanchius, and
Meyer, or as Wycliffe renders—“eche bildynge,” and Tyn-
dale—“every bildynge”? We think not:—For, 1. The
object of the apostle is to describe the one temple, which has
its foundation laid by apostles and prophets. It is of this one
structure, so founded, so united, so raised, and consisting of
such materials—for in it the Ephesians were inbuilt—that he
speaks. 2. In the later Greek as in the earlier, was, without
the article, sometimes bore the sense of “ whole.” Bernhardy,
p. 323; Gersdorf, p. 376; Scott and Liddell, Pape, Passow,
sub voce. So in the New Testament, Matt. ii. 3; Luke iv. 13;
Acts vii. 22; or Acts ii. 36—IIas olxos ’Ioparrx—phraseology
based upon the usage of the Septuagint, 1 Sam. vii. 2, 3;
Neh. iv. 16; Col.i.15. If, as Ellicott says, these examples are
not in point, as being proper names or abstract substantives,
they at least show the transition from an earlier and stricter
to a laxer and later use, in which other nouns besides proper
names and very familiar or monadic terms may dispense with
the articles. Winer, § 18, 4,§ 19. So in Josephus, Antig.
iv. 5, 1—ITorauss da raons épnuov péwy—“a river flowing

EPHESIANS II. 21, 201

through the whole desert ;” Thucydides, ii. 43—2aea yh and
also in 38—逫 maons yijs ; Iliad, xxiv. 407—racav &dnbeiny ;
_ Hesiod, Op. et Dies, 510—ardca try; Theog. 874—,yOav
mwaca. Also—éia mdons vuxros; Passow, sub voce ; Thiersch,
De Penta. versione Alexandrina, p. 121, in which are some
examples, though perhaps not all of them strictly analogous.

The Syriac has « Lisrs m\5—the whole building.”

Oixodoun, a term of the later Greek, as is shown by Lobeck
in his Parerga to the Ecloge of Phrynichus, signifies pro-
perly “the art or process of building,” and is originally
- equivalent to oixoddéunats, but has also the same meaning as
oixodounuwa—pp. 421,487,490. The structure named has not
yet been completed, and wraca oixodouy signifies the entire
_ structure—the structure in every part of it. The edifice in
_ course of erection, being fitly framed together in all its parts,
groweth into a holy temple. Such is the opinion of Chrysos-
_ tom, which Harless sets aside without sufficient evidence. For
_ of what is the “ growth” specified? Is the structure complete,
' and is the growth supposed to be not of it as an edifice in
_ itself, but of its purpose—“ into a holy temple”? Does the
_ edifice wax in size, or only grow in destination and object ?
| If you suppose the latter, then you also suppose that the living
stones are placed in the temple before its design is realized ;
_ or that these stones are themselves changed after they are laid
in their places. The growth, therefore, belongs to the edifice
itself. It increases in size and height. Even in its unfinished
state, the purpose of the fabric may be detected ; and when it
_ is completed, that purpose, apparent at every stage of its pro-
gress, shall be manifest, fully and for ever—‘a holy temple
in the Lord.”

The present participle cvvappodroyoupévn, is a rare term
occurring only once more, in iv. 16—ovvappofew being the
classic form—and denotes “ being jointed together,” or com-
posed of parts fitted closely to each other. The whole struc-
jure is compact and firm; not loose and ill-arranged masonry,
which is as unstable in itself as it is offensive to the eye.
But every stone is in its place, and fits its place. In this
mutual adaptation there is no useless projection, no unsightly
chasm. Neither excrescence nor defect mars the beauty of

202 . EPHESIANS IL 21.

the structure—“in Christ” it is fitly framed together. - There
is no superfluous doctrine, and no forgotten precept; grace
does not clash with statute or service; promises “are yea
and amen in Him;” pardon, peace, purity, and hope are
linked into one another, because they are closely united to
Him; and the members of the true church are so firmly
allied, that the gifts and graces of one are supplementary
to the gifts and graces of another. No qualification is lost,
and: none can be ‘dispensed with. One’s ingenuity devises
what another’s activity works out. While conquests are made
in distant climes, “she that tarries at home divides the
spoil.” The huge walls built round the Peireus by the
Athenians under Themistocles, are described by the historian’
as composed of large stones, square-hewn, and built together,
being fixed to one another, on the outside, with iron and lead.
But such cumbrous ligatures do not disfigure those spiritual
walls ; for that magnetic influence which binds all the living
stones to the chief Corner-stone, cements them, at the same
time and by the same power, to one another in cordial sym-
pathy and reciprocal coherence and support. As Fergusson
says—“ By taking band with Christ the foundation, they are
fastened one to another.”

Av€e. is for the more usual av&dver. It occurs Col. ii. 19,
and also in the Greek poets. The present marks actual
growth certainly, and may describe normal condition. Even
in its immature state, and with so much that is undeveloped,
one may admire its beauty of outline, and its graceful form
and proportions. Vast augmentations may be certainly anti-
cipated ; but its increase does not destroy its adaptations, for
it grows as “being fitly framed together.” A structure not
firm and compact, is in the greater danger of falling the higher
it is carried; and “if it topple on our heads, what matters it
whether we are crushed by a Corinthian or a Dorie ruin?”
But this fabric, with walls of more than Cyclopean or Pelas-
gian strength and vastness, secures its own continuous and
illimitable elevation and increase. The design of the edifice
is next stated— . A

1 Avo ye duakas iveveias GAAMAOUS Tods Aldous twnyov. "Evrds Rovers ark odes wnros
Hiv, GARG vig odopenpbvos wrrydros ribo nal iv coun iyyone cidiew mes ZAAMACUS TH Faber
wal worvPde 3:dsuivee—Thucydides, i. 93. ; iv]

rrperee

.- EPHESIANS II. 21. 203

eis vaov a&yov év Kupiy—groweth—“ into a holy temple in
the Lord.” It was a temple—a sacred edifice. The words
év Kupiw belong to dyov, or rather to vadv ayov; not, as
(€cumenius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Wolf, and
Meyer suppose, to avfer; for these critics, with the exception
of the last, give év the sense of ¢d—it groweth “ by means of”
the Lord. Nor does Kupuos refer to God, as Michaelis, Koppe,
Rosenmiiller, and Baumgarten-Crusius suppose, but, as in
Pauline usage, to Christ. (See chap. i. 2,3.) Neither are we,
with Beza, Koppe, Macknight, and others, to rob the év of its
own significance, making the phrase év Kupiw equivalent to a
dative, and joining it with vaoy; nor, with Drusius and
a-Lapide, to give it the meaning of a genitive. These are
rash and ungrammatical modes of interpretation. It has no
holiness but from the Lord, neither is it a temple but from its
connection with Him. For the meaning of ayos, see i. 1.
The signification of the simple dative—*a temple dedicated
to the Lord,” cannot be admitted for another reason—that
Jesus is represented as the chief corner-stone, and cannot be
also depicted as the God of the temple, or its officiating priest.
But the chief corner-stone, solid and massive, gives firmness
and sanctity to the structure. The term vads is apparently
used of individual believers (1 Cor. iii. 16,17, vi. 19; 2 Cor.

__} The vivacious fancy of a Frenchman is seen in the following description :—
** Quelle sagesse encore ne remarque-t-on point dans la diverse dispensation des
graces que l’Eglise regoit de Dieu? Ici i] employe I’or brilliant d’une foi extraor-
dinairement éclairée ; 1a l’argent secourable d’une charité liberale ; 14 le fer dur
et ferme d'une patience invincible; 14 le cédre incorruptible d’une vie pure, et
_ Gloignée des corruptions du monde ; 14 la hauteur des colonnes qui paroissent de
loin, pour mettre la verité dans une belle vué ; 14 la force des soubassemens qui
la soutiennent et |'affermissent ; afin que par ce moyen son Fglise soit un
édifice bien ajusté et bien assorti, 4 qui rien ne manque pour sa subsistance. Il
se sert méme de Ia contrarieté des humeurs et des esprits, pour rendre cet
_ ajustement plus parfait. Car par la promptitude et la véhémence des uns, il
- excite la lenteur des autres: et par Ja lenteur de ceux-ci il modéré et retient la
promptitude de ceux-lk. Par Jes lumieres des clairvoyans il instruit les simples,
et par la sainte simplicité des idiots, il sanctifie les lumibres des clairvoyans. Si
tous étoient bouillans dans leur humeur, il y auroit de l’emportement ; si to s
€toient froids, il y auroit de la negligence: mais par la violence des uns fl
échauffe la froideur de tempérament des autres ; et par la froideur des derniers
il tempéré la trop grande ardeur des premiers ; faisant et entretenant ainsi un
heureux ajustement, et une salutaire harmonie dans son Eglise. —Sermons our
PEpttre de St. Paul aux Ephesiens, par fea M. Du Bose, tome ili, pp. 299,
$00. 1699. dove

204 EPHESIANS II. 22.

vi. 16. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 3, 4), and its peculiar and specific
meaning is given in the next clause, by the words xatouxn-
tnpiov tov Ocodv—“ habitation of God;” for vads, from vai,
like the Latin aedes, is the dwelling of the Divinity. Ex.
xxv. 8, 22; 1 Kings vi. 12,13; 1 Cor. vi. 19. The illustra-
tion of the word is naturally postponed to the following verse.
(Ver. 22.) ‘Ev & kai tpeis cvvoixodopeta@e—“ In which
also you are built together.” To translate cal tpuets by “you
even” may be too broad, but some comparison is involved.
Some refer é€v @ to Kupi@, “in whom.” Such is the opinion
of Olshausen, Harless, de Wette, Meyer, Stier, Alford, and
Ellicott. Others, like Zanchius, Grotius, and Koppe, go back
with needless travel to axpoywyiaiov for an antecedent. We
prefer, with Calixtus, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten, and Matthies,
taking vaov Gyov év Kupiw as the antecedent. If it be said,
on the one hand, that év @ usually in such connections refers
to Christ, then it may be said, on the other hand, that to be
built in or into a temple keeps the figure homogeneous. The
entire structure compacted in Jesus groweth into a temple,
“in which ye also are built” as living stones. The wpeis
may specially refer to the Gentile Christians, as they are
peculiarly addressed and reminded of their privileges, for this
verse is the conclusion of the paragraph which began with the
congratulation“ Ye are no more strangers and foreigners.”
The intense signification of magis magisqgue which Bucer
gives to the ovy- in composition with the cuvorxodopetabe, is
wholly unwarranted, save by this implication, that the placing
of those stones from the Ephesian quarry on the rising struc-
ture added considerably to its size. Nor can we, with Calvin
and Meier, look upon the verb as an imperative ; for the entire
previous context is a recital of privilege, and the same form
of syntactic connection is maintained throughout. The idea
that seems to be entertained by Harless and Grotius is—As
the whole building fitly framed together groweth into a holy

temple in the Lord, so ye, individually or socially, are built |

up in like manner for a habitation of God in the Spirit. This
opinion destroys as well the unity of the figure as the connec-
tion of the verses. It is one temple which the apostle describes,
and he concludes his delineation by telling the Ephesians that
they formed part of its living materials and masonry. In

— Pde nel ee a me

EPHESIANS II. 22. 205

1 Esdr. v. 68, cvvorxodopnoopev tuiv means—“ we will build
along with you.” The dative is, however, in that clause
formally expressed, while in the passage before us no other
party is referred to. The wets of this verse are the dpeis of
ver. 19. The ovy- may not, therefore, expressly denote
“along with others,” but rather—* Ye are built together in
mutual contact or union among yourselves, or rather with all
built in along with you.” The verb is thus of similar refer-
ence with cuvapporoyoupevn. The stones of that building are
not thrown together without choice or order, but they adhere
with a happy and unchanging union. Christians who have
personal knowledge of one another have a closer intimacy,
and so they are not wantonly separated in this structure, but,
like the Ephesian church, are “ built together.”

eis KaToLKNTHpLov TOV Ocovd év IIveyuati— for an habitation
of God in the Spirit.” We regard these words as explanatory
of the vaos ayios of the preceding verse, to the explanation of
which the reader may turn. We cannot, with Harless, refer
them to individual Christians, for such an idea mars the unity
and completeness of the figure. As Stier remarks, too, all the
nouns are in the singular, and refer to one structure. The
purpose of the holy temple is defined. It is, as we have seen
from several portions of the Old Testament, the dwelling of
God.! “This is my rest ’—“ here will I stay.” Now Jehovah
dwelt in His temple for two purposes:—1. To instruct His
people by His oracles and cheer them with His presence.
“God is in the midst of her”—‘*“Shine forth, Thou that
dwellest between the cherubim”—“I will meet thee, and I
will commune with thee.” Moses brought the causes of the

people “before the Lord.” God inhabits this spiritual fane

for spiritual ends—to teach and prompt, to guide and bless,
to lead and comfort. His presence diffuses a light and joy,

of which the lustre of the Shechinah was only a faint retlec-

tion and emblem. 2. Jehovah dwelt in the temple to accept
the services of His people. The offerings were presented in
the courts of the house to the God of the house. “ Spiritual

1 Josephus records among the omens which preceded the fall of Jerusalem, that
a mystericus voice was heard in the temple to utter the awful words—‘‘ Let us
go hence,” as if its Divine inhabitant had been bidding it farewell, and leaving
it to its fate.

206 EPHESIANS II. 22.

sacrifices” are still laid on the altar to God, and the odour of"

such oblations is a “sweet savour,” rising with fresh and un-
dispersed perfume to Him who is enshrined in His sanctuary.

Three interpretations have been proposed of the concluding
words—év IIvevpats. 1. Some, such as Chrysostom, Riickert,
Olshausen, and Holzhausen, as also Erasmus, Homberg, Koppe,
Flatt, and others, give the words an adjectival sense, as if
they merely meant “ spiritually,” and characterized this edifice,
in contrast with the Jewish temple “ made with hands.” But
such an exposition is baseless. There is no contrast intended
between a material and a spiritual temple, nor is there any-
thing implying it. Nor could the two words, placed as they
are by the apostle, naturally bear such a signification. That
the article is not necessary to give the words a personal
reference, as some, such as Riickert, affirm, is plain from many
similar passages, as may be seen in our remarks on i. 17, and
in the following paragraph.

2. Some join év IIvevpatz to the verb cuvotxodopuetabe, and
then the words denote—“ built together by means of the
Spirit.” This is the view of Theophylact, Gicumenius, Meyer,
and Hodge. Calvin combines both this and the preceding
interpretation. To such an exegesis we might object, with
Harless, that it is strange that words of such importance,
denoting the medium of erection, should be found in the para-
graph as a species of afterthought. Harless indeed adds, that
IIvedpa, denoting the Spirit objectively, should have the article.
But surely the article is not required any more than with the
év Kvuplw of the preceding verse. The reader may turn for
proof to this epistle, 11. 5, vi. 18 ; and Matt. xxii. 43; Rom.
viii. 4; 1 Cor. xiv. 2; Gal. iv. 29, v. 5; in all which places
the Holy Ghost is referred to, and the noun wants the article.
See under i. 17. Where the Holy Spirit in distinct and ex-
ternal personality is spoken of, or His influences are regarded
as coming from without, the noun has the article ; but in many
places where He is conceived of in His subjective operations,
the article is either inserted or omitted. It is omitted Matt.
i. 18-20, iii. 11, and inserted Luke ii. 27, iv. 1, 14. Perhaps
the idea of Divine power exerted ab extra is intended in these
last passages. When the epithet dycov is employed, the article
is sometimes used and sometimes not, though the. cases of

a

EPHESIANS Il. 22. 207

omission are rather more frequent. But no possible difference
of meaning can in many places be detected. Harless instances
1 Cor. ii 4, 13, compared with ver. 10, in which last verse
the Spirit is conceived of as God’s, and has the article. In
the phrases in which the Spirit’s relation to the Father is
kept in view, the article is used. But revelation is as clearly
ascribed to the Spirit in this epistle, iii. 5, as in 1 Cor. ii. 10,
and yet in the former place it has no article. The article,
without difference of view, is employed and rejected in con-
tiguous verses. Acts viii. 17, 18, 19, xix. 2,6 ; John iii. 5, 6.
The cases of insertion in these quotations may be accounted
for on other and mere grammatical principles. Fritzsche, ad
Rom. viii. 4.

3. The third interpretation is that supported virtually by
Stier, de Wette, and Matthies. God dwells in this temple,
as in individual believers, “by or in His Spirit.” Christians
are the temple of God, because the Spirit of God dwelleth in
them. 1 Cor. iii. 16. What is true of them separately is also
true of them collectively—they are the residence of God in
the Spirit. “Ev IIvevpate defines the mode of inhabitation.
_ That temple, from its connection with the Spirit—inasmuch
as the Spirit has fashioned, quickened, and laid its living
stones, and dwells within them—is “a habitation of God.”
| The God who resides in the church is the enlightening, puri-
_ fying, elevating, comforting Spirit. The apostle’s own defini-
tion of the formula is—“ Ye are év [Ivevyat:—in the Spirit, if
so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Rom. viii Y.
And thus again, as often before, the Trinity or the triune rela-
tion of God to His people is brought out. The Father dwells
in the Spirit in that temple of which the Son is the chief
corner-stone. The church is one, holy and Divine; it rests
on Christ—is possessed by God—filled with the Spirit—and
is ever increasing.

CHAPTER III.

HAVING illustrated with such cordial satisfaction and impres-
sive imagery the high privileges of the Gentile converts, the
apostle, as his manner is, resolves to present a prayer for
them. But other thoughts rush into his mind, suggested by
his own personal condition.’ He was a prisoner; and as he
was now writing to Gentiles, at least was at that moment
addressing the Gentile portion of the Ephesian church, an
allusion to his bonds was natural, and seems to have been
introduced at once as a proof of the honesty of his congratu-
lations, and as a circumstance that must have prepared his
readers to enter into the spirit of the earnest and comprehen-
sive supplication to be offered on their behalf. But the
impressive theme on which he had been dilating with such
ecstasy still vibrated in his heart, and the mention of his
imprisonment, originating in his attachment to the Gentiles,
suggested a reference to his special functions as the apostle of
heathendom. These ideas came upon him with such force,
and brought with them such associations, that he could not
easily pass from them. The clank of his chain at length
awakens him to present reality, and he concludes the paren-
thesis with a request that his readers would not mope and
despond over his sufferings, endured for a cause in which they
had so tender and blessed interest. The lst and 13th verses
are thus in close connection, and the apostle, as if describing
a circle, comes round at length to the point from which he
originally started. The connection is——“ For this cause, I
Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles ”—“ bow
my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

(Ver. 1.) Tovrov yapw—* For this cause;” the reference _

1The accusers of the apostle had not yet come to Rome, and he might —
therefore be detained for an indefinite period. This law was afterwards —
altered, and the suspension of a process for a year was held to be tantamount
to its abandonment. .

EPHESIANS III. 1, 209

being not to any special element in the previous illustration,
but to the whole of it—inasmuch as Gentile believers are

raised along with believing Jews to those high privileges and
honours now common to both of them. The remarks we have
made will show that we regard the construction as broken
by a long parenthesis, and resumed in ver. 14, not at ver. 8,
as (Ecumenius and Grotius suppose, nor yet at ver. 13, as
Zanchius, Cramer, and Holzhausen maintain. In the former
hypothesis, the connection thus stands—“I Paul, the prisoner
of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles” ——“even to me, less than
the least of all saints, is this grace given.” But here there is
-no natural contact of ideas, and the change of case from the
nominative to the dative, though vindicated by Cicumenius
from examples in Thucydides and Demosthenes, is, as Origen
affirms, a solecism, and is fatal to the hypothesis. Catena in
loc. ed. Cramer. Oxford, 1842. The 8th verse is insepar-
ably connected also with the 6th and 7th verses. The
other opinion, that the course of thought is resumed in
ver. 13, is proved to be untenable as well by the occurrence
of the simple &o in that verse, as by the fact that the
repeated tovrov ydpw of the following verse has no founda-
tion in the sentiment of the 13th. The idea expressed in the
13th verse is a subordinate and natural conclusion of the
digression. Erasmus, Schmid, Michaelis, and Hammond
would consider the whole chapter a parenthesis, but such an
opinion makes the digression altogether too long, and over-
looks the connecting link in ver. 14. The majority of ex-
-positors adopt the view we have given, to wit, that ver. 14
resumes the interrupted sentiment. Theodoret says—rtatra
mdvra (vers. 1-13) év péow TeBerxas dvadapPSdver tov Tepl
mpoceuyis Néyov. This opinion plainly harmonizes with the
scope and construction of the chapter. Winer, § 62, 4.
But there are some commentators who deny that any par-
thesis or digression occurs, and for this purpose various
pplements have been proposed for the Ist verse. Many
supply the verb e¢u/—* For this cause I Paul am the prisoner
Jesus Christ.” This conjecture has for its authority the
eschito, which is followed by Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Im, Erasmus, Aretius, Cajetan, Beza, with a large host
modern critics, the version of Tyndale, and Geneva. The
1]

210 . EPHESIANS Ill. 1.

paraphrase of Chrysostom is—6a Todro Kal éyw dédeuar; and
he adds in explanation of the phrase—“if my Master was
crucified for you, much more am I bound.” But our objection
is, first, that 5€opos has the article—I am the prisoner, whereas
Paul may be supposed to say, “I am a prisoner.” It is
alleged by Beza, Rollock, and Meyer, that the notoriety of
Paul as'a prisoner might have prompted him to use the article.
But such a supposition is not in harmony with the apostle’s
character. Under such an exegesis also, as has been often
remarked, tovtov yadpw and brép buoy would form a tautology.
The apostle does not mean to magnify the fact of his imprison-
ment: he merely hints in passing that it originated in the
proclamation of those very truths which he had been discuss-
ing. Middleton on Greek Article, p. 358. Others, again,
such as the Codices D, E, supply wpeoSedo —a spurious
insertion borrowed from vi. 20, and adopted by Ambrosiaster
and Castalio, as well as by Calvin in his Latin rendering—
legatione fungor. Another MS. has the verb xexavynuat,
taken from Phil. 11.16. Jerome supplies—cognovi mysteriwm,
and Camerarius gives us—hoc scribo. Meyer's rendering is
peculiar—deshalb—that you may be built—zw diesem Behufe
bin Ich Paulus, der Gefesselte Christi Jesu um euret, der Heiden
willen. But the plain supposition of a long parenthesis ren-
ders all such supplements superfluous.

"Ey IIatdkos—“I Paul,” his own name being inserted to
give distinctness, personality, and authority to the statement,
$8: 1n 1. Cort 120150, 4.9,.2 23. 2 Cor x. 1 Gal: v.23
Col. i. 23; 1 Thess. 11.18; Philem.9. That name was vene-
rated in those churches, and its formal mention must have
struck a deep and tender chord in their bosom. Once Saul,
the synonym of antichristian intolerance, it was now Paul,
not merely a disciple or a servant, but—

6 déc pos TOD Xpio tod ’"Incod—“the prisoner of Christ Jesus.”
2 Tim. i. 8; Philem. 9. The genitive, as that of originating
cause, signifies not merely “a prisoner belonging to Christ,” |
but one payee Christ, that is, Christ’s cause, and not Cross :
had imprisoned. Winer, § 30, 2,67 Acts xxi 11. > His loss
of liberty arose from no violation of law on his part: it was
solely in prosecuting his mission that he was apprehended an
confined ; for he was in fetters— :

|
|

EPHESIANS III. 2. 211

imép tuav tdv €Ovav—“on behalf of you Gentiles,” a
common sense of the preposition, which is repeated in ver. 12.
It was his office as apostle of the Gentiles which exposed
him to persecution, and led to his present incarceration.
Acts xxi. 22, xxv. 11, xxviii. 16. His vindication of such
truths as formed the last paragraph of the preceding chapter,
roused Jewish jealousy and indignation. Nay, in writing to
the Ephesians he could not forget that the suspicion of his
having taken an Ephesian named Trophimus into the temple
with him, created the popular disturbance that led to his
capture and his final appeal to Cesar, his journey to Rome,
and his imprisonment in the imperial city. The apostle
proceeds to explain more fully the meaning of this clause—
(Ver. 2.) Evye jxovcate thy oixovopdav— If indeed ye have
heard of the dispensation.” As the translation—“ if ye have
heard”—seems to imply that Paul was a stranger to the
Ephesian church, various attempts have been made to give
the words another rendering. (See Introduction.) That efye
may bear the meaning “since,” is undeniable (iv. 21; Col. i.
23); or, “if indeed, as I take for granted, ye have heard ;”
or, as Estius and Wiggers translate—“if, as is indeed the
ase, ye have heard.” Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834. The
particle ye is used in suppletive sentences (Hartung, Partih.
i. 391), and may be rendered wnd zwar—“and_ indeed.”
Harless is inclined to take the words as hypothetical,’ as
indicating want of personal acquaintance with his readers ;
but Hartung (ii. 212) lays it down, that in cases where the
sontents of the sentence are adduced as proof of a preceding
‘statement, the meaning of elye approaches that of 67+ and
e(. Hoogeveen also states the same canon.’ The apostle
ys—I am a prisoner for you Gentiles; and he now gives the
ason of his assertion—Ye must surely have heard of the dis-
sation committed to me—a dispensation whose prominent

|_ Reckless efforts have been made upon the verb sjovcate—
jas when Pelagius renders it firmiter tenctis. So Anselm, Gro-
us, and Rinck, Sendschreib. des Korinth. p. 56. See under i. 15.
ie apostle has been supposed by Musculus, Crocius, Flatt,

| 1Stud. und Kritik. 1841, p. 432.
_ * Doctrina Particularum, etc., p. 158, ed. Schiitz ; Klotz-Devar, p. 308.

212 EPHESIANS III. 2.

and de Wette, to mean “hearing by report of others.” There
is no proof of this in the language, nor of the other version—
“hearing, and also attending and understanding.” The writer
may refer to his own sermons, for we cannot say with Calvin
—credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, eum tacuisse de his rebus.
The apostle may, in this quiet form, stir up their memory of
the truth, that mission to the heathen was his special work—
not his work by accident, but by fixed Divine arrangement.
He preached in Ephesus to both Jew and Gentile; and his
precise vocation, as the apostle of the Gentiles, might not have
been very fully or formally discussed. Still it was a theme
which could not have been kept in abeyance. They surely
had heard it from his lips; and this e/ye, rather than 6rz, is
the expression of a gentle hope that they had not forgotten
the lesson. Yet there is no reprehension in the phrase, as is
supposed by Vitringa and Holzhausen.

The term oixovoyia does not signify the apostolical office,
as is the opinion of Luther, Musculus, Rollock, Aretius,
Crocius, Wieseler, and others, for it is explained by the
apostle himself in the following verse; and it cannot denote
dispensatio doctrine, as Pelagius translates it; not officium
dispensande gratie Dei, as Anselm explains it. See under
i. 10. Its meaning is arrangement or plan; and the apostle
employs it to describe the mode in which he had been selected
and qualified to preach faith and privilege to the Gentiles.
Chrysostom identifies the oiovoula with the aroxaduis of
the following verse—“ As much as to say, I learned it not
from man.” How came it that a person like Paul—a staunc
Pharisee, a scholar of Gamaliel, attached to rabbinical studies
and a zealot in defence of the law—nhow came it that he, wit
antecedents so notorious in their contrast, should be the ma
to preach, as his special mission, the entrance of Gentiles in
Christian privilege? The method of his initiation was o
God; and that “economy” is described as being

Ths xadpitos ToD Oeod rijs SoOeiaons pou eis buas— of th
grace of God which is given me to you-ward.” This ydpus it
not, as Grotius and Riickert imagine, the apostolical offie
but the source or contents of it. We see no ground to identi
xapis with the following wvornpcov, though it includes it. T
idea is either that the o¢covoyia had its origin in that xapzs,

EPHESIANS III. 3. 213

rather that the ydpis was its characteristic element. Winer,
§ 30, 2. That grace was given him, not that he might enjoy
it as a private luxury, but that he by its assistance might
impart it to others—ets tuas—* to you,” not inter vos, as Storr
makes it. Gal. i. 15, ii. 9; Acts xxii. 21. There may, as
Stier suggests, be an allusion in the olxovoy/a to the olxodous)
of ver. 21 in the previous chapter. In the house-arrangement
and distribution of offices, the building of the Gentile portion
of the structure was Paul's special function. The apostle now
becomes more special in his description—

(Ver. 3.)"Ort kata droxaduwu éyvwplcOn pow Td pvaorrprov
—“ How that by revelation was the mystery made known to
me.” ’Eyvwpice is the reading of the Received Text, on the
authority of D™, E, J, K, and many minuscules, and is
received by Knapp and Tittmann ; but éyvwpic@n has the pre-
ponderant authority of A, B, C, D', F,G, ete., the Syriac and
Vulgate, and is adopted by Lachmann, Hahn, and Tischendorf.
The “relative particle 67, as the correlative of ti, introduces
an objective sentence.” Donaldson, Greek Gram. § 584. It
leads to further explanation, and the clause is a supplementary
accusative connected with the previous verb. The mystery
itself is unfolded in ver. 6; for, as we have seen under i. 9,
“mystery” is not something in itself incomprehensible, but
merely something unknown till God please to reveal it—
something undiscoverable by man, and to the knowledge of

_ which he comes by Divine disclosare—xata anoxaduyuy, the
- emphasis lying on the phrase, as is indicated by its position.

————- —_—

Gal. ii. 2. In Gal. i. 12, the genitive with dd is employed.
Grammarians, as Bernhardy (p. 241) and Winer (§ 51), show
that «ard, with the accusative, has sometimes an adverbial
signification; so Meyer renders offenbarungsweise. The differ-
ence is not material; but 8’ dwroxadvwews would refer to the

means or method of disclosure, whereas xata arroxdduyw may
describe the shape which it assumed. The general spirit of
the statement is, that his mission to the Gentiles was not

created by the expansive philanthropy of his own bosom, nor

‘was it any sourness of temper against his countrymen that

prompted him to select, as his favourite sphere of labour, the
outfield of heathendom. He might have been a believer, but

still, like many thousands of the Jews—“ zealous of the law.”

214 EPHESIANS III. 4.

It was by special instruction that he comprehended the world-
wide adaptations of the gospel, and gave himself to the work of
evangelizing the heathen—the mystery being their admission
to church fellowship equally with the Jews. He alludes, not
perhaps so much to the first instructions of the Divine will at
his conversion (Acts ix. 15), as to subsequent revelations.
Acts xxil..21; Gal.i. 16. And he adds—

Kabws mpoéypawra év odA’yw—“as I have just written in
brief ;” or, as Tyndale renders—* as I wrote above, in feawe
wordes;” i. 9, ii, 13. The parenthetical marking of some
editors commencing with this clause, and extending to the
end of ver. 4, is useless; and the relative 6 in ver. 5 belongs
to the antecedent wvorjpvov in ver. 4. There is no occasion,
with Hunnius, Marloratus, Chrysostom, and Calvin, to make
the reference in the verb to some earlier epistle. Theodoret
says well—oby as tivés trédaBov, Ste érépayv émictodHy
yéypapev. See under i. 12. Such is the view of the great
body of interpreters. The apostle refers to what he had now
written in the preceding paragraph—from ver. 13 to the end
of the second chapter—and apparently not, as Alford says, to
i. 9; nor, as Ellicott says, to the fact contained in the imme-
diately preceding clause.

And he had written év oA’yw—in brevi (Vulgate), “in brief”
—in a few words. See Kypke, Observat. ii. p. 293, in which
examples are given from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Aristotle.
Theodoret—followed by Erasmus, Camerarius, Calvin, Grotius,
Estius, Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius, and many others—pro-
poses that €v odA¢y@ should be taken as explanatory of the
mpo- in mpoéypaya, and that the phrase signifies viv, or paulo
ante. Bodius conveniently combines both views. But such
a construction cannot be admitted; to express such an idea
mpo odyou would have been employed. And the apostle has
not intimated simply that such a mystery was disclosed to
him, but that he has also noted down the results or contents
of the disclosure, and for this purpose—

(Ver. 4.) IIpos 6. IIpos 6 cannot be identified, as Theo-
phylact does, with é€& ov. It may mean, as Harless and de
Wette translate, “in consequence of which;” or, as in our
version, “whereby.” We question, however, whether this
meaning can be sustained. It may be the ultimate, but it is

EPHESIANS IIL. 4 215

not the immediate sense. Its more usual signification—* in
reference to which”—is as appropriate. Winer,§ 49,h. Such
is also the rendering of Peile—“ referring to which.” Herodot.
iii. 52; Jelf, § 638; Matthiae, § 591; Bernhardy, p. 265;
Vigerus, De Jdiotismis, ii. p. 694, London, 1824. The
reference is subjective—“as I have already written in brief,
in reference to which portion—‘ tanguam ad specimen, when
ye read it, ye may understand my knowledge.” In the phrase
mpos 6, the apostle quietly claims their special attention to the

_ passage on which such notoriety is bestowed, and adds—
| Sivacbe avaywwoxortes vojoar thy oiveriv pou ev Tw
_ puaotnpiy tod Xpiorov—“ you can while reading perceive my
insight in the mystery of Christ.” When this epistle reached
_ them it was presumed that they would read it ;’ and as they
- read it, they would feel their competence. The present parti-
| ciple expresses contemporaneous action—the reading being
parallel in time to the perception; though the latter is expressed
by the aorist infinitive, which form, according to Donaldson,
“describes a single act either as the completion or as the com-
mencement of a continuity.” (reek Gram. § 427, d. If this
be supposed to be too refined, it may be added that several
verbs, as Svvayar, are in Greek idiom followed by the aorist
rather than the present. Winer, § 44, 7. The verb vojoae
means to perceive—come to the knowledge of—to mark ;
whereas ovveats is intelligence or insight, and does not require
the repetition of the article before év t@ puarnpl, as one idea
is conveyed. Josh. i. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; Dan.i. 17;
3 Esdr. i. 3. Winer, § 20, 2; Tittmann’s Synon. p. 191.
If ye read what I have written, ye shall perceive what grasp
I have of the mystery; and my knowledge of it is based on
immediate revelation. True, the apostle had written but
briefly, yet these hints were the index of a fuller familiarity
with the theme. The genitive, rod Xpiood, is probably that
f object. Ellicott, following Stier, inclines to make it that of
terial or identity, which appears too refined and strained —
Yol. i. 27 not being exactly parallel, but being a subjective

1 ‘Here he confuteth the papists on account of their cursed practice in taking
y the key of knowledge—the reading of the Scriptures ; in which fact they
re like the Philistines putting out the eyes of Samson, and taking away the
: not leaving a weapon in Israel.” —Bayne, on Eph. in loc. Lond. 1643.

216 EPHESIANS III. 5.

phase of the same great truth. But why should the apostle
solemnly profess such knowledge of the mystery? We can
scarcely suppose, with Olshausen, Harless, and de Wette, that
Paul had in his eye other persons who were strangers to him,
or who were hostile to his claims; nor can we imagine, with
Wiggers, that he wrote to the Hphesians as representatives of
the heathen world. Stud. und Kritik. p. 433; 1841. It
could be no vulgar self-assertion that prompted the reference.
Possibly he was afraid of coming evils from Judaizing teachers
and haughty zealots, and therefore, having illustrated the
equality of Gentile privilege, he next vindicates it by the
solemn interposition of his apostolical authority.

(Ver. 5.) “O érépais yeveats ode éyvwpicOn Tots viots Tov
avOparwv— Which in other ages was not made known to the
sons of men.” The antecedent to 6 is wvartnpior, the relative
forming a frequent link of connection. The év which is found
in the R-ceived Text is condemned by the evidence of MSS.,
such as A, C, D, E, F, G, I, K. The dative as a designation
of the time in which an action took place may stand by itself
without a preposition, as in ii. 12, though in poetry the pre-
position is frequently prefixed. Kiihner, . 569; Stuart, § 106;
Winer, § 31, 9. According to some, yeveais is a species of
ablative, with an ellipse of the preposition, and, as usually
happens in such a case, MSS. vary in their readings. Bos,
Ellipses Greece, ed. Schefer, p. 437. Ieved, corresponding to
the Hebrew 1, signifies here the time occupied by a genera-
tion—an age measured by the average length of human life.
Acts xiv. 16, xv. 21; Col. i. 26. There is no reason to
adopt the opinion of Meyer and Hodge, and take the term to
signify men, having, in epexegetical apposition with it, the
phrase tots viots tov avOpwrwv. Such a construction is
clumsy, and it is far better to give the two datives a differ-
ential signification. The formula étépac yeveai, so used with
the past tense, refers to past ages, and stands in contrast with —
vov. |

That the phrase “sons of men” should, as Bengel supposeaill |
mean the prophets of the Old Testament, is wholly out of the
question. Ezekiel was often named O78"j2—“ son of man,” but —
the prophets never as a body received the cognomen “sons of |
men.” We can scarcely say, with Harless, Matthies, and

rn

eh

EPHESIANS III, 5 217

Stier, that there is studied emphasis in the words, as if to
bring out the need which such generations had of this know-
ledge, since they were men sprung of men, and were in want
of that Spirit so plentifully conferred in these recent times.
Mark iii. 28, compared with Matt. xii. 31. The words so
familiar to a Hebrew ear, seem to have been suggested by the
ryevea to the apostolic mind. As age after age passed away,
successive generations of mortal men appeared. Sons suc-
ceeded fathers, and their sons succeeded them; so that by
“sons of men” is signified the successive band of contem-
poraries whose lives measured these fleeting yevead. The
meaning of the apostle, however, is not that the mystery was
unknown to all men, for it was known to a few; but he intends
to say, that in the minds of men generally it did not possess
that prominence and clearness which it did in apostolic times.
And he fills up the contrast, thus—
ws viv atrexaripOn Tots dylows amootiXols avToU—“ as it
has been now revealed to His holy apostles.” The aorist is
connected with vdy—a connection possible in Greek, but im-
possible in English. Revelation is the mode by which the
apostles gained an insight into the mystery which in previous
ages had not been divulged. Bengel says—notificatio per
revelationem est fons notificationis per praconium. The points
of comparison introduced by @s are various :—1. In point of
time—vov. Only since the advent of Jesus has the shadow
been dispelled. 2. In breadth of communication. The apostle
speaks of the general intimation which the ancient world had
of the mystery, and compares it with those full and exact
conceptions of it which these recent revelations by the Spirit
had imparted. 3. In medium and object. The “sons of
_ men” are opposed to holy apostles and prophets. The apostle’s
- meaning fully brought out is—As it has been now revealed
unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, and by them
- made known to the present age. If the mystery needed to
be revealed by the Spirit, and to minds of such preparation
and susceptibility as those of apostles and prophets ; if its
disclosure required such supernatural influence and such a
selected class of recipients—then it is plain that very inade-
quate and glimmering notions of it must have been entertained
by past generations. The “prophets” have been described

218 EPHESIANS III. 5.

under ii, 20, and “apostles and prophets ” will be more fully
illustrated under iv. 11. The epithet &yco. is unusual in this
application, though it is given to the old prophets. 2 Kings
iv.9; Luke i. 70; 2 Pet.i.21. The term has been explained
under i. 1, and in this place its sense is brought out by the
following avrov. They were His ina ani sense, selected,
Poa commissioned, inspired, sustained, and acknowledged
by Him, and so they were “holy.” Not only were they so
officially, but their character was in harmony with their awful
functions. They were not indeed holier than others; no such
comparison is intended. The Ephesian church was “holy” as
well as the apostles; but they are called holy in this special
sense and in their collective capacity, from the nearness and
peculiarity of their relation to God. The Jewish people were
a “holy nation,” but on the “ forefront of the mitre” of the
high priest, of him who stood within the vail and before the
mercy-seat, there was a golden plate with the significant
inscription—*“ HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH.”

Kat tpodynras év IIvevpati— and prophets in the Spirit.”
Lachmann, followed by Bisping, places a comma after ayious,
and regards the next words as in apposition. IIvedua has not
the article. See under i. 17; see also under ii. 22. Ambro-
siaster and Erasmus connect év IIvevpate with the following
verse, a supposition which the structure of the succeeding
sentence forbids; and Meier joins the same phrase to ay/ous,
as if év IIvevwate explained the term—a hypothesis which is
also set aside by the order of the words. The majority of
expositors, from Jerome and Anselm to Stier and Conybeare,
join the words to the previous verb—“ revealed in” or “ by
the Spirit.” The clause will certainly bear this interpretation,
and the sense is apparent. Winer, § 20,4. But the phrase-
ology is peculiar. Peile translates—‘“ apostles and inspired
interpreters,’ but he erroneously thinks that prophets and
apostles are the same. See under ii. 20. It might be said
that the pronoun seems to qualify droaToNouw~—tTols dryios
atoaTovos avtov—to His holy apostles, while the prophets
have no distinctive character given them, unless it be by the
words év IIvevpars, for they were prophets, and had become
so, or had a right to the title, év IIvevuars. 2 Pet.i21. This
interpretation was before the mind of Chrysostom, though he —

| EPHESIANS Ill. 5. 919

did not adopt it, and Koppe and Holzhausen have formally
_ maintained it. The construction would then resemble that of
_ the same formula in the last verse of the preceding chapter.
Similar construction is found Rom. viii. 9, xiv. 17; 1 Cor. xii.
3; Col.i.8; Rev.i.10. The epithet is not superfluous, as these
men became prophets only “in the Spirit.” The apostles them-
selves stand in the room of the Old Testament prophets, and
_ their possession of the Spirit was a prominent and functional
- distinction. But the prophets so called under the New Testa-
ment were not to be undervalued ; they, too, were “in the
_ Spirit.” De Wette objects that such an epithet for the prophets
_ would be too distinctive. But why so? The apostles were
| God’s—avrovd— in a special sense, and they were @y:oe in con-

sequence. But Paul does not give the “ prophets ” either one
| or other of these lofty designations. The apostles had high
|

office and prerogatives, but the possession of the Spirit was
the solitary distinction of the prophets, and by it the sacred

writer seems to characterize them. At the same time, the

ordinary construction of év IIvevpate with the verb gives so
_ good a meaning, that we could not justify ourselves in depart-
ing from it.

The general sense of the verse is evident. The apostle does
not seem to deny all knowledge of the mystery to the ancient
world, but he only compares their knowledge of it, which at
best was a species of perplexed clairvoyance, with the fuller
revelation of its terms and contents given to modern apostles
‘and prophets; or as Theodoret contrasts it—ov yap ta
mpdypata elSov, ddrd Tods Tepl TOY TpaypaTov ™poeypayav
Aoyous. In Vetere Testamento Novum latet, et in Novo Vetus
patet. The scholium in Matthiw—“ that the men of old knew
‘that the Gentiles should be called, but not that they should
be fellow-heirs,” contains a distinction too acute and refined.
The intimations in the Old Testament of the calling of the
“Gentiles are frequent, but not full; disclosing the fact, but
keeping the method in shade. The apostle James refers to
“this in Acts xv. 14. But after the death of Christ, which, by
“its repeal of the ceremonial code, was the grand means of
" Judwo-Gentile union, a church, without reference to race, Was
| fully organized. The salvation of guilty men of all races
became a distinctive feature of the gospel, and therefore the

220 EPHESIANS III. 6.

incorporation of non-Israel into the church, revealed to Peter
and Paul by the Spirit, was more clearly understood from the
results of daily experience and the fruits of missionary enter-
prise. Acts xi. 17, 18, xv. 7, 13.

(Ver. 6.) This verse explains the mystery. The infinitive
elvae contains the idea of design if viewed from one point, and
of fact if viewed from another—the purpose seen or realized
in the purport or contents. It does not depend upon the last
verse, but unfolds the unimagined contents of the revelation—

elvat ta EOyn cvyKAnpovowa— that the Gentiles are fel-
low-heirs.” Rom. viii. 17. Remarks have been made on the
KAnpovouda, under i. 14,18. The Gentiles were to be co-heirs
with the believing Jews, without modification or diminution
of privilege. Their heirship was based on the same charter,
and referred to the same inheritance. Nor, though that heir-
ship was very recent in date, were they only residuary lega-
tees, bound to be content with any contingent remainder that
satiated Israel might happen to leave. No; they inherited
equally with the earlier sons. Theirs was neither an uncertain
nor a minor portion. And not only were they joint-heirs,
but even—

kal cvvewpa—“and of the same body,’—concorporales—
amore intimate union still. The form of spelling ctvowpa
is found in A, B!, D, E, F, G. The Gentiles were of the
same body—not attached like an excrescence, not incorpo-
rated like a foreign substance, but concorporated so that the
additional were not to be distinguished from the original mem-
bers in such a perfect amalgamation. The body is the one
church under the one Head, and believing Jew and Gentile
form that one body, without schism or the detection of national
variety or of previous condition. Thus Theophylact—év yap—
capa yeyovacw of éOvixol mpos Tods ’Iopanditas pua Keparf |
év Xpiot@ ovyxpatovpevor. Comp. ii. 16. Still further— ~

7

kal ovppétoxa THs étraryyedias— and fellow-partakers of
the promise.” The pronoun adrod of the Received Text is”
not found in the more important MSS. and versions, and is
rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf, though it occurs in
D’, D’, E, F, G, K, L._ The spelling cvvpéroya is found
in A, B,C, D', F, G It has been thought by many to
be too narrow a view to restrict the promise to the Holy

EPHESIANS III. 6. 221

Spirit. But many things favour such an opinion. He is
the prominent gift or promise of the new covenant, as Paul
hints in his comprehensive question, Gal. iii, 2; while again,
in ver. 14 of the same chapter, he adds, as descriptive
of the blessing of Abraham coming on the Gentiles—“ that
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Joel ii. 28, 29. Peter, vindicating his mission to Cornelius,
refers also as a conclusive demonstration of its heavenly origin
to the fact, that “the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us.”
He repeats the same evidence on another occasion. Acts xv. 8.
The promise is here singled out by the article; and in the
mind of the apostle, who had already referred to the Holy
Ghost under a similar designation and in connection with the
inheritance (i, 13), the one grand distinctive and dispensa-
tional promise was that of the Spirit. And if the adrod be
spurious, the naked emphasis laid on the term itself shows
that to Paul it had a simple, well-known, and unmistakeable
meaning. Ellicott says that this view is scarcely consonant
with ocvyxAnpovopa—tfellow-heirs. But the theology of the
apostle shows the perfect consonance. Rom. viii, 14-17.
They alone are heirs who are sons, and they alone are sons
who are led by the Spirit of God. Then is added—

év Xpiot@ ’Incod—in Christ Jesus—as A, B, C, followed by
the Coptic and Vulgate, read. We would not, with Vatablus,
Koppe, Meier, Holzhausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius, restrict
évy Xpict@ “Inood to the preceding noun émayyeta—
“promise in Christ”—for then we might have expected a
repetition of the article; but, with the majority of critics, we
| regard it as a qualifying the whole three adjectives, as the inner
_ sphere of union, while the medium or instrumental cause is
next stated—
8a Tod evayyeAvov—not, as Locke translates, “in the time
of the gospel ;” but “by means of the gospel.” The prepo-
sitions ¢v and &a@ stand in a similar relation, as Tt ar feos 6
Christ,” were the Gentiles co-heirs, co-incorporated, and
co-partakers of the promise with believing Israel, enjoying
- union in Him, “through that gospel” which was preached to
| them; for its object was to proclaim Christ—“ our peace.
p How, then, do the three epithets stand connected? There
" seems to be no climax, as Jerome, Pelagius, and Baumgarten-

Zoe EPHESIANS III. 7.

Crusius suppose; nor an anticlimax, as is the opinion of
Zanchius: yet we cannot adopt the idea of Valpy and others,
that the series of terms is loosely thrown together without
discrimination." We apprehend that the apostle employs the
three terms, in the fulness of his heart, at once to magnify the
mystery, and to prevent mistake. The cvr- is thrice repeated,
and ctvowpua and cvypétoya, are terms coined for the occa-
sion, though the verb oupperéyw occurs in classic Greek, as
in Euripides, Supp. 648—ovppetacyorvtes ; Xenophon, Ana-
basis, vii. 8, 17; Plat. Theet., Opera, vol. iii. p. 495, ed. Bekker.
The Gentiles are fellow-heirs. But such a fellowship might
be external to a great extent—Esau might inherit though he
severed himself from Jacob’s society. The apostle intensifies
his meaning, and declares that they are not only fellow-heirs,
but of the same body—the closest union ; not like Abraham’s
sons by Keturah, each of whom received his portion and his
dismissal in the same act. But while they might be co-heirs,
and embodied in one personality, might there not be a differ-
ence in the amount of blessing enjoyed and promised? Or
with sameness of right, might there not be diversity of gift ?
Will the Israelite have no higher donation as a memento of
his descent, and a tribute of honour to his ancestral glories ?
No; the Gentiles are also fellow-partakers of that one pro-
mise. By this means the apostle shows the amount of
Gentile privilege which comes to them in Christ, not by sub-
mission to the law, as so many had fondly imagined, but by
the gospel. The next verse shows his relation to that
gospel—

(Ver. 7.) Ob éyevnOnv Suaxovos— of which I became a
minister.” Col.i. 23; 2 Cor. iii. 6. This reading is supported
by A, B, D', F, G; while éyevouny is used in C, D*, E, K, L
The use of the passive might show that he had no concur-
rence in the act. But Buttmann says that éyevjOnv is used in
Doric for éyevouny, yiyver Oat being in that dialect a deponent

1 Jerome. affirms on this place, and in apology for the barbarous Latin in
which the translation of the three terms was couched—et singuli sermones,
apices, puncta, in Divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus, Stier, as is his wont,
and according to the artificial view which he has formed of the epistle and its
various sections, finds his three favourite ideas of Grund, Weg, und Ziel—basis,
manner, and-end, with a correspondent reference to Father, Son, and Holy

Ghost. :

EPHESIANS III, 7. 223

passive. Phryn. ed. Lobeck, pp. 108,109. 4udovos (not, as

often said, from dca and xévis—“ one covered with dust,” but

from an old root—ésaxw—-signifying “I hasten”) is a servant
in a general sense, and in relation to a master, as in 2 Cor.

vi. 4, xi. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 6. Buttmann has shown that the

preposition 6va cannot enter into the composition of 8dxovos,

as the ais long. The a in dca may, from the necessities of
metre, be sometimes long in poetry, but never in prose; while
the Ionic form of the word under review is 8ijxovos. Lexilogus,
sub voce Staxtopos. As an apostle he did not merely enjoy
the dignity of office, or the admiration created by the display
of miraculous gifts. He busied himself; he served with eager
cordiality and unwearied zeal—
kata THv Bwpeay THS yapitos TOD Ocod tHv Sobcicay or—
“according to the gift of the grace of God which was given
tome.” Mwped is the gift, and ydpis is that of which the
gift is composed (ii. 8), the genitive being that of apposition
Instead of tiv SoGcicay in the next clause of the Received
Text, some modern editors read—rijs dS08cions, which has the
authority of the old MSS. A, B, C, D’, F, G, but which may
be borrowed from ver. 2. The Syriac and the Greek fathers
are in favour of the first reading, which is retained by Tischen-
dorf, being found in D’, E, K, L. The sense is not affected
—“The gift made up of this grace is given, or the grace of
which the gift consists is given.” The yapis is not the gift
of tongues, as Grotius dreams; nor specially the Holy Ghost,
as a-Lapide imagines. The term, resembling that of the Latin
_munus, refers not to the apostolical office conferred out of the
pure and sovereign favour of God, as in ver. 2 of this chapter,
but it refers here to that office in its characteristic function of
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. It was given—

Kata Thy évépyeray Ths Svvdpews adtodb— according to the
working of His power.” Karta refers us to d08cicav. The
gift of grace is conferred in accordance with the working of
‘His power. See i. 19. "Evépye:a and Svvayss are explained
“under i. 19. Whitby unnecessarily and falsely restricts this
power to that of miraculous agency conferred upon the apostle.
| But he refers in this place to the “grace” which originated
| his apostleship, wrought mightily in him when the office
| of the apostle of heathendom, with all its varied qualifica-

GG =

224 EPHESIANS III. 8

tions, was conferred upon him. Unworthy of it he was;
and had not the gift been accompanied by a striking mani-
festation of God’s power, he could not have enjoyed it. And
he served in harmony with his office—«ara thy Swpeav; and
that office was conferred upon him in unison with—«ara th
évépyecav—such a spiritual change, induced by the Divine
might, as changed a Jew into a Christian, a blasphemer into
a saint, a Pharisee into an apostle, and a persecutor into a
missionary. Calvin remarks—heec est potentie ejus efficacia ex
nihilo grande aliquid efficere. Chrysostom says truly—“ The
gift would not have been enough, if it had not implanted
within him the power.” That grace was bestowed very freely
—1 Swpea THs yapetos; and that power wrought very effec-
tually—1 évépyeva tis Suvawews. Gal. ii. 8. The apostle
becomes more minute—

(Ver. 8.) "Epol td edXaxictotépw TavtTwov ayiwv—*“ To me,
who am less than the least of all saints.” There is no good
reason adduced by Harless for making the first clause of this
verse a parenthesis, and joining év tots éOvecw to the dwpeay of
the preceding verse. The apostle prolongs the thought, and
dwells upon it. He was a minister of the gospel through the
gracious power of God. This reflection ever produced within
him profound wonder and humility; and though in one sense
he was greater than the greatest of all saints, yet the
consciousness of his own demerit stood out in such striking
contrast with the high function to which he had been called,
that he exclaims—‘“To me, who am less than the least of
all saints ”’—éyor being emphatic from its position. ’EXayio-

1 The following note describes with peculiar terseness and pungency a feeling
which is the very opposite of the apostle’s humility. It is taken from Baxter’s
Reformed Pastor, a work which, from its honest exposures, many imagined
should have been written in Latin. But the author makes this quaint and
telling apology: ‘‘If the ministers of England had sinned only in Latin, I
would have made shift to admonish them in Latin, or else have said nothing to
them. But if they will sin in English, they must hear of it in English.” The
vice of pride in ministers is thus described and scorned: ‘‘One of our most
heinous and palpable sins is pride—a sin that hath too much interest in the
best, but is more hateful and inexcusable in us than in any men. Yet is it so
prevalent in some of us, that it inditeth our discourses for us ; it chooseth us our
company, it formeth our countenances, it putteth the accents and emphasis upon |
our words: when we reason, it is the determiner and exciter of our cogitations ;

it fills some men’s minds with aspiring desires and designs; it possesseth the
with envious and bitter thoughts against those that stand in their light, or b

EPHESIANS IIL. & 295

torépy is a comparative, founded on the superlative éddyioros
—“less than the least ;” a form designed to express the
deepest self-abasement. Similar anomalous forms occur in
the later Greek, and even occasionally in the earlier, especially
among the poets. 3 John 4; Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 135.
Wetstein has collected a few examples. ’*EXayiotdratos
is found in Sextus Empir. ix. p. 627. The English term
“lesser” is akin. Matthie, § 136; Winer, § 11,2; Buttmann,
§ 69, note 3. I[dvres dyor are not the apostles and prophets
merely, but saints generally. Theophylact says justly—xarez
ov TOY aTocTOAwy, ddAa TavTwV ToY dylwY, ToUTérTL THY
_mistov. In 1 Cor. xv. 9, where he says, “I am the least of
_ the apostles,” he brings himself into direct contrast with his
ministerial colleagues. 1 Tim. i. 13; Phil. iii. 6. To him—
€500n 4 xdpis avbtn—“ was this grace given.” Xdpis, in
this aspect, has been already explained both under verses 2
and 7. That special branch of the apostolate which was
entrusted to Paul had the following end in view—

any means do eclipse their glory, or hinder the progress of their idolized
_Teputation. . . . How often doth it choose our subject, and more often choose
_ our words and ornaments! God biddeth us be as plain as we can, for the inform-
"ing of the ignorant, and as convincing and serious as we are able, for the
melting and changing of unchanged hearts; but pride stands by and contra-
dicteth all; and sometimes it puts in toys and trifles, and polluteth rather
than polisheth, and under pretence of laudable ornaments, it dishonoureth our
sermons with childish gauds: as if a prince were to be decked in the habit of a
stage-player or a painted fool. It persuadeth us to paint the window that it
may dim the light ; and to speak to our people that which they cannot under-
stand, to acquaint them that we are able to speak unprofitably. It taketh off
the edge, and dulls the life of all our teachings, under the pretence of filing off the
‘Toughness, unevenness, and superfluity. If we have a plain and cutting passage,
throws it away as too rustical and ungrateful. . . . And when pride hath
nade the sermon, it goes with them into the pulpit ; it formeth their tone, it
nimateth them in the delivery, it takes them off from that which may be
displeasing, how necessary soever, and setteth them in a pursuit of vain
applause ; and the sum of all this is, that it maketh men, both in studying and
preaching, to seek themselves and deny God, when they should seek God's glory
and deny themselves. When they should ask, ‘What should I say, and how
‘Bhould I say it, to please God best, and do most good?’ it makes them ask,
‘What shall I say, and how shall I deliver it, to be thought a learned, able
vacher, and to be applauded by all that hear me?’ When the sermon is done,
@ goeth home with them, and maketh them more eager to know whether
were applauded, than whether they did prevail for the saving change of
tls! They could find in their hearts, but for shame, to ask folks how they
ced them, and to draw out their commendation.” — The Reformed Pastor, ote.,
>. 154, 155, Baxter's Works, vol. xiv. ; London, 1830.
re

.

226 EPHESIANS III. 8.

év toils €Overw evayyehicacPai—“ to preach among the
Gentiles.” Lachmann omits éy, following A, B, C, and so
does Alford. But the majority of MSS., and the Syriac,
Vulgate, and Gothic versions have the preposition. The phrase
év ois Over, emphatic from its position, describes the
special or characteristic sphere of the apostle’s labours. The
apostle, however, never forgot his own countrymen. His love
to his nation was not interdicted by his special vocation as a
missionary to the heathen world. And the staple of that
good news which he proclaimed was—

To aveEtyviactov TrodTOS TOU Xpistov-—“ the unsearchable
riches of Christ.” IIXodros is rightly read in the neuter.
See under i. 7 and ii. 7. The adjective occurs in Rom. xi.
33, and has its origin in the Septuagint, where it represents
the Hebrew formula—?PN [S&, in Job v. 9, ix. 10—and
“PMN, in Job xxxiv. 24. The riches of Christ are not
simply “riches of grace”—‘“riches of glory”—*riches of
inheritance,” as Pelagius, Grotius, and Koppe are inclined to
restrict them, but that treasury of spiritual blessing which is
Christ’s—so vast that the comprehension of its limits and the
exhaustion of its contents are alike impossible. What the
apostle wishes to characterize as grand in itself, or in its
abundance, adaptation, and substantial permanence, he terms
“riches.” The riches of Christ are the true wealth of men
and nations. And those riches are “unsearchable.’” Even
the value of the portion already possessed cannot be told by
any symbols of numeration, for such riches can have no
adequate exponent or representative. Their source was in
eternity, and in a love whose fervour and origin are above our
ken, and whose duration shall be for ages of ages beyond.
compute. Their extent is boundless, and the mode in which
they have been wrought out reveals a spiritual process whose
results astonish and satisfy us, but whose inner springs and
movements lie beyond our keenest inspection. And our
appropriation of those riches, though it be a matter of con
sciousness, shrouds itself from our scrutiny, for it indica
the presence of the Divine Spirit in His power—a powe'
exerted upon man, beyond resistance, but without compulsion
and in its mighty and gracious operation neither wounding hi
moral freedom nor impinging on his perfect and undenia

EPHESIANS III. 9, 227

responsibility. The latest periods of time shall find these
riches unimpaired, and eternity shall behold the same wealth
neither worn by use nor dimmed by age, nor yet diminished by
the myriads of its happy participants. Still further—

(Ver. 9.) Kai dwtica: wavras—“ And to make all men
see.” Lachmann has assigned no valid reason for throwing
suspicion upon tavtas. To restrict the meaning of the adjec-
tive to the heathen, as Meyer and Baumgarten-Crusius do, is
without any warrant, though vavtas is not emphatic in posi-
tion. We lay no stress on the fact that wavtas and %@vn do not
agree in gender, for such a form of concord is not uncommon,
and a separate idea is also introduced. The apostle preached
to the Gentiles “the unsearchable riches of Christ,” but in his
discharge of this duty he taught not Gentiles only, but all—
Jew and Gentile alike —what is the dispensation of the
mystery. The verb ¢wrifw, followed by the accusative of

the thing, denotes to bring it into light; but followed by the
accusative of the person, it signifies to throw light upon him
-—not only to teach, ddda£ai, but to enlighten inwardly—to
give spiritual apprehension—dwrioa:. See under i. 18. If
one gaze upon a landscape as the rising sun strikes successive
points, and brings them into view in every variety of tint and
shade, both subjective and objective illumination is enjoyed.
No wonder that in so many languages light is the emblem of
knowledge. That mystery which was now placed in clear
light was not discerned by the Jew, and could not have been
‘perceived by the Gentile for the shadow which lay both on
him and it. But the result of Paul’s mission was, that the
Jew at once saw it, and the Gentile plainly understood its
“scope. They were enlightened—were enabled to make a sud-
“den discovery by the lucid and full demonstration set before
them. The point on which they were instructed was this—

rls} oixovopla tod pvotnplov—* what is the economy of
‘the mystery.” That oixovoyla should supersede the gloss
| kowevia of the Elzevir text is established by the concurrent
| authority of A, B, C, D, E, F,G, J, supported by a host of
‘the Fathers and by the early versions. The preaching of
Paul enabled all to see “ what is the arrangement or organiza-
‘tion of that mystery which, from the beginning of the world,
had been hid in God.” The terms olxovoyla and puoTypiov

228 EPHESIANS III. 9.

have been already explained i. 9, 10, and ii. 2, 3. The
mystery must be the same as that described in ver. 6, for the
same course of thought is still pursued, and varied only by
the repetition. That mystery now so open had been long
sealed—

ToD aTroKeKpuppevou aro Tay aimvey év T® Oeg—“ which
from of old has been hid in God.” Col. i. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 7;
Rom. xvi. 25. ’Awd trav aimvwyv—“ from the ages in a
temporal sense ;” not concealed from the ages, in the sense of
Macknight, but hid from of old; not, perhaps, strictly from
before all time, but since the commencement of time up to the
period of the apostle’s commission. During this interval of
four thousand years God’s purpose to found a religion of uni-
versal offer, adaptation, and enjoyment, lay unrevealed in His
own bosom. Glimpses of that sublime purpose might be occa-
sionally caught, but no open or formal organization of it was
made. There were hints and pre-intimations, oracles that spoke
sometimes in cautious, and sometimes in bolder phrase; but
till the death of Jesus, the means were not provided by which
Judaism should be superseded and a world-wide system intro-
duced. Then the Divine Hierophant disclosed the mystery,
after His Son had offered an atonement whose saving value
had no national restrictions, and acknowledged no ethno-
graphical impediment, and when He poured out His Spirit on
believing Gentiles, and commissioned Saul of Tarsus to go far
from Palestine and reclaim the heathen outcasts. In God—

T® Ta TavTa KTicavtt—“ who created all things.” The
additional words ésa ’"Incod Xpicrod of the Received Text
are at least doubtful, and are omitted by recent editors. They
are not found in the Codices A, B, C, D', F, G, nor in the
Syriac, Vulgate, and Coptic versions, nor in the quotations of
the Latin fathers. They occur, however, in the Greek fathers,
such as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius. The
emphasis lies on Ta mavta, but the meaning of xricavte has
been much disputed :—1. Chrysostom, guided by the wor
which he admitted into the text, dua “Inood Xpictod—ex
plains thus—*“ He who created all things by Him, revealet
also this by Him.” But if the phrase Oud "Incod Xpior
be spurious, this interpretation, if it can be called one, i
at once set aside. 2. Olshausen says, that the term i

EPHESIANS III. 9. 929

employed to show that the institution of redemption is a
creative act of God, and could proceed from Him alone who
created all things. The view of von Gerlach is similar.
Argumentum est, says Zanchius, a creatione ad recreationem,
Bengel suggests this idea—Rerum omnium creatio funda-
mentum est omnis relique economia. But this exposition
is not in harmony with the course of thought. It is of the
concealment of a mystery in God the universal Creator
that Paul speaks, not of the actual provision of salvation
for men. 3. Many understand the reference to be to the
spiritual creation, such as Calvin, Zanchius, Calixtus, Grotius,
Usteri, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius. The deletion of the
words “by Jesus Christ,” and the want of some other quali-
fying term, militates against this view. In ii. 10, 15, and
in iv. 24, there are accompanying phrases which leave no
doubt as to the meaning. But the aorist, and the occurrence
of the term here without any explanatory adjunct, seem to
prove that it must bear its most usual and simple significa-
tion. 4. Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others, refer ta mwavta to
men, abridging by this tame exegesis the limitless meaning
of the terms.

The real question is, What is meant by this allusion to the
creation—what is the relation between the creative work of
God and the concealment of this mystery in Himself? Had
the apostle said—hid in God who arranges all things, or fore-
sees all things, the meaning would have been apparent. But
it is not so easy to perceive the connection between creation
and the seclusion of a mystery. The fact that God created all
things cannot, as in Riickert’s suggestion, afford any reason
why he concealed a portion of his plan; nor can we discover,
with others, that the additional clause is meant to show the
‘Sovereign freeness and power of God in such concealment.
Our own view may be thus expressed: The period during
which the mystery was hid dates from the ages commencing
ith creation, for creation built up the platform on which
e strange mystery of redemption was disclosed. God, as

tor of the universe, has of necessity a plan according to
hich all arrangements take place, for creation implies pro-
idence or government—the gradual evolution of counsels
hich had lain folded up with unfathomable secrecy. But

230 EPHESIANS III. 10.

those counsels are not disclosed with simultaneous and con-
fusing haste: the Almighty Mind retains them in itself till
the fitting period when they may be unveiled. Now, the
mystery of the inbringing of the Gentiles was secreted in the
Divine bosom for four thousand years, that is, from the epoch
of the creation—the origin of time. And it has not come
to light by accident, but by a prearranged determination.
When God created the world, it was a portion of His plan as
its Creator that the Gentile nations, after the call of Abraham,
should be without the pale of His visible church; but that
after His Son died, and the gospel with universal adaptations
was established, they should be admitted into covenant. At
the fittest time, not prematurely, but with leisurely exactness,
were created both the human materials on which redemption
was to work, and that peculiar and varied mechanism by
which its designs were to be accomplished. And one grand
purpose is declared to be—

(Ver. 10.) “Iva yvwpic On vdv—“In order that there might
now be made known.” “Iva yvwpic67 stands connected as a
climax with evayyeAicac@ar of ver. 8, and dwrica: of ver. 9.
Nov is opposed to do tay aimvwv. We cannot here regard
iva as ecbatic in sense, though this signification has been
accepted by Bodius, Estius, Meier, Holzhausen, and Thomas
Aquinas, who takes the particle—consecutive, non causaliter.
We prefer to give iva its usual sense—“in order that.” It
indicates a final purpose; not the grand object, but still an
important though minor design. We cannot, however, accede
to the opinion of Harless, who connects this verse solely
with the clause immediately preceding it. His idea is, that
God created all things for the purpose of showing by the
church His wisdom to the angelic hosts. We regard such an _
exegesis as limiting the reference of the apostle. This verse,
commencing with iva, winds up, as-we think, the entire pre-
ceding paragraph, and discloses a grand reason for God’s
method of procedure. Nor is the notion of Harless tenable
on other grounds; because the wisdom of God in creation is
made known to the heavenly hierarchy, apart altogether from
the church, and has been revealed to them, not simply now
and for the first time, but ever since “the morning stars sang
together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Why

EPHESIANS III. 10. 231

then, too, should the church be selected as the medium of
manifestation? And why should wisdom be singled out as
the only attribute which creation exhibits by the church to
the higher intelligences? But when we look at the contents
of the paragraph, the meaning is apparent. The apostle
speaks of a mystery—a mystery long hid, and at length
disclosed—a mystery connected with the enlargement and
glory of the church—and he adds, this long concealment from
other ages, yea, from the beginning of the world, and this
present revelation, have for their object to instruct the celes-
tial ranks in God’s multiform wisdom. It is the attribute of
wisdom which binds itself up with the hiding and the opening
of a mystery, and as that wisdom concerns the organization
and extension of the church, the church naturally becomes
the scene of instruction to celestial spectators. On the con-
nection of Divine wisdom with the disclosure of a mystery,
some remarks may be seen under i. 8, 9—“ God in all wisdom
and prudence made known to us the mystery of His will.”
That mystery being now disclosed, the princedoms and powers
were instructed. In itself, in its concealment, and in the time,
place, method, and results of its disclosure, it now exhibited
the Divine wisdom in a novel and striking light—
tais apxais Kal tais éEovalas év Tois érovpaviois— to the
principalities and the powers in heavenly places ”—the article
being prefixed to each noun, and giving prominence to each in
the statement. These terms have been explained under i. 21,
and the following phrase—ev tots ézroupaviois, which designates
abode or locality, has been considered under i. 3, 20, ii 6.
The following hypotheses are the whimsical devices of erratic
ingenuity, viz.: that such principalities and powers are, as is
the opinion of Zornius, Locke, and Schoettgen, the leaders
and chiefs of the Jewish nation; or, as Van Til imagined,
; heathen magistrates; or, as Zegerus dreamed, worldly dig-
nities ; or, as is held by Pelagius, the rulers of the Christian
church. Nor can these principalities and powers be good
and bad angels alike, as Bengel, Olshausen, and Hofmann
| (Schriftb. i. pp. 360-362) hold: nor can they be wholly
_ impure fiends, as is supposed by Ambrosiaster and Vatablus.
As little can we say, with Matthies, that these principalities
" “ dwell on the earth, and disport on it in an invisible spiritual

232 EPHESIANS III. 10.

form, and are taught by the foundation and extension of the
church their own weakness.” Nor can we agree with the
opinion of Van Til, Knatchbull, and Baumgarten, that the
words év Tots éroupaviows signify “in heavenly things,” and
are to be connected with yvwpic8h, so as to mean, that the
principalities and powers are instructed by the church in
celestial themes. And the lesson is given—

dua THs éxxAnolas— by the church”—the community of
the faithful in Christ being the instructress of angels in heaven.
That lesson is—

ToAvTroiktAos copia Tov Ocot—“the manifold wisdom
of God.” The adjective, one of the very numerous compounds
of zroAvs, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. But
it occurs in a fragment of Eubulus, Athen. xv. 7, applied
to the manifold hues of a garland of flowers—orégavoy
modvTroikirov avOéwy; and in Euripides, [phig. Taur. 1149,
it describes the variegated colours of a robe—rroAvtroikira
dapea; while in a figurative sense it is joined in the Orphic
Hymns to the nouns tedeT7 and Adyos, v. 11, lx. 4. The
term, as Chrysostom notes, is not simply “varied,” but
“much varied.” The wisdom described by the remarkable
epithet is not merely deep or great wisdom, but wisdom
illustrious for its very numerous forms, and for the strange
diversity yet perfect harmony of its myriads of aspects and
methods of operation.

Such is generally the meaning of the verse, but its specific
reference is not so easily ascertained. What peculiar mani-
festation of Divine wisdom is referred to? We cannot vaguely
say that it is God’s wisdom in the general plan of redemption,
or, as Olshausen remarks, “the marvellous procedure of God
in the pardon of the sinner, and the settlement in him of the
antagonism between righteousness and grace.” Such an idea
is scarcely in keeping with the context, which speaks not of
the general scheme of mercy, but of one of its distinctive and
modern aspects. Nor is the view of some of the Greek fathers
more in unison with the spirit of the paragraph. Gregory of
Nyssa, whose opinion has been preserved by Theophylact and
(Ecumenius, thus illustrates—*“ That the angels prior to the
incarnation had seen the Divine wisdom in a simple form
without variation; but now they see it in a composite form,

| EPHESIANS Ill. 10. 233

working by contraries, educing life from death, glory from
_ shame, trophies from the cross, and God-becoming things from
all that was vile and ignoble.”* The leading idea in this
opinion does not fully develop the apostle’s meaning as con-
tained in the paragraph ; nor could wisdom, acting simply and
uniformly in this method, be denominated “ manifold wisdom,”
though it might be deep, benignant, and powerful skill. The
idea brought out in the interpretations of Cocceius, Zanchius,
Grotius, and Harless, to wit, that reference is had to the modes
and series of past Divine revelations, approximates the truth,
and Meyer and Calvin are right in attempting to find the
meaning within the bounds of the preceding section. The
wisdom is connected with the mystery and its opening, and
that mystery is the introduction of the Gentiles into the king-
dom of God. Once the world at large was in enjoyment of
oracle and sacrifice without distinction and tribe, and Melchi-
‘sedec, a Hamite prince, was “priest of the most high God.”
Then one nation was selected, and continued in that solitary
enjoyment for two thousand years. But now again the human
race, without discrimination, have been reinstated in religious
privilege. This last and liberal offer of mercy was a mystery
long hid, and it might be cause of wonder why infinite love
tarried so long in its schemes. But wisdom is conspicuous in
the whole arrangement. Not till Jesus died and ceremonial
‘distinctions were laid aside, was such an unconditional salva-
tion presented to the world. The glory of unrestricted dis-
semination was postponed till the Redeemer’s victory had
been won, and His heralds were enabled to proclaim, not the
gorgeous symbols of a coming, but the blessed realities of
an accomplished redemption; not the types and ceremonial
apparatus of Moses, but “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”
‘There was indeed slow progress, but sure development ; occa-
sional interruption, but steady advancement. Divine wisdom
was manifold, for it never put forth any tentative process,
was it ever affronted by any abandoned experiment.
8s cov ens i wrt v mees tum Sree dard iyiverace a] ebedoms

NG chs sealer UF dak du alec Seeared soraheniors ee ys Oa
Bis aly chy lnnanciar nal od deleceiver vives cinoropias cbnies plor ders dd24
wodvwreiniros iyroctn 4 copia res bres dia rar ivarrion va iraorea nareghesen*
bavdrov Cahv, 3: arising Bekar, Bie eravged ceiware, Yd warees cov sbeehen wa

wa. See also Aquinas, Summ. Theol. p. 1 ; Quast. 57, ast. 6.

ed Meee pe A

~~

—_we ee

234 EPHESIANS III. 10.

It was under no necessity of repeating its plans, for it is
not feebly confined to a uniform method, while in its omni-
scient forecast a solitary agency often surrounds itself with
various, opposite, and multiplied effects; temporary antagon-
ism issuing in ultimate combination, and apparent intricacy
of movement securing final simplicity of result; antecedent
improbability changing into felicitous certainty, and feeble
instruments standing out in impressive contrast with the
gigantic exploits which they have achieved. Every occur-
rence is laid under tribute, and hostile influence bows
at length in auxiliary homage. “Out of the eater came
forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.”
Times of forbidding aspect have brightened into propitious
opportunities, and “the foolishness of preaching” has proved
itself to be the means of the world’s regeneration. And the
mystery was published not by angels, but by men; not by
the prudent and powerful of the world, by those who wore a
coronet or had studied in the Portico or the Academy, but
by one “whose bodily presence was weak and his speech
contemptible ””—a stranger to “the enticing words of man’s
wisdom.” The initiation of the Gentile world was by the
preaching of the cross— that instrument of lingering and
unspeakable torture; while He that hung upon it, born of a
village maiden, and apprenticed as a Galilean mechanic, was
condemned to a public execution as the penalty of alleged
treason and blasphemy. The church, which is the scene of
these preplexing wonders, teaches the angelic hosts. They
have seen much of God’s working—many a sun lighted up,
and many a world launched into its orbit. They have been
delighted with the solution of many a problem, and the
development of many a mystery. But in the proclamation of
the Gospel to the Gentiles, with its strange preparations,
various agencies, and stupendous effects—involving the origi-
nation and extinction of Judaism, the incarnation and the
atonement, the manger and the cross, the spread of the Greek
language and the triumph of the Roman arms—“ these prin-
cipalities and powers in heavenly places” beheld with rapture”
other and brighter phases of a wisdom which had often
dazzled them by its brilliant and profuse versatility, and
surprised and entranced them by the infinite fulness of the

.

EPHESIANS III. 11, 235

love which prompts it, and of the power which itself directs
and controls. The events that have transpired in the church
on earth are the means of augmenting the information of those
pure and exalted beings who encircle the throne of God.
1 Tim. iii, 16; 1 Pet.i 12. The entire drama is at length
laid bare before them—
** Like some bright river, that from fall to fall
In many a maze descending, bright through all,

Finds some fair region, where, each labyrinth past,
In one full lake of light it rests at last.”

Kal ras xnpvtres, eiep 0 TODTOS aveELyviacros ? asks Theo-
doret, ToUTo yap avto, dnot, KnpUTTw btt avekiyviacTos.

The whole has been arranged—

(Ver. 11.) Kata mpoeow tév aiwywyv—“ according to the
eternal purpose.” The connection of these words is not
with the adjective or substantive of the preceding clause:
neither with woAv7roixidos, as is supposed by Anselm and
Holzhausen, nor with co¢ia, as Koppe conjectures ; but with
yvopioc67. This revelation of God’s multifarious wisdom now
and by the church has happened according to His eternal
purpose—the purpose of ages, or the purpose of those
_ periods which are so distant, as to be to us identical with

eternity. Theodoret thus explains it—7po twv alwvwy rpo-
ero. 1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim.i. 9. On the other hand, Anselm,
a-Lapide, Estius, Baumgarten, Schoettgen, and Holzhausen,
take the genitive as that of object, and render the clause
_— purpose about the ages.” Such is virtually the view of
Chandler and Macknight, who make the word “ages” signify
the religious dispensations, and regard mpd@eors as meaning
fore-arrangement. The simplest view, and that most in
accordance with grammatical usage, is, as we have said, to
take the genitive as one of quality—as equivalent to its own
adjective aiwvvos—or of possession, with Ellicott; and such is
the opinion of Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. Winer, § 30, =
So in Hebrew, D'oMy W¥—everlasting strength, Isa. xxvi 4.
See also Dan. ix. 24. It was a purpose— :
hy érrolncer ev tH Xpior@ 'Inood rH Kupiy jyav—* which
‘He wrought in Christ Jesus our Lord. The article before
Xp.ere is doubtful, though Tischendorf inserts it. The ante-
~ cedent to fv is not copia, as Theophylact, Jerome, and Luther

————————L————= el! le ee !hlUe eC Cl ellrlllCUw

236 EPHESIANS III. 12.

construe, but mpoeous. Two classes of meanings have been
attached to érroinoev :—

1. According to Calvin, Beza, Estius, Bengel, Riickert,
Meier, Harless, and Baumgarten-Crusius, its meaning is,
“Which He made,” that is, “formed in Christ.” The verb is
so used Mark iii. 6, xv. 1, and the idea is scriptural. Seei. 3.
See for one view of the relation of Christ to the Father in
such an expression, Hofmann, Schriftb. vol. i. p. 230; and for
another, Thomasius, Christi Person, vol. i. p. 453.

2. But in the view of Theodoret, Vatablus, Grotius, Koppe,
Matthies, Olshausen, Scholz, Meyer, de Wette, Stier, and
Conybeare, it denotes, “Which He executed or fulfilled in
Christ Jesus.” This last interpretation is on the whole pre-
ferable, for vrovety may bear such a sense, as in ii. 3; Matt.
xxi. 31; John vi. 38; 1 Thess. v. 24. OlJshausen suggests
that Jesus Christ is the historical name, so that the verb refers
to the realization of God’s decree in Him, and not to the
inner act of the Divine will. The words év Xpict@ ’Inood
signify not “on account of,’ nor “by,” but “in” Christ
Jesus, as the sphere or element in which the action of the
verb takes effect. The meaning of the three names has been
given under i. 2, etc. The lessons of manifold wisdom given
to principalities and powers, in connection with the introduc-
tion of the Gentiles into the church, are not an accidental
denouement, nor an undesigned betrayal of a Divine secret on
the part of the church. Nor was the disclosure of the mys-
tery forced on God by the power of circumstances, or the
pressure of unforeseen necessities, for, in its period and instru-
ments, it was in unison with His own eternal plan, which has
been wrought out in Christ—in His incarnation and death,
His ascension and glorification. The lesson to the principali-
ties was intended for them; they have not profanely intruded
into the sacred precincts, and stolen away the guarded science.
In all this procedure, which reveals to princedoms and powers
God’s manifold wisdom, the Divine eternal plan is consistently
and systematically developed in Christ. And, as their own
experience tells them, He is the same Christ—

(Ver. 12.)’Ev & éxopev tiv trappnolav Kal Thy Tpocaywyny
—‘“In whom we have boldness and access”—the év again
connected with Christ as the sphere. Lachmann, following

a

EPHESIANS III. 12. 237

A and B, omits the second article, and there are other but
minor variations. Iappnoia is originally “free speech ”"—
the speaking of all. There is no ground for the opinion of
Cardinal Hugo and Peter Lombard, that it means spes—hope.
Its secondary and usual signification is boldness—that self-
possession which such liberty implies. It cannot mean free-
spokenness towards the world, as is erroneously supposed by
Olshausen, for such an idea is totally foreign to the train
of thought. This boldness is toward God generally, but
especially in prayer, as is indicated by the following term
mpocaywyn. Heb. iii. 6, x. 19,35; 1 John ii. 28, iii. 21, 22,
iv. 17, v.14, 15. In Christ we are ever having this blessing
—boldness and access at all times and in every emergency.
1 John ii. 28, iv. 17. That tremor, doubt, and oppression of
spirit which sin produces, are absent from believers when they
enjoy access to God. Heb. ii. 6; 1 Johnii. 28. Tpocaywyn
has been already explained under ii. 18. The use of the
_ article before both nouns signalizes them both as the elements
| of a distinctive and a possessed privilege. And all this—

év tremrovOnoe—“ in confidence.” 2 Cor. i. 15, iii. 4, viii. 22,
| x. 2; Phil. iii 4. This summing up is similar to the

previous summing up in ii 18, as boldness and access in
_ prayer are the highest and conclusive proof—the richest and
noblest elements—of spiritual experience. This is a word of
_ the later Greek, and in the New Testament is only used by
Paul. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 294; Thom. Mag. p. 273.
It seems to point out the manner or frame of soul in which
the mpocaywy7 is enjoyed, and it is involved in the very idea
of mappnola. This is no timorous approach. It is not the
access of a distracted or indifferent spirit, but one filled with
the assurance that it will not be repulsed, or dismissed with
unanswered petition, for though unworthy it is not unwelcome.
This state has faith for its medium—
Sia Tis mistews a’todo—" by the faith of Him ;” the geni-
tive being that of object. The genitive is similarly employed,
Rom. iii. 22, 26; Gal. ii, 16, 20; Phil. iii 9; Jas it 1;
Rev. ii. 13, xiv. 12. This clause belongs to the entire verse,
and not merely, as some suppose, to memol@nas. Faith
in Him is the instrument, and é¢v and éa are connected as
in i. 7. The means by which our union to Christ secures

238 EPHESIANS III. 13.

those privileges is faith. That faith whose object is Jesus is
the means to all who are Christ’s, first, of “boldness,” for
their belief in the Divine Mediator gives them courage;
secondly, of “access,” for their realization of His glorified
humanity warrants and enables them to approach the throne
of grace; and, thirdly, these blessings are possessed “in con-
fidence,” for they feel that for Christ’s sake their persons and
services will be accepted by the Father.

(Ver. 13.) 410 aitodpar pn éyxaxetv—“ Wherefore I entreat
you that ye faint not.” | 4v0o—‘“wherefore,” since these
things are so, referring us back to the sentiments of the five
preceding verses. Lachmann and Tischendorf, after A,
B, D', E, prefer éyxaxety to the common reading éxkaxeiy,
which has in its favour C, D’?, F, G, I, K._ It is doubtful,
indeed, whether there be such a word. With all its apparent
simplicity of style and construction, this verse is open to
various interpretations. And, first, as to the accusative,
which must be supplied before the infinitive, some prefer éué
and others twas. In the former case the meaning is, “ Where-
fore I desire God that I faint not,” and in the latter case it is,
“Wherefore I entreat you that you lose not heart.’ The
first is that adopted by the Syriac version, by Theodoret,
Jerome, Bengel, Vater, Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, and
Baumgarten-Crusius. Our objection to such an exposition is,
that there is in the clause no formal or implied reference to
God; that it is awkward to interpose a new subject, or make
the object of the verb and the subject of the infinitive differ-
ent—2 Cor. v. 20, vi. 1, x. 2; Heb. xiii. 19; and that the
apostle possessed little indeed of that faint-heartedness against
which he is supposed to guard himself by prayer. Turner's
objection to this last statement is only a misconception of it.
Besides, as the last clause of the verse is plainly an argument
to sustain the request, the connection is destroyed if the
apostle be imagined to make petition for himself; while the
meaning is clear and pertinent if the request be for them—
“Let not my sufferings for you distress you; they are your
glory.” The proposal of Harless to join t7rép tuay to aitodpas
—‘ I pray on your account,” has little to recommend it. Our

view is that of Chrysostom and the majority of interpreters. ©

“That ye faint not ”"—

_——s ~~

EPHESIANS III. 13. 239

év tais Odiipeciy wou imép tusv—“in my tribulations for
you.” No article is needed before iwép. 2 Cor. i. 6. 'Ep is
not properly “on account of,” as many render it, but it rather
represents the close and sympathizing relation in which Paul
and his readers stood. His afflictions had become theirs ;
_ they were in them as really as he was. Their sympathy with
him had made his afflictions their own, and he implored them
not to be dispirited or cowardly under such a pressure, and
for this reason—
Hris éotl S0fa tuosv—“which is your glory.” “His is
used by attraction with the following predicate 80a, and
_ signifies “ inasmuch as they are,” utpote gua. Winer, § 24, 3.
- But what is its antecedent? Theodoret, Zanchius, Harless,
and Olshausen suppose it to be the thought contained in
pn éyxaxeiv, as if the apostle’s self-support in such sufferings
were their glory. This exegesis proceeds upon an opinion
which we have already gainsaid, viz. that Paul offers here
a prayer for himself. Riickert exhales the meanings of
the clause by finding in it only the vague indistinctness of
oratorical declamation. The general opinion appears to be the
correct one, that these sufferings of Paul, which came on him
_ simply because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, were the
“glory” of the Gentile believers, and not their disgrace,
_ inasmuch as such persecutions not only proved the success of
his ministerial labours, but were at the same time collateral
evidence of the lofty and unfettered privileges which believing
_ heathendom now possessed and retained, and which, by the
-apostle’s firmness, were at length placed beyond the reach of
Jewish fanaticism to annul or even to curtail. As you may
“measure the pyramid by its shadow, so these afflictions of
Paul afforded a similar means of arriving at a relative or anti-
thetical estimate of the spiritual liberty and prerogative of the
Gentile churches. The apostle began the chapter by an allu-
" sion to the fact that he was a prisoner for the Gentiles, and
he now concludes the digression by this natural admonition.
“His tribulations, the evidence of his official dignity and of
"their unconditioned exemption from ceremonial bondage, were
“their glory, and therefore they were not to sink into faintness
‘and lassitude, as if by his “chain” they had been affronted
and their apostle disgraced.

1
|

i.

240 EPHESIANS IIL. 14.

The apostle now resumes the thought broken off in ver. 1,
and we are carried back at once to the magnificent imagery
of a spiritual temple in the concluding section of the second
chapter. The prayer must be regarded as immediately fol-
lowing that section, and its architectural terms and allusions
will thus be more clearly understood. This connection with
the closing paragraph of the former chapter, we take as
affording the key to the correct exegesis of the following
supplication.

(Ver. 14.) Tovtov ydpw xayrte ta yovata pou—* For
this cause I bow my knees.” The attitude, which Kant has
ventured to call einen knechtischen (servile) Orientalismus, is
described instead of the act, or, as Calvin says—a signo rem
denotat. The phrase is followed here by mpos—but by a
simple dative in Rom. xi. 4; while yovu7rerety has an accusa-
tive in Matt. xvii. 14; Mark i. 40,x.17. This compound
and yovuxduvety represent in the Septuagint the Hebrew 72.
The posture is the instinctive expression of homage, humility,
and petition: the suppliant offers his worship and entreaty on
bended knee. 2 Chron. vi. 13; Ps. xcv. 6; Luke xxii. 41;
Acts vil. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, xxi. 5. See Suicer’s Thesaurus,
sub voce yovuxdicta. He does not simply say, “I pray,”
adds Chrysostom—arra tiv Katavevuypévnv Sénow €d/rAwoev.
Tovtov yapuv is repeated from ver. 1, “ Because ye are inbuilt
in the spiritual temple.” I bow my knees—

mpos Tov watépa—* toward the Father.” Winer, § 49, h.
The genitives, Tod Kupiov nuav Insov Xpiotod, of the common
text are pronounced by many critics to be spurious. That
there was an early variation of reading is evident from Jerome’s
note—non ut in Latinis codicibus additum est, ad Patrem
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, sed simpliciter ad Patrem, legendum.
The words are wanting in A, B, C, and some of the Patristic
citations, are omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, and
rejected by Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, Stier, Ellicott,
and Alford. In this opinion we are now inclined to concur.
Still the words are found in other Codices, and those of no_
mean authority, such as D, E, F, G, I, K, etc. They occur,
too, in the Syriac and Vulgate, are not disowned by the Greek
fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret, and they are retained by
Knapp, Scholz, Tittmann, and Hahn, and vindicated by de

.

‘Wette. The evidence for them is strong, but not conclusive.
‘They may have been interpolated from the common formula,
and their insertion weakens the rhythmical connection between
matépa and the following wartpid. The question is yet
somewhat doubtful. The object of Paul’s prayer is the
Father—the universal Father—

(Ver. 15.) "EE od waca rarpia ev odpavois cai eri vis
‘ovouaterar— Of whom every family in heaven and on earth
jis named.” Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Zanchius, and Reiche
refer to Christ as the antecedent. But even if the former
clause be genuine, this interpretation cannot be sustained. It
is the relation of the arpa to the rarnp which the apostle
evidently characterizes, and not the relation of the family to
its elder brother. The classes of beings referred to by the
‘apostle have become each a ITatpid, from their relation to
the IIatnp. These words admit of a variety of interpreta-
tions. ITazpid, it is plain, cannot be equivalent to rratporys,
and denote fatherhood — paternitas, as Jerome translates.
Yet this view is held by Theodoret, Theophylact, (icume-
nius, Anselm, a-Lapide, Allioli, and Nitzsch, Prakt. Theologie,
i, 269. The Syriac also translates—|Looo|—“ paternity,”
the Gothic version has—all fadreinis—omne paternitatis, and
Wycliffe—eche fadirheid. Such a sense the word does not
bear, and no tolerable exegesis could be extracted from it.
The Greek fathers are even obliged to admit that among the
slestial orders no proper fatherhood can exist. ‘Evel, as
Theophylact confesses, éxel oddels €F oddevos yevvatar ; or, as
heodoret adds—ovpavious matépas Tods mvevpatixods Karel.
Jerome is also obliged to say—ita puto et angelos ceterasque
irtutes habere principes sui generis quos patres gaudeant appel-
re. Yet Stier would find no difficulty in defending such
braseology. Giving mwatped the sense of fatherhood, this
eaning might be extracted—all paternity has the origin of
8 name in God the Father of all. Fatherhood takes its name
rom Father-God—alle Vaterschaft hat ihres Namens Grund
nm Vatergott. Somewhat similar is the opinion of Athanasius
—God, as Father of the Son, is the only true Father, and
‘all created paternity is a shadow of the true.” Orat, in Arian.
724. But an idea of this abstract nature is foreign to the

@postle’s modes of thought.

EPHESIANS IIL. 15. o4t

242 EPHESIANS III. 15.

IIatpid, while it denotes sometimes lineage by the father’s
side, signifies also a family, or the individuals that claim a
common father and a common descent—what may be called a
house or clan, Herodot. ii. 143, iii. 75,i. 200; Luke ii. 4; Acts
ili. 25. The Seventy represent by it the common Hebrew
phrase—niax m2, We cannot acquiesce in the view of Estius,
Grotius, Wetstein, and Holzhausen, who look upon the clause
as a Jewish mode of expressing the idea that God has two
families, that of angels in heaven and men upon earth.
Schoettgen, Hore Heb. p. 1237; Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. p. 1750;
Wetstein, in loc. Some, again, such as Chrysostom, Bucer,
Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, Michaelis, Kiittner, and Peile, find a
polemical allusion in the term to the union of Jew and
Gentile ; and a view somewhat similar is taken by Hunnius,
Crocius, Calovius, and Wolf, who regard it as synonymous
with tota ecclesia. Reiche needlessly supposes the allusion to
be to the Gnostic eons in some prevalent false philosophy.
Bodius shows peculiar keenness in excluding any reference to
angels, the allusion under the phrase “family in heaven”
being, as he contends, only to the church triumphant. Hodge
follows him, and Theodore of Mopsuestia generalizes away
the sense when he renders it dv d&rav cvoTnpa.

The verb dvowaferas “is named,” that is, involves the name,
of warped. But Bullinger, Bucer, Estius, Riickert, Matthies,
and Holzhausen take the verb in the sense of “ exists.”
Kadéw in its passive voice may sometimes indirectly bear’
such a meaning, but the verb before us never has such a.
signification. It signifies to bear the—évoua. “EE ob—.
“from whom,” or, as we say, “ after whom” every family in
heaven and earth is named. Homer, J/iad, x. 68 ; Xenophon,
Mem. iv. 5, 12; Sophocles, dip. Tyr. 1036. The meaning
seems to be: every circle of holy and intelligent creatures
having the name of TaTpud takes that name from God as
IIarnp. The reference is certainly not to the physical
creation, or creation as a whole and in all its parts, as
the groundless opinion of Theophylact, Gicumenius, Estius
Riickert, Matthies, and Bretschneider. The apostle speaks o
classes of intelligent creatures, each named warpia simpl
after God, for He is IIatnp. It follows as a natural con
quence, though Meyer and de Wette object to such a concl

ee A My me eae rt .

EPHESIANS III. 16, 943

oo, that if angels and “spirits of just men” in heaven, and
. men on earth, receive the _hame of watpia from the
Divine Father, then they are His children, as is contended
for by many interpreters, from Beza and Piscator down to
Olshausen. They lose the cold and official name of subjects
in the familiar and endearing appellation of sons, and they
are united to one another not dimly and unconsciously, as
different products of the same Divine workmanship, but they
merge into one family—“all they are brethren.” Every
‘matpia must surely possess unbounded confidence in the
benignity and protection of the Iarnp, and to Him, there-
fore, the prayer of the apostle is directed—
(Ver. 16.) “Iva 80m tpiv cata 1d trodTos ris SoEns abroo
“That He would give you according to the riches of His
lory.” A,B,C, F, G, read 60, and the reading has been
opted by Lachmann, Riickert, and Meyer. Others prefer
e reading of the Textus Receptus, which is sustained by
, E, K, L, and most MSS., 6@ being regarded as a gram-
tical emendation. For the connection of wa with the
optative, the reader may turn to the remarks made under i. 17.
In this case there is no word signifying “to ask or suppli-
tate,” for the phrase “I bow my knees” is a pregnant ellipse
—the understood posture and symbol of earnest entreaty. The
neuter form, 7AovTos, is preferred to the masculine on the
acontestable authority of A, B, C, D', E, F, G, ete. The
gasculine has but D*, I, K, ete, in its favour. See under
_ 7, ti. 7, iii. 8, where both the form of the word and its
aeaning have been referred to. The phrase is connected not
With xkpatawO vac, but with Sen, and it illustrates the propor-
tion or measurement of the gift, nay, of all the gifts that are
ymprehended in the apostle’s prayer. And it is no exaggera-
ion, for He gives like Himself, not grudgingly or in tiny
ortions, as if He were afraid to exhaust His riches, or even
ected them to be limited in their contents. There is no
tidious scrupulosity or anxious frugality on the part of the
vine Benefactor. His bounty proclaims His conscious
ssession of immeasurable resources. He bestows according
'the riches of His glory—His own infinite fulness. “ That
s would give you” —
Suvdper xpatawOivar Sa rod Tvevparos aitob els rov iow

944 EPHESIANS III. 16.

av0pwmrov-—* to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in
the inner man.”. We need not, with Beza, Riickert, Ols-
hausen, Matthies, Robinson, and others, regard the substan-
tive Suvdwes as an adverb, nor, with Koppe, identify it with
duvata@s. Rather, with Meyer, would we take it as the dative
of instrument, by which the action of the verb is communi-
cated. Winer, §31, 7. It is by the infusion of power into the
man within, that the process described by xpatatwOhvar is
secured. The verb xpataiw belongs to the later and espe-
cially the Hellenistic Greek ; Kpative being the earlier form.
Meyer supposes a reference to the éyxaxety of a former clause,
but such a supposition can hardly be admitted, for the
“fainting” referred to by the apostle was connected solely
with his own personal wrongs, while this prayer for strength
is of a wider and deeper nature. Nor can we assume, with the
Greek commentators, that the reference is merely to “ temp-
tations,” to surmount which the apostle craves upon them
the bestowment of might. We conceive the form of expres-
sion to be in unison with the figure which the apostle had
introduced into the conclusion of the second chapter. He
had likened the Ephesian Christians to a temple, and in har-
mony with such a thought he prays that the living stones in
that fabric may be strengthened, so that the RAGES may be}
compact and solid.

da tov IIvevpatos avtod—“by His Spirit.” The Spirit|
of God is the agent in this process of invigoration. That)
Spirit is God’s, as He bears God’s commission and does His
work, He has free access to man’s spirit to move it as He
may, and it is His peculiar function in the scheme of mercy
to apply to the heart the spiritual blessings provided by
Christ. The direction of the gift is declared to Deve

eis TOV éow dv6 porov—* into the inner man.” Eds cannot
be said to stand for év, but it marks out the destination of the
gift. Winer, § 49,a; Kiihner, § 603. It is not simply “ in
patshetod 16, “as Winer and de Wette render, nor “ for,”
Green translates it (Greek Gram. p. 292); but it denotes
implies that the Svvayis comes from an external source, an
enters into the inner man. The phrase 0 ésw dvOpwrros
identical with the parallel expression—o xpumtos Ths Kapdi
avO@pwtros, which the Apostle Peter, without sexual distinctio

applies towomen. 1 Pet. iii. 4. The formula occurs in Rom.
Vii. 22, and with some variation in 2 Cor. iv. 16. The
“inner man” is that portion of our nature which is not cog-
nizable by the senses, and does not consist of nerve, muscle,
and organic form, as does the outer man. In the physiology
of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it is not
the soul—yvy7—in its special aspect of vital consciousness,
but it is more connected with mind—vois, and stands in con-
trast not exactly to cdp€, as representing generally depraved
humanity, but to that sensuous nature which has action and
reaction in and from the members—péAy. Delitzsch, System
der Bib. Psychol. p. 331; Reuss, Théol. Chrét. vol. ii. p. 56.
But “the inner man” is not identical with “the new man "—
© Kavos avOpwros; it is rather the sphere in which such
renewal takes effect—our intellectual and spiritual nature per-
sonified. We cannot agree with Grotius, Wetstein, Fritzsche,
and Meyer in supposing that there is any imitation of Platonic
phrase in this peculiar diction. The sage of the Athenian
academy did indeed use similar phraseology, for he speaks of
‘the mind as 0 évt0s avO@pwr7ros, and Plotinus and Philo adopted:
‘a like idiom. In some of the Jewish books occur also modes
of expression not unlike. But the phrase is indeed a natural
one—one that is not the coinage of any system of psychology,
but which occurs at once to any one who wishes to distinguish
asily and broadly between what is corporeal and external, and
what is mental and internal, in his own constitution. Still, its
theological meaning in the apostle’s writings is different from
3 philosophical uses and applications. And this strength is
imparted to the “inner man” by the Spirit’s application of
hose truths which have a special tendency to cheer and sus-
tain. He impresses the mind with the idea of the changeless
love of Christ, and the indissoluble union of the believing
oul to Him; with the necessity of decision, consistency, and
Derseverance ; with the assurance that all grace needed will
tbe fully and cheerfully afforded; and with the hope that the
victory shall be ultimately obtained. Rom. xv. 13; 2 Tim.
li 7. This operation of the Spirit imparts such courage and
energy as appear like a species of spiritual omnipotence.
| The Syriac version, the Greek fathers, with the Latin com-
Imentators Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, join this last clause—

EPHESIANS III. 16, 245

246 EPHESIANS III. 17.

eis TOV Eow avOpwrrov, with the following verse, and with the
verb xatoiuxjoa. — “In order that Christ may inhabit the
inner man by the faith which is in your hearts.” It has been
rightly objected by Harless and others, that va tijs rictews
cannot well be joined to év tais xapdiais, and that there would
be a glaring pleonasm in the occurrence in the same verse of
0 éow avOpwros and % xapdla tyov. The ordinary division
is a natural one, and we accordingly follow it.

(Ver. 17.) Katouxjoar tov Xpiorov— That Christ may
dwell.” The first point of inquiry is the connection of this
infinitive with the previous sentence. Does it depend on dn,
and is the meaning—“that he would grant that Christ may
dwell in your hearts”? or is it dependent on xpatarwOjvat,
and is the meaning—‘“that he would grant you to be
strengthened in the inner man, so that, being thus strength-
ened, Christ may dwell in your hearts”? The first view is
held by Theophylact, Zanchius, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt,
Koppe, Riickert, Holzhausen, Stier, and Baumgarten-Crusius.
The connection, however, has been explained differently. |
Some, as Theophylact and Zanchius, regard the clause as a)
new petition giving speciality to the first, or, as the Greek
father characterizes ital 7d petfov Kal mepicadtepov. Meier
adopts the view of Calvin,—declarat, quale sit interiors
hominis robur. A similar exegesis is maintained by Harless
and Matthies, while Olshausen looks upon the clause as a
subordinate definition of the phrase “to be strengthened.’
He maintains that Paul could not pray that Christ would
dwell in their hearts, for He already dwelt there. As we
might he argue that Paul could not pray for spiritual invi
goration, since they already possessed it. When believers)
pray for a gift in general terms, they emphatically supplicate
an enlargement of what of it is already in their possession |
Would Olshausen apply his criterion to the prayer contained
in the 1st chapter, and affirm that the fact of such gifts being
asked for implied the total want of them on the part of the)
Ephesian church? De Wette takes xatoixjoas as an infini<
tive of purpose or design, and regards the clause as describing)
the completion of “the strengthening.” Bernhardy, p. 3659
See on Col. i. 11. We now look upon it as pointing out rather)
the result of the process of invigoration prayed for.

}

EPHESIANS III. 17. 247

inspired petitioner solicited spiritual strength for them securing
this result—that Christ might dwell in their hearts. The
_ infinitive is connected with the more distant 87, and more
closely with the preceding infinitive; Winer, § 44,1. There
is little doubt that in the verb xatro.xjoat, emphatic in its
position, the reference is to the last clause of the 2nd chapter—

KaTo.xntnptov ToU Ocod—“ a dwelling of God.” The apostle

applies in this prayer the architectural allusion directly to the

believing Ephesians themselves, and therefore the figure is not
preserved in its rhetorical integrity. Ye are built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ being the

Head-stone of the corner ; that spiritual building fitly framed

together groweth unto a holy temple, for a habitation of God:

and the prayer now is, that compactness and solidity may be
granted to them by the Spirit, so as that in them the primary
design of such a temple may be realized, and “ Christ may
dwell in their hearts”—Christ by His Spirit, and not as

Fritzsche coldly and tastelessly describes it—mens quam Christus

postulat. Kpdros, not dvvayis, may be applied to the qualities
_ of physical objects, and so with propriety its derivative verb
is here employed. In a temple that was crazy, or was built
of loose and incongruous materials, the Divine guest could not
be expected to dwell.

The xarouxjoac of this verse has, as we have said, its origin
in the xatovxntnpuoy of ii. 22. The language is of common
usage, and has its basis in the Old Testament, and in the
employment of 12% and kindred words to describe Jehovah's
relation to His house. And as the design of a temple is that
its god may inhabit it, so Christ dwells in the heart. This
inhabitation is not to be explained away as a mere reception
of Christian doctrine, nor is it to be regarded as a mystical
exaggeration! Col. i. 27; John xiv. 23; Rom. viii. 9, 11;
Gal. ii. 20; Jas. iv. 5. The meaning of His dwelling is—

Sud rhs lorews—*“ by faith ”—your faith. Faith induces
and also realizes His presence. And His abode is in no outer
vestibule, but—

év tais xapdiars tyeav—*in your hearts.” The heart, as
"1 When Ignatius was asked, on his trial, by the emperor what was the mean:

“ing of his name—Theophorus —he promptly replied, “ He who has Christ in
his breast.”

248 EPHESIANS III. 18

centre of the spiritual life, is His temple—the inner shrine of
emotion and power—Centrum des sittlichen Lebens. Delitzsch,
System der Bib. Psychol. p. 206; Beck, Seelenlehre, p. 69.
Christ dwells there not as a sojourner, or “as a wayfaring
man that turneth aside to tarry for a night,” but as a perma-
nent resident. The intercessor continues—

(Ver. 18.) "Ev aydrn éppifwpévos xai teDepedumpévor tva—
“Ye having been rooted and grounded in love, in order that.”
Some solve the difficulty felt about the connection of this
clause by proposing to transfer iva to its commencement.
This metathesis was suggested by Photius, and has been
followed by Beza, Heinsius, Grotius, Crocius, and the Authorized
Version. There is no necessity for such a change, even though
the clause be joined, as by Knapp and Lachmann, to that
which begins with fa; and the passages usually adduced to
justify such an alteration are not precisely parallel, as is
acutely shown by Piscator. John xii. 39; Acts xix.4; Gal.
i. 10. The clause is, however, connected by some with the
preceding one. Theophylact makes it the condition of Christ’s
dwelling in their hearts. The exegesis of Chrysostom is
similar—* He dwelleth only in hearts rooted in His love ”—
Tais Kapoiats Talis miotais, Tails éppufopévars. This connection
is also advocated by many, including Erasmus, Luther, Harless,
Olshausen, and de Wette. But the change of construction is
not so easily accounted for, if this view of the connection be
adopted. Harless says, indeed, that as the predicate applies
both to xapdiais and to duay, it could not with propriety be
joined exclusively to any of them. Such a view of grammatical
propriety was, however, based on a foregone conclusion, for
either the genitive or dative could have been used with equal
correctness. On the other hand, the change of syntax indi-

cates a change of connection, and the use of the irregular

nominative makes the transition easy to the form adopted with

wa. Kriiger,§56,9,4; Winer, § 63,2. Harless adopts the —

view of Chrysostom and Theophylact, and regards the clause —
as a condition—*“ Christ dwells in their heart, since they had —

been rooted in love.” But the clause, so changed, becomes

a species of independent proposition, giving a marked promi-
nence to the sense, and connected at once with the preceding
context as its result, and with the following context as its

é

EPHESIANS III. 18, 249

_ starting idea—the perfect being used with propriety, and not
the present. Christ dwelling in their hearts—they are
supposed, as the effect of this inhabitation, to have been now
rooted and grounded in love; and as the design of this
_ confirmation in love—they are then and thus qualified to
- comprehend with all saints, ete. “ Having thus become rooted
and grounded in love, in order that ye may be able to
_ comprehend.”

_ The two participles €ppiSopévoe and tePepediwpévor, are
usually said to express the same idea by different figures—the
one borrowed from botany and the other from architecture.
_ But it is more natural to refer both words to the same general
_ symbol, and indeed, the former term is applied to a building.
Thus, Herodot. i. 64—ITewrictparos éppifwoe thy tupavvida ;
Plutarch, De Fortun. Rom.—pifooat Kai xataotijcae thy
- morv; Sophocles, Gdip. Col. 1591, odov ynbev é€ppifwpévor ;
also Plutarch, De Lib. Educ. 9, etc. The verb is thus used in
a general sense, and coupled with te@ewediwpévoe may have no
_ specific reference to plantation. The allusion is again to the
- solid basement of the spiritual temple described in chap. ii.
But to what do the words év aya7n describing the founda-
- tion refer? Some understand the love of Christ or God to us.
Such is the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact, of Beza,
Calovius, Aretius, Wolf, Bengel, Storr, Koppe, and Flatt.
| We cannot lay any stress on the dictum of Harless, that the
omission of the article before the substantive proves it to be
used in a subjective sense, and to signify our love to Christ.
Winer, § 19, 1.1 Nor can we say, with Meyer, that the sub-
' stantive standing without the article has almost the force of
a participle—“ in amando.” But the entire context proves
' that the love referred to is the grace of love. One would have
_ expected a genitive of possession, if dydmn were not predicated
‘of the persons themselves—if it were not a feeling In their
hearts. It is a clumsy and equivocal exegesis to comprise
k under the term both Christ’s love to us and our love to Him,
l as is done by Bucer, Anselm, Zanchius, Crocius, Matthies,
| and Stier. Nor can we accede to Meyer, who seems to restrict
| it to brother-love; for if it be the grace of love which is here
| specified, then it is love to Christ, and to every creature that
} Moulton, p. 148.

250 EPHESIANS III. 18.

bears His image. Col. iii, 14; 1 Cor. xiii. Now, as the
apostle intimates, this love is the root and foundation of
Christian character, as all advancement is connected with its
existence and exercise. “He prayeth well who loveth well.”
Love is the fundamental grace. As love keeps its object
enshrined in the imagination, and allows it never to be absent
from the thoughts; so love to Jesus gives Him such a cheer-
ful and continued presence in the mind, that as it gazes ever
upon the image, it is changed into its likeness, for it strives to
realize the life of Christ. It deepens also that consecration to
the Lord which is essential to spiritual progress, for it sways
all the motives, and moves and guides the inner man by its
hallowed and powerful instincts. And it gives life and
symmetry to all the other graces, for confidence and hope in a
being to whom you are indifferent, cannot have such vigour
and permanence as they have in one to whom the spirit is
intelligently and engrossingly attached. When the lawgiver
is loved, his statutes are obeyed with promptitude and
uniformity. Thus resemblance to Jesus, devotion to Him,
and growth in grace, as the elements and means of spiritual
advancement, are intimately connected with love as their
living basis. The entire structure of the holy fane is fitly
framed and firmly held together, for it is “rooted and
grounded in love.”

(Ver. 18.) “Iva é&toxtonte xataraBécOat civ raat Tots
ayiows—“ That ye may be able to comprehend with all the
saints.” The conjunction expresses the design which these —
previous petitions had in view. Their being strengthened, their —
being inhabited by Christ, and their “having been rooted and —
grounded in love,” not only prepared them for this special |
study, but had made it their grand object. By a prior
invigoration they were disciplined to it, and braced up for —
it—“that ye may be fully able”—fully matched to the |
enterprise. |

On dros, see i. 2. The verb xataraBécba, used in the ~
middle voice, has in the New Testament the meaning of “to |
comprehend,” or to make a mental seizure. Such a middle |
voice—according to Kriiger, § 52, 8, 4—differs from the active |

only in so far as it exhibits the idea—des geschéftlichen oder
geistigen Kraftaufwandes—of earnest or spiritual energy.

4

ll a el i ee

EPHESIANS III. 1& 251

The aorist expresses the rapid passing of the act. Winer,
§ 44, 7,6. In the only other passages where it occurs, as in
Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25, the verb signifies to come to a
decided conclusion from facts vividly presented to the attention.
And they were to engage in this study along with the
universal church of Christ—not angels, or glorified spirits, or
office-bearers in the church exclusively, as some have main-
tained. The design is to comprehend—

Ti TO TAATOS Kal pijKos Kai Babos Kal tyros— what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and height.” This order of
the last two nouns is supported by A, K, L, or J, and the
Received Text reversing it is apparently a correction intended
to give the more natural order, and has in its favour B, C,
D, E, F, G, with the Vulgate, Gothic, and Coptic. But to
what do these terms of measurement apply? Many endea-
vours have been made to supplement the clause with a
genitive, and it is certain that “many wits run riot in their
geometrical and moral discourse upon these dimensions.”
Assembly's Annotations, in loc.

1. We may allude in passing to the supposition of Kypke,
that the verb may signify to occupy or fill, and that te may
be used with change of accent in an indefinite sense—“ that
ye may be able in the company of all saints to occupy the
breadth, whatever it is,’ etc. This exegesis is both violent
and unnatural, puts an unusual sense upon xatadafecba,
and treats t/ Td mAdTos as if it were Td TAATOS TE.

2. Nor need we be detained by the opinion of Schrader,
who regards the words 1/ td mAdros, etc., as only the para-
phrastic complement of the verb «atadaficGat, and as indi-
cating the depth and thoroughness of the comprehension.

3. Nor can we suppose, with Beza and Grotius, that there
is any allusion in these terms to the quarters of the heavens
pointed to in the priestly gestures that gave name to the

q heave-offering and wave-offering. Ex. xxix. 27.

4. Some of the Fathers referred these four words to the
mystery of the cross—rod oravpod duos, as Severianus calls
it. This view was held by Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, and

- Augustine, and has been adopted by Anselm, Thomas Aquinas,
and Estius. This quadriform mystery —eacramentum crucis—
was explained by Augustine as signifying love in its breadth,

252 EPHESIANS III. 18.

hope in its height, patience in its length, and humility in its
depth. Ep. cxii.; De Videndo Deo, cap. 14; Ep. exx. cap. 26.
Well does Calvin add—hee subtilitate sua placent, sed quid ad
Pauli mentem? Estius is more full.and precise. He explains
how the terms can be applied to the shape and beams of a
cross, and adds—longitudo, temporum est, latitudo locorum,
altitudo glorie, profunditas discretionis, etc.—the reference
being to the signum T in frontibus inscriptum. So remote
from the train of thought is this recondite mysticism, that it
needs and merits no formal refutation.

5. Some refer the nouns—sacra illa Pauli mathematica, as
Glassius calls them—to the Divine plan of redemption—the
mystery of grace. Such is the view of Chrysostom, who calls
it—To pvotypiov TO bTrép Hudv oixovounbév, and Theodoret,
who describes it as—tihs oixovoulas to peyebos. It is also
the view of Theophylact and Cicumenius, followed by Beza,
Bullinger, Piscator, Zanchius, Crocius, Crellius, Calovius,
Riickert, Meier, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Olshausen.
The supplement in this case appears to be far-fetched, and
there is no allusion in the context to any such theme; the
mystery referred to in verses 4—10 being the admission of the
Gentiles into the church, and not the scheme of grace in its
wide and glorious aspects. As little ground is there to go
back to ver. 8, to “the unsearchable riches of Christ,” and
refer such terms to them. Whatever the allusion is, it must
be something immediately present to his own mind, and
something that he supposed very present to the mind of his
readers, the dimensions of which are thus characterized.

6. We might almost pass over the fancy of those who sup-
pose the apostle to take a survey of the Divine nature. Such
is the opinion of Ambrosiaster, who believes the apostle to
describe a sphere or cube equal in length, breadth, and thick-
ness, and imagines that such a figure represents the perfection
and all including infinity of God. Matthies holds the same

1 “ Ut sicut in spheera tanta longitudo est, quanta latitudo, et tanta altitudo,
quantum et profundum; ita et in Deo omnia equalia sunt immensitate
infinitatis. Sphera enim definito modo concluditur: Deus autem non solum
implet omnia, sed et excedit ; nec enim clauditur, sed omnia intra se habet, ut
solus ineffabilis et infinitus habeatur: et gratie huic insufficienter agantur, quia
cum tantus sit, dignatus est per Christum hominem visitare peccatis et morti
subjectum.”—Ambrosius, Opera, tom. vii. pp. 280, 281, Venetiis, 1781.

)
|

EPHESIANS III. 18. 253

allusion, but refers it to the moral perfections of God. What
has led to this view seems to be the similarity of this verse
to a passage in Job xi. 8, in which the unfathomable mystery
of the Divine nature is described—“It is high as heaven,”
etc. But there is nothing to warrant such an allusion here,
or even to give it a mere probability.

7. That the terms indicate the measurement of God's love
to men, is the view advocated partly by Chrysostom, and by
Erasmus, Bodius, Vatablus, Grotius, Rollock, Dickson, Baum-
garten, Flatt, and von Gerlach. “God's love,” as is noted
in the paraphrase of Erasmus, “reaches in its height to the
angels, and in its depth into hell, and stretches in its length
and breadth to all the climates of the world.” Or, as Grotius
explains it—‘ The Divine goodness in its breadth affects all
men, and in its length endures through all ages; in its depth
it reaches to man’s lowest depression, and in its height it
carries him to highest glory.” But this explanation, too, the
context abjures, unless such were the sense of the previous
ayamrn, which, however, means love possessed by us.

8. With greater plausibility, Christ’s love to us is supposed
to be the theme of allusion, by Calvin, Calixtus, Zanchius
Aretius, Semler, Zachariae, Storr, Bisping, Meyer, Holz-
hausen, Hodge, Peile, and Ellicott. Neither, however, can
this opinion be sustained. The previous dyamn could not
suggest the thought, for there it is subjective. We apprehend
that this exegesis has been borrowed from the following
clause—“ and to know the love of Christ,” which Ellicott
says is practically the genitive. But that clause is not
epexegetical of the preceding, as is manifest in the use of
re instead of «ai, for this particle does not conjoin dependent
sentences—it only adjoins collateral or independent proposi-
tions. Besides, the phrases “length and breadth” are unusual
measurements of love.

9. De Wette, looking to Col. ii. and comparing this phrase-

ology with the second and third verses of that chapter, ima-
- gines the apostle to refer to the Divine wisdom. There may
be in Job xi. 8 a reference to the Divine wisdom, but the
language specially affirms the mystery of the Divine nature.
" Schlichting also refers to Col. ii. 2—to “the mystery of God
_ the Father and of Christ,” as if that were the allusion here.

254 EPHESIANS III. 18,

Such a view is quite as capricious as any of the preceding,
for the wisdom of God is not a prominent topic either in this
prayer or in the preceding context, where it is only once, though
vividly, introduced. Alford somewhat similarly supposes
that the genitive is left indefinite—“every dimension of all
that God has revealed or done in or for us.” This is certainly
better than any of the previous explanations.

10. Heinsius, Homberg, Wolf, Michaelis, Cramer, Roell,
Bengel, Koppe, Stier, Burton, Trollope, and Dr. Featley in
the Assembly's Annotations, suppose the allusion to be to the
Christian temple; not to the fane of the Ephesian Artemis,
as is maintained by Chandler and Macknight. This appears
to us to be the most probable exegesis, the genitive being
still before the apostle’s mind from the end of the previous
chapter. We have seen how the previous language of the
prayer is moulded by such an allusion; that the invigoration
of the inner man, the indwelling of Christ, and the substruc-
ture in love, have all distinct. reference to the glorious spiritual
edifice. This idea was present, and so present to the apostle’s
imagination, that he feels no need to make formal mention of
it. Besides, these architectural terms lead us to the same
conclusion, as they are so applicable to a building. The
magnificent fabric is described in the end of chap. ii, and the
intervening verses which precede the prayer are, as already
stated, a parenthesis. That figure of a temple still loomed
before the writer’s fancy, and naturally supplied the distinctive
imagery of the prayer. For this reason, too, he does not
insert a genitive, as the substantive is so remote, nor did he
reckon it necessary to repeat the noun itself. Yet, to sustain
the point and emphasis, he repeats the article before each of
the substantives. In explaining these terms of mensuration
we would not say with an old commentator quoted by Wolf
—“The church has length, that is, it stretches from east to
west; and it has breadth, that is, it reaches from the equator
to the poles. In its depth it descends to Christ, its corner-
stone and basis, and in its height it is exalted to heaven.”
There is a measurement of area—breadth and length, and a
measurement of altitude—height and depth. May not the
former refer to its size and growing vastness, embracing, as it
will do, so many.myriads of so many nations, and spanning

EPHESIANS IIL. 19, 235

the globe? And may not the latter depict its glory? for the
plan, structure, and materials alike illustrate the fame and
character of its Divine Builder and Occupant, while its lofty
turrets are bathed and hidden from view in the radiant splen-
dour of heaven. And with what reed shall we measure this
stately building? How shall we grasp its breadth, compute
its length, explore its depth, and scan its height? Only by
the discipline described in the previous context—by being
strengthened by the Spirit, by having Christ within us, and
by being thus “rooted and grounded in love.” This ability
to measure the church needs the assistance of the Divine
Spirit—of Him who forms this “ habitation of God ”—so that
we may understand its nature, feel its self-expansion, and
believe the “glorious things spoken” of it. It requires also
the indwelling of Jesus—of Him in whom the whole building
groweth unto a holy temple, in order to appreciate its con-
nection with Him as its chief corner-stone, the source of
its stability and symmetry. And they who feel themselves
“rooted and grounded in love” need no incitement to this
survey and measurement, for He whom they love is its foun-
dation, while His Father dwells in it, and His Spirit builds it
up with generation after generation of believers. None have
either the disposition or the skill to comprehend the vastness
and glory of the spiritual temple, save they who are in it
themselves, and who, being individual and separate shrines,
can reason from their own enjoyment to the dignity and
splendour of the universal edifice. And not only so, but the
apostle also prayed for ability—
(Ver. 19.) Tvaval re thy inrepBaddoveay Tis ryv@rr ews
ayarny tov Xpiotot— And to know the knowledge-sur-
passing love of Christ.” Ivévac is not dependent on xata-
AaBécGas, but is in unison with, or rather parallel to it, being
also a similar exercise of mind. The particle re, not unlike
the Latin que, does not couple; it rather annexes or adds a
clause which is not necessarily dependent on the preceding.
Kithner, § 722; Hartung, i p. 105; Hand, Tursellinus seu
| de Particulis Latinis Commentarii, lib. ii. p. 467. Winer
‘remarks, that in the clause adjoined by te the more prominent
| idea of the sentence may be found. § 53, 2.' In the phrase
* 1 Moulton, p. 542.

te © alia i ee Se

4
"4
’

256 EPHESIANS III. 19.

—ayarny tod Xpictov, Xprorod is the genitive of possession or
subject—the love of Christ to us. The genitive yvdcews is
governed by the participle tbzrepBadddoveay, and not by the
substantive aydirnv,—the last a misconstruction, which may
have originated the reading of Codex A and of Jerome—
scientie caritatem; a reading adopted also by Grotius and
Homberg. The participle, from its comparative sense, governs
the genitive. Kiihner, § 539; Bernhardy, p. 169 ; Vigerus, de
Idiotismis, ii. p. 667, Londini, 1824. Two different meanings
have been ascribed to the participle—

1. That adopted by Luther’ in one version—*“ the love of
Christ, which is more excellent than knowledge.” Similar is
the view of Wetstein and Wilke. Lexicon, sub voce. Such a
rendering appears to stultify itself. If the apostle prayed
them to know a love which was better than knowledge, the
verb, it is plain, is used with a different signification from its
cognate substantive. To know such a love must in that case
signify to possess or feel it, and there is no occasion to take
yve@ots in any technical and inferior sense. Nor can we sup-
pose the apostle to use such a truism in the form of a contrast,
and to say, “I pray that you may know that love to Christ is
better than mere knowledge about Him ”—a position which no-
body could dispute. Nor did there need a request for spiritual
strength to enable them to come to the conclusion which
Augustine gathers from the clause—scientia subdita caritate.
De Gratia et Ind. Arbit. cap. 19. Far more point and con-
sistency are found in the second form of exegesis, which—

2. Supposes the apostle to say, that the love of Christ—the
love which He bears to us — transcends knowledge, or goes
beyond our fullest conceptions. “I pray that you may be
able to know the love of Christ, which yet in itself is above

knowledge.” This figure of speech, which rhetoricians call .

an oxymoron or a paradox, consists in the statement of an
apparent inconsistency, and is one which occurs elsewhere in
the writings of the apostle. Rom. i. 20; 1 Cor. i. 21-25;

2 Cor. viii. 2; Gal. ii. 19; 1 Tim. v. 6. The apostle does

not mean that Christ’s love is in every sense incompre-

1 His first translation was die Liebe Christi, die doch alle Erkentniss tibertrifft,
but in the year 1545 he rendered—dass Christum lieb haben viel besser ist, denn
alles Wissen.

obs we

EPHESIANS III. 19, 257

hensible, nor does he pray that his readers may come to know
‘the fact that His love is unknowable in its essence. This
latter view, which is that of Harless and Olshausen, limits the
inspired prayer, and is not warranted by the language employed.
But in this verse the position of the participle between the
article and its substantive, proves it to be only an epithet—
“to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ.” Winer,
§ 45, 4, note. The incomprehensibility of the love of Christ
is not that special element of it which the apostle prayed that
the Ephesians might come to the knowledge of, but he asks
penal they might be strengthened to cherish enlarged concep-
tions of a love which yet, in its higher aspect and properties,
was beyond knowledge. So write Cicumenius and Theophy-
lact,— tv aydrnv thy brepéxyovcay Tacns yvacews. The
apostle wishes them to possess a relative acquaintance with
the love of Christ, while he felt that the absolute understanding
of it was far beyond their reach. To know it to be the fact,
that it is a love which passeth knowledge, is different from
saying—to know it experimentally, though it be a love which
‘in the highest sense passeth knowledge. Thus Theodore of
Mopsuestia says—r0 yvavat avi tod arrodavoas A€yer. It may
‘be known in some features and to some extent, but at the same
time it stretches away into infinitude, far beyond the ken of
‘human discovery and analysis. As a fact manifested in time
and embodied in the incarnation, life, teaching, and death of
the Son of God, it may be understood, for it assumed a nature
‘of clay, bled on the cross, and lay prostrate in the tomb; but
in its unbeginning existence as an eternal passion, antedating
‘alike the Creation and the Fall, it “ passeth knowledge.” In
the blessings which it confers—the pardon, grace, and glory
which it provides—it may be seen in palpable exhibition, and
experienced in happy consciousness ; but in its limitless power
and endless resources it baffles thought and description. In
the terrible sufferings and death to which it led, and in the
self-denial and sacrifices which it involved, it may be known
Iso far by the application of human instincts and analogies ;
‘but the fathomless fervour of a Divine affection surpasses the
Measurements of created intellect. As the attachment of a
Man, it may be gauged; but as the love of a God, who can
searching find it out? Uncaused itself, it originated sal-
R

258 EPHESIANS III 19.

vation; unresponded to amidst the “ contradiction of sinners,”
it neither pined nor collapsed. It led from Divine immor-
tality to human agonies and dissolution, for the victim was
bound to the cross not by the nails of the military executioner,
but by the “cords of love.” It loved repulsive unloveliness,
and, unnourished by reciprocated attachment, its ardour was
unquenched, nay, is unquenchable, for it is changeless as the
bosom in which it dwells. Thus it may be known, while yet
it “passeth knowledge;” thus it may be experimentally
known, while still in its origin and glory it surpassses compre-
hension, and presents new and newer phases to the loving and
inquiring spirit. For one may drink of the spring and be
refreshed, and his eye may take in at one view its extent and
circuit, while he may be able neither to fathom the depth nor
mete out the volume of the ocean whence it has its origin.

This prayer, that the Ephesians might know the love of
Christ, is parallel to the preceding one, and was suggested by
it. That temple of such glory and vastness which has Christ
for its corner-stone, suggests the love of its illustrious Founder.
While the apostle prayed that his converts in Ephesus might
comprehend the stability and magnificence of the one, he could
not but add that they might also know the intensity and ten-
derness of the other—might understand in its history and
results a love that defied their familiar cognizance and pene-
tration in its essence and circuit. From what the church is,
and is to be, you infer the love of Christ. And the being
“rooted and grounded in love” is the one preparative to know |
the love of Christ, for love appreciates love, and responds in
cordial pulsation. And all this for the ultimate end—

iva TAnpwO Te eis TAY TO TANPwLA ToD OcoH—“ that ye may
be filled up to all the fulness of God.” This clause depicts
the grand purpose and result. “Iva—“in order that,” is con-|
nected with the preceding clauses of the prayer, and is the
third instance of its use in the paragraph—iva d@n—iva é£vo-
xvonte—iva TrAnpwOjTe—this last being climactic, or the great
end of the whole supplication. (For the meaning of 7A7jpopa
the reader may turn to i.10,23.) Tov Oeod is in the genitiv
of subject or possession. “ All the fulness of God” is all th
fulness which God possesses, or by which He is characteriz
Chrysostom is right in the main when he paraphrases it,

EPHESIANS III. 19, 259

Trnpoda bar Taons apetis Hs wANpNs Coriv 6 Beos. Some, like
Harless, refer the fulness to the Divine 56£a; others, like Holz-
hausen, Baumgarten, and Michaelis, think the allusion is to a
temple inhabited or filled with Divinity, or the Shechinah ; and
others, again, as Vatablus and Schoettgen, dilate the meaning
into a full knowledge of God or of Divine doctrine. Many com-
mentators, including Calovius, Zachariae, Wolf, Beza, Estius,
Grotius, and Meyer, break down the term by a rash analysis,
and make it refer to this or that species of spiritual gifts.
Bodius and Olshausen keep the word in its undivided signi-
ficance, but Conybeare inserts an unwarranted supplement
when he renders —“ filleth therewith” (with Christ’s love)
“ even to the measure of the fulness of God.” Koppe, adopt-
ng the idea of Aretius and Kiittner, and most unwarrantably
referring it to the church, supposes the clause to be adduced
as a proof of the preceding statement, that Christ’s love sur-
passes knowledge, and this is seen “in the fact of your admis-
gion to the church,’— thus diluting the words into & 7@
@AnpwOivat twas. Schleusner has a similar view. Codex B
reads—iva mAnpwhh Trav 7d wANpwpa, an exegetical variation.
The 7Ajpwopa—that with which He is filled—appears to be the
entire moral excellence of God—the fulness and lustre of His
Spiritual perfections. Such is the climax of the prayer. It is
ainly contrary to fact and experience to understand the term
the uncreated essence of God, for such an idea would involve
3 in a species of pantheism.
The preposition es is used with special caution. The
imple dative is not employed, nor does eds stand for év, as
Jrotius, Estius, and Whitby imagine, and as it is rendered in
ithe Syriac and English versions. It does not denote “ with,”
Ibut “for” or “into ”—filled up to or unto “an end quan-
Ritatively considered.” The whole fuluess of God can never
ontract itself so as to lodge in any created heart. But the
aller vessel may have its own fulness poured into it from
3 of larger dimensions. The communicable fulness of God
will in every element of it impart itself to the capacious
ind exalted bosom, for Christ dwells in their hearts, The
erence between God and the saint will be not in kind,
it in degree and extent. His fulness is infinite; theirs is
ited by the essential conditions of a created nature,

260 EPHESIANS III. 20.

Theirs is the correspondence of a miniature to the full face
and form which it represents. Stier’s version is, “ Until you
be what as the body of Christ you can and should be,
the whole fulness of God.” But this proceeds on a wrong
idea of wAnpwua—as if it here signified the church as
divinely filled. (See the illustrations of rAnpwpa under i. 23.)
The apostle prays for strength, for the indwelling of Jesus, for
unmoveable foundation in love, for a comprehension of the
size and vastness of the spiritual temple, and for a knowledge
of the love of Christ; and when such blessings are conferred
and enjoyed, they are the means of bringing into the heart
this Divine fulness. Col i. 19. There seems to be a
close concatenation of thought. The “strength” prayed for
is needed to qualify “the inner man” to bear and retain that
“fulness.” The implored inhabitation of Him in whom
“ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” is this fulness
in its formal aspect ; and that love which founds and confirms
the Christian character, and instinctively enables it to com-
prehend the vast designs of God in His church, and to know
the unimaginable love of Christ, is of the same fulness an
index and accompaniment. This blessed result may not be
completely realized on earth, where so many disturbing influ-
ences are in constant operation, but it shall be reached in
heaven, where the spirit shall be sated with “all the fulness
of God.” ;

(Ver. 20.) Tod S€ Suvapévm vrép Tavta woujoas vrepeK-
Tepiacov wv aitovpe0a 7 voovmev—< Now to Him who i
able to do beyond all things superabundantly beyond wha
we ask or think.” The apostle supposes his prayer to b
answered, and all its requests conferred. The Divine Give
of such munificent donations is surely worthy of all homage
and especially worthy of all homage in the character of th
answerer of prayer. By 6é he passes to a different subjec
from recipients to the Giver. Praise succeeds prayer—th
anthem is its fitting conclusion.

The construction is idiomatic, as if the apostle’s min
laboured for terms of sufficient intensity. Words compounde
with d7rép are often employed by the full mind of the apostle
and are the favourite characteristics of his style, i. 21, iv. 1
Rom. v. 20, viii. 37; 2 Cor. vii. 4, xi 5, 23; Phil. ii;

EPHESIANS III. 20, 261

1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Thess. i 3; 1 Tim i. 14. Compare
Fritzsche, ad Roman. vol. i. 351. The general idea is—God’s
infinite ability to grant spiritual blessing. ‘Taép is twice
expressed ; before mdvra, and in the double compound term
wtmepexrepiccov. Mark vii. 37; 1 Thess. iii.10,v.13. This
repetition shows the ardour of the apostle’s soul, and his
anxiety to body forth the idea of the incomparable power of
God to answer petition. The first train of thought seems to
have been—vreép mavta Troujoat & airovpeba—“ to do beyond
what we ask or think.” But this description did not exhaust
the apostle’s conception, and so he inserts—dmepexrrepiocot
@v aitovpeOa— more than abundantly,” or abundantly far
beyond what we ask or think. Nor is there any tautology.
‘Trép wavta Trovjoat expresses merely the fact of God's super-
abundant power, but the subjoined vrepextepiccod defines
the mode in which this illimitable power displays itself, and
that is, by conferring spiritual gifts in superabundance—in
much more than simple abundance. Harless places the two
clauses in apposition, but their union appears to be closer, as
our exegesis intimates. JIavra is closely connected with oy»,
|which is governed in the genitive by the trép in vrepex-
mepiccov. Bernhardy, p. 139. And we do not say with
Harless that there is any hyperbole, for omnipotence has never
Hexhausted its resources. While omniscience is the actual
Hknowledge of all, omnipotence is the ability to do all, and all
that it can do has never been achieved.

God is able to do far “above what we ask,” for our asking
is limited and feeble. John xvi. 24. But there may be
thoughts too sweeping for expression, there may be unutterable
groanings prompted by the Spirit (Rom. viii. 26); yet above
ad beyond our widest conceptions and most daring expecta-
ions is God “able to do.” God's ability to answer prayer
transcends not only our spoken petitions, but far surpasses
even such thoughts as are too big for words, and too deep for
itterance. And still those desires which are dumb from their
very vastness, and amazing from their very boldness, are
Insignificant requests compared with the power of God. For
we know so little of His promises, and so weak is our faith in
nem, that we ask not, as we should, for their universal
ilment; and though we did understand their depth and

262 EPHESIANS III. 21.

power, our loftiest imaginations of possible blessing would
come infinitely short of the power and resources of the
Hearer of prayer. Beati qui esuriunt, says Bernard, et sttvwnt
justitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Qui esurit, esuriat
amplius, et qui desiderat, abundantius adhuc desideret, quoniam
quantumeungue desiderare potuerit, tantum est acceptwrus :—

Kata thy Svvauw Thy évepyoupévny év mpiv—* according
to the power which worketh in us.” These words are not to ©
be joined to voodpev, as if they qualified it, and as if the ©
apostle meant to say, that God can do more for us than we
can think, even when our thoughts are excited and enlarged ©
by His own “power putting itself forth in us.” This ©
participle is here, as in many other places, in the middle
voice, the active voice being used by Paul in reference to a —
personal agent, and the middle employed when, as in this
case, the idea of personality is sunk. “ According to His
power that proves or shows itself at work in us.” Winer,
§ 38, 6. That power has been again and again referred to in
itself and in its results by the apostle. (i. 19,111.16.) From
our own blissful experience of what it has already achieved
in us, we may gather that its Divine possessor and wielder
can do for us “far beyond what we ask or think.” That
might being God’s, can achieve in us results which the boldest
have not ventured to anticipate. So that, as is meet—

(Ver. 21.) Adré % Soka ev tH exxrAnola ev Xpicto ’Inood—
“To Him be glory in the church in Christ Jesus.” Such a
pronoun, emphatic in position and from repetition, occurs
in common Hebrew usage—a usage, however, not wholly
Hebraistic, but often found in classic Greek, and very often in:
the Septuagint. Bernhardy, p. 290 ; Winer, § 22,4. A0fa
may, as an abstract noun, have the article prefixed; or the
article may be used in what Bernhardy calls its “rhetorische
form,” signifying the glory which is His especially, and due to
Him confessedly, p. 315. The difference of reading is not 0
essential moment. Some MSS., such as A, B, and C, wit
the Coptic and Vulgate, supply xa/ before év X. I., and thi
reading is preferred by Lachmann, Riickert, and Matthies, bu
refused by Tischendorf, while D', F, G, with Ambrosiaster,
reverse the order of the clauses, and read—év Xpior@ Inco
wal th éxxAnoia. Koppe, on the authority of one MS., 46, i

EPHESIANS III. 21. : 263

inclined to reject as spurious the whole clause—év rH éxxAnola.
- Harless and Olshausen show that these various readings have
their sources in dogmatic views. It could not be borne by
some that the church should stand before Christ, and the «ai,
without which there would be an asyndeton, was inserted in
consequence of certain opinions as to the connection and
meaning of the clause which follows it. Hofmann, Schrift.
vol. ii. part 2, p. 108, pleads for xa/, and connects év Xpiora
*Incod with the following words, els mdoas tas yeveds, etc.
The relation of the two clauses—éev TH éxxAnoia and év Xpiot@
*Incod—has been variously understood :—

1. Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier,
Holzhausen, Olshausen, and Stier, connect the words thus—
“In the church which is in Christ Jesus.” Not to say that
a second t7 is wanting (Gal. i. 22),—-which, however, in such
a connection is not always repeated—the meaning does not
appear to be appropriate. The second clause has no immediate
union with the one before it, but bears a relation to d0€a.

2. Some render é€v Xpiot@ by the words “through Christ”
—6:d, as in the interpretation of Theophylact; ovyv, as in that
of @cumenius; per Christum, as in the paraphrase of Grotius,
and the exegesis of Calvin and Beza, Rollock and Riickert.
Such a translation is not in accordance with the usual mean-
ing of the preposition. The passages adduced by Turner in
denial of this are no proof, for in them év, though instrumental,
retains its distinctive meaning, and is not to be superficially
confounded with éd.

3. The words seem to define the inner sphere or spirit in
which the glory is presented to God. It is offered in the
church, but it is, at the same time, offered “in Christ Jesus,”
‘or presented by the members of the sacred community in the
consciousness of union with Him, and by consequence In a

the splendour of moral excellence, |
such glory be ascribed but in the church, which has wit-
I so much of it, and whose origination, life, blessings, and
hopes are so many samples and outbursts of it? Ebrard,

264 EPHESIANS III, 21.

Dog. § 467. And how should it be presented? Not apart
from Christ, or simply for His sake, but in Him—in thrilling
fellowship with Him ; for no other consciousness can inspire
us with the sacred impulse, and praise of no other origin and
character can be accepted by that God who is Himself in
Christ. The glory is to be offered—

els mWaoas Tas yevedas Tod ai@ves TaV aiw@ver. *Apny—
“to all the generations of the ages of the ages. Amen.”
This remarkable accumulation of terms is an intensive for-
mula denoting eternity. The apostle combines two phrases,
both of which are used in the New Testament. Lis yeveas
reveov—Luke i. 50—is phraseology based upon the Hebrew
ona 9, Ps. xxii. 5, cii. 24. The other portion of the
phrase occurs as in Gal. i. 5—els rods aldvas Tov aiwvev
(1 Pet. i. 25), eis tov aidva. Heb. v. 6, vi. 20. We have
also efs tovs ai@vas in many places; and in the Septuagint,
els yevedy Kal ryevedy, Ews ryeveds Kal yevedis, ex yeveds els yevedy,
eis yeveas yevedv. So &ws aidvos tay aiwvwy stands in Dan.
vii. 18 for the Chaldee spby ody ay) xnody sp. This language,
borrowed from the changes and succession of time, is employed
to picture out eternity. It is a period of successive genera-
tions filling up the age, which again is an age of ages—or
made up of a series of ages—a period composed of many |
periods; and through the cycles of such a period of periods,
glory is to be ascribed to God. It is needless, with Meyer,
to take yeveai in a literal sense, or in reference to successive
generations of living believers, for yevea often simply means
a period of time measured by the average life of man. Acts
xiv. 16, xv. 21. The entire phrase is a temporal image of
eternity. One wonders at de Wette’s question—‘“ Was the
apostle warranted to expect such a long duration for the
church?” For is not the church to be. gathered into the
heavens ?

The obligation to glorify God lasts through eternity, and
the glorified church will ever delight in rendering praise, “as
is most due.” Eternal perfection will sustain an etern
anthem. The Trinity is here again brought out to view. Th
power within us is that of the Spirit, and glory in Christ i
presented to the Father who answers prayer through the So
and by the Spirit; and, therefore, to the Father, in the So

EPHPSIANS II. 21. 265

and by the Spirit, is offered this glorious minstrelsy—“ as it
was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without
end. Amen.”

‘* To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
The God whom heaven's triumphant host
And saints on earth adore,
Be glory as in ages past,
As now it is, and so shall last
When time shall be no more,”

CHAPTER IV.

THE practical portion of the Epistle now commences, or as
Theodoret says—éert ra eldn mpotpéme: THs apeThs. But doc-
trine has been expounded ere duty is enforced. Instructions
as to change of spiritual relation precede exhortations as to
change of life. It is in vain to tell the dead man to rise and
walk, till the principle of animation be restored. One must
be a child of God before he can be a servant of God. Pardon
and purity, faith and holiness, are indissolubly united. Ethics
therefore follow theology. And now the apostle first proceeds
to enjoin the possession of such graces as promote and sus-
tain the unity of the church, the members of which are
“rooted and grounded in love ”—a unity which, as he is
anxious to show, is quite compatible with variety of gift,
office, and station. Then he dwells on the nature, design, and
results of the ministerial functions belonging to the church,
points out its special and divine organization, and goes on to
the reprobation of certain vices, and the inculcation of opposite
graces.

(Ver. 1.) IIapaxarad odv ipas éya o Sécpu0s ev Kupip—
“T exhort you then, I the prisoner in the Lord.” The
retrospective odv refers us to the preceding paragraph—
Christian privilege or calling being so rich and full, and his
prayer for them being so fervent and extensive. The person- —
ality of the writer is distinctly brought out—“ I the prisoner,”
éyo. iii. 1. The phrase év Kup is closely connected with
0 décpuos, as the want of the article between the words also
shows. Some, indeed, prefer to join it to the verb mapaxara@
—*T exhort you in the Lord.” Such was the view of Semler,
and Koppe does not express a decided opinion. But the
position of the words is plainly against such a construction.
Winer, § 20,2. The verb rapaxand is not used in its original ©
sense, but signifies “I exhort,” as if equivalent to mporpéza.

EPHESIANS IV. 1. 267

It has, however, various shades of meaning in the Pauline
writing. See Knapp’s Sorip. Var. p. 125 et seq. Nor can
_€v Kupiw signify “for Christ’s sake,” as is the opinion of
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Koppe, and Flatt. - When we turn
to similar expressions, such as tods dvtas év Kupi» (Rom.
xvi. 11)—dyarnrdv év Kupiw (Philem. 16)—-yapn@jvac,
povov év Kupip (1 Cor. vii. 39)—rdv dyamrnrov pou év Kupio
(Rom. xvi. 8)—the meaning of the idiom cannot be doubted.
It characterizes Paul as a Christian prisoner—one who not
only was imprisoned for Christ’s sake, but who was and
still is in union with the Lord, as a servant and sufferer.
See on Kupuos, ch. i. 2, 3. The apostle in iii. 1 uses the
genitive which indicates one aspect of relationship—that
of possession; but here he employs the dative as denoting
that his incarceration has its element or characteristic, perhaps
origin too, from his union with Christ. But why again
allude to his bondage in these terms? Not simply to excite
sympathy, and claim a hearing for his counsels, nor solely, as
Olshausen and Harless maintain, to represent his absolute
obedience to the Lord as an example to his readers. All
these ideas might be in his mind, but none of them engross-
ingly, else some more distinctive allusion might be expected
in his language. Nor can we accede to Meyer and the Greek
fathers, that there is in the phrase any high exultation in the
_ glory of a confessor or a martyr—as if, as Theodoret says, he
gloried more in his chains, # Bacwreds Siadjpate. But his
writing to them while he was in chains proved the deep
interest he took in them and in their spiritual welfare—showed
them that his faith in Jesus, and his love to His cause, were
not shaken by persecution—that the iron which lay upon his
limb had not entered into his soul—and that his apostolical
' prerogative was as intact, his pastoral anxiety as powerful,
and his relation to the Lord as close and tender as when on
his visit to them he disputed in the school of Tyrannus, or
uttered his solemn and pathetic valediction to their elders
at Miletus, Letters inspired by love in a dungeon might
also have a greater charm than his oral address, Compare
Gal. vi. 17. “I exhort you”—
dklws meprrarioar Tis KAjoews hs éxdsjOnre—" that ye
walk worthy of the calling with which ye were called.

5

*

a é

=

268 EPHESIANS IV. 2.

Kyjows is the Christian vocation—the summons “to glory
and virtue.” See under i. 18; Rom. xi. 29; Phil. i. 14;
2 Tim. i. 9; Heb. iii. 1, etc. In %s éxAnOnte is a common
idiom—%s being probably by attraction or assimilation, as
Kriiger, § 51, 10, prefers to call it, for 7, but perhaps for #v
(Arrian, Hpict. p. 122), and the verb being used with its cog-
nate noun. Winer, § 24,1; 2 Tim.i.9; 1 Cor. vii. 20. See
also under i. 8,19, 20, ii. 4. ”Aé&cos in the sense of “in har-
mony with,” is often thus used. Matt. iii. 8; Phil. ii 27; Col.
i. 10; 1 Thess. ii, 12; 2 Thess.i.11. On the peculiar meaning
of wepumaréw see under ii. 2, 10. It is a stroke of very
miserable wit which Adam Clarke ascribes to the apostle,
when he represents him as saying, “Ye have your liberty
and may walk, I am deprived of mine and cannot.” Their
calling, so high, so holy, and so authoritative, and which had
come to them in such power, was to be honoured by a walk
in perfect correspondence with its origin and spirit, its claims
and destiny. See also under ver. 4.

The apostle now enforces the cultivation of those graces, the
possession of which is indispensable to the harmony of the
church: for the opposite vices — pride, irascibility, impatient
querulousness—all tend to strife and disruption. On union
the apostle had already dwelt in the second chapter as a
matter of doctrine—here he introduces it as one of practice.

(Ver. 2.) Mera raons tarewodpootvns Kal mpavitntos, MeTa
paxpoOupias, aveyopevot GAAnAwWY ev ayaTn—“ With all low-
liness and meekness, with long - suffering, forbearing one
another in love.” Col. iii, 12. Mera is with—accompanied
with—-visible manifestation. Winer, § 47, h. On aeons
see 1.8. Some suppose the various nouns in the verse to be
connected with dveyouevor, but such a connection mars the
harmony and development of thought, as it rises from general
to special counsel. |

Tarrecvoppoovry is lowliness of mind, opposed to ta vyryra ©
dpovotvtes. Rom. xii. 16. It is that profound humility which ©
stands at the extremest distance from haughtiness, arrogance,
and conceit, and which is produced by a right view of our-
selves, and of our relation to Christ and to that glory to which
we are called. It is ascribed by the apostle to himself in Acts
xx, 19, It is not any one’s making himself small—érav tis

EPHESIANS IV. 2. 269

_ péyas &v—as Chrysostom supposes, for such would be mere
_ simulation. Every blessing we possess or hope to enjoy is
from God. Nothing is self-procured, and therefore no room is
_ left for self-importance. This modesty of mind, says Chry-
sostom, is the foundation of all virtue—mdons dperijs trdbeais,
_ Trench, Synon. § 43; Tittmann, De Syn. p. 140.
IIpairns is meekness of spirit in all relations, both toward
God and toward man—which never rises in insubordination
against God nor in resentment against man. It is a grace
ascribed by the Saviour to Himself (Matt. xi. 29), and ascribed
_ to him by the apostle. 2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. v. 23. It is not
merely that meekness which is not provoked and angered by
the reception of injury, but that entire subduedness of tem-
perament which strives to be in harmony with God's will, be
_ it what it may, and, in reference to men, thinks with candour,
_ suffers in self-composure, and speaks in the “soft answer”
_ which “turneth away wrath.” For some differences in spell-
_ ing the word, see Passow, sub voce, and Lobeck, ad Phrynich.
p. 403. The form adopted is found only in B and E, but it
_ seems supported by the analogy of the Alexandrian spelling.
_ The preposition perd is repeated before the next noun,
paxpoOuuias, and this repetition has led Estius, Riickert,
_ Harless, Olshausen, and Stier to connect it with dveydpevor
in the following clause. We see no good ground for this
construction. On the contrary, dveyouevor has év ayary to
qualify it, and needs not peta paxpoOupuias, which, from its
position, would then be emphatic. Some, like Lachmann ani
Olshausen, feeling this, join év @yamy as unwarrantably to the
following verse. The first two nouns are governed by one
preposition, for they are closely associated in meaning, the
“meekness” being after all only a phrase of the “lowliness of
mind,” and resting on it. But the third noun is introduced
with the preposition repeated, as it is a special and distinct
virtue—a peculiar result of the former two—and so much, at
the same time, ‘before the mind of the apostle, that he explains
it in the following clause. ee
MaxpoOvpla—* long-suffering,” is opposed to irritability,
or to what we familiarly name shortness of temper (Jas. i.
19), and is that patient self-possession which enables a man
to bear with those who oppose him, or who in any way do him

270 EPHESIANS IV. 3.

injustice. He can afford to wait till better judgment and
feeling on their part prevail. 2 Cor. vi. 6; Gal. v.22; 1 Tim.
i. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 2. In its high sense of bearing with evil,
and postponing the punishment of it, it is ascribed to God,
Rom. ii. 4, ix. 22. The participle aveyouevou is in the
nominative, and the anacolouthon is easily explained from the
connection with the first verse. An example of a similar
change is found in iii. 18. Winer, § 63, 2. It is useless,
with Heinsius and Homberg, to attempt to supply the impera-
tive mood of the verb of existence—* Be ye forbearing one
another.” ’*Avéyouas, in the middle voice, is to have patience
with, that is, “to hold oneself up” till the provocation is
past. Col. iii, 13. Verbs of its class govern the genitive.
Kiihner, § 539. °Ev aydqn describes the spirit in which such
forbearance was to be exercised. Retaliation was not to be
allowed ; all occasionally needed forbearance, and all were uni-
formly to exercise it. No acerbity of temper, sharp retort, or
satirical reply was to be admitted. As it is the second word
which really begins the strife, so, where mutual forbearance is
exercised, even the first angry word would never be spoken.
And this mutual forbearance must not be affected coolness or
studied courtesy ; it must have its origin, sphere, and nutri-
ment “in love”—in the genuine attachment that ought to
prevail among Christian disciples. _Gicumenius justly observes
—évOa yap éotw ayatn, Tavta éotw aveKTa.

(Ver. 3.) Yaovdalovres typeiv tv évornta Tod TIvevparos
—‘endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit.” This
clause is parallel to the preceding, and indicates not so much,
as Meyer says, the inward feelings by which the avéyeo@as is
to be characterized, as rather the motive to it, and the accom-
panying or simultaneous effort. JIvedua cannot surely mean
the mere human spirit, as the following verse plainly proves.
Yet such is the view of Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Erasmus,
Calvin, Estius, Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bloomfield.
Calvin also says—Lgo simplicius interpretor de animorum
concordia ; and Ambrosiaster quietly changes the terms, and
renders—unitatis spiritum. Others, again, take the phrase to
denote that unity of which the Spirit is the bond. Chrysos-
tom says—oia yap TovTo TO Trvedua &600n, iva Tods yéver Kab
tpoTmos Siapdpois SuectnKoTas évwoy. This view is perhaps

EPHESIANS IV. 3. 271

not sufficiently distinctive. The reference is to the Spirit of
God, but, as the next verse shows, to that Spirit as inhabiting
the church—“one body” and “one Spirit.” The “unity of
the Spirit” is not, as Grotius says, unitas ecclesia, que est
corpus spirituale, but it is the unity which dwells within the
church, and which results from the one Spirit—the originating
a being in the genitive. Hartung, Casus, p. 12. The
apostle has in view what he afterwards advances about differ-
ent functions and offices in the church in verses 7 and 11.
_ Separate communities are not to rally round special gifts and
_ offices, as if each gift proceeded from, and was organized by, a
separate and rival Spirit. 1 Cor. xii. 4, ete. And this unity
of the Spirit was not so completely in their possession, that
_ its existence depended wholly on their guardianship. For it
_ exists independently of human vigilance or fidelity," but its
manifestations may be thwarted and checked. They were
therefore to keep it safe from all disturbance and infraction.
_ And in this duty they were to be earnest and forward—orrov-
Safovres, using diligence, “ bisie to kepe,” as Wycliffe renders ;
' for if they cherished humility, meekness, and universal toler-
ance in love, as the apostle hath enjoined them, it would be
no difficult task to preserve the “unity of the Spirit.” And
that unity is to be kept—
. & 7@ cuvdéop Tis elpnyns—“in the bond of peace.”
Some understand the apostle to affirm that the unity is kept
by that which forms the bond of peace, viz. love. Such an
‘opinion has advocates in Theophylact, Calovius, Bengel,
-Riickert, Meier, Harless, Stier, and Winzer,? who take the
| genitive as that of object. Such an idea may be implied, but
it is not the immediate statement of the apostle. The declara-
‘tion here is different from that in Col. iii. 14, where love
jis termed “a bond.” See on the place. Eipnyns appears
to be the genitive of apposition, as Flatt, Meyer, Matthies,
Olshausen, Alford, and Ellicott take it. Winer, § 59,8; Acts
viii. 23. “The bond of peace” is that bond which is peace.
Ey does not denote that the unity of the Spirit springs from
' “the bond of peace,” as if unity were the product of peace, or

a 1“ Rinigkeit im Geist diirfen und kénnen wir nicht machen, sondern nur
' dariiber halten.”—Rieger, quoted by Stier.
- *Commentat, in Eph. iv. 1-6. Lipsia, 1836.

272 EPHESIANS IV. 4,

‘simply consisted of peace, but that the unity is preserved and
manifested in the bond of peace as its element. Winer,
§ 48,a. “Peace” is that tranquillity which ought to reign in
the church, and by the maintenance of which its essential
spiritual unity is developed and “ bodied forth.” This unity
is something far higher than peace; but it is by the preserva-
tion of peace as a bond among church members that such
unity is realized and made perceptible to the world. John xvii.
The outer becomes the symbol and expression of the inner—
union is the visible sign of unity. When believers universally
and mutually recognize the image of Christ in one another,
and, loving one another instinctively and in spite of minor
differences, feel themselves composing the one church of
Christ, then do they endeavour to keep “the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace.” The meaning of the English verb
“endeavour” has been somewhat attenuated in the course
of its descent to us. Trench on Authorized Version, p. 17.
Unity and peace are therefore surely more than mere alliance
between Jew and Gentile, though the apostle’s previous illus-
trations of that truth may have suggested this argument.

(Ver. 4.)“Ev cdpya kal év IIvedpa—“ One body and one
Spirit.” The connection is not, as is indicated in the Syriac
version—Keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace, in order that you may be in one body and one spirit.
Others construe as if the verse formed part of an exhortation
—“Be ye, or ye ought to be, one body,” or keeping the
unity of the Spirit as being one body, etc. But such a supple-
ment is too great, and the simple explanation of the ellipsis is
preferable. Conybeare indeed renders—*“ You are one body,”
but the common and correct supplement is the verb éote.
Kiihner, indeed (§ 760, c), says that such an asyndeton as
this frequently happens in classic Greek, when such a particle
as yap is understood. SBernhardy, p. 448. But the verse
abruptly introduces an assertatory illustration of the previous
statement, and in the fervent style of the apostle any con-
necting particle is omitted. “One body there is, and one
Spirit.” And after all that Ellicott and Alford have said, the
assertatory (rein assertorisch, Meyer) clause logically contains”
an argument—though grammatically the resolution by ydp
be really superfluous. Ellicott, after Hofmann, gives it as

EPHESIANS IV. 4. 273

“ Remember there is one body,” which is an argument surely
to maintain the unity of the Spirit. The idea contained in
-@@pa—the body or the church—has been already introduced
and explained (i. 23, ii. 16), to the explanations of which the
reader may turn. The church is described in the second
chapter as one body and one Spirit—év ét cwpari—ev évi
TIvevpars ; and the apostle here implies that this unity ought
to be guarded. Rom. xii 5; 1 Cor. xii 3; Col. i. 24. The
church or body is one, though its members are of ravtaxod Tis
oixoupévns moto. (Chrysostom.) There are not two rival
communities. The body with its many members, and com-
plex array of organs of very different position, functions, and
| honour, is yet one. The church, no matter where it is situated,
or in what age of the world it exists—no matter of what race,
blood, or colour are its members, or how various the tongues
in which its services are presented—is one, and remains s0,
unaffected by distance or time, or physical, intellectual, and
social distinctions. And as in the body there is only one spirit,
one living principle—no double consciousness, no dualism of
‘intelligence, motive, and action—so the one Spirit of God
dwells in the one church, and there are therefore neither rivalry
of administration nor conflicting claims. And whatever the
gifts and graces conferred, whatever variety of aspect they
‘may assume, all possess a delicate self-adaptation to times
and circumstances, for they are all from the “one Spirit,”
having oneness of origin, design, and result. (See on ver.
16.) The apostle now adds an appeal to their own expe-
Tie nce—
Kaders Kai exdOnte ev mia Edmribe Tis KAT TEwS Ywov—“even
‘as also ye were called in one hope of your calling.” Ka@as
ai introduces illustrative proof of the statement just made.
The meaning of this clause depends very much on the sense
assigned to év. Some, as Meyer, would make it instrumental,
land render it “by;” others, as Grotius, Flatt, Ruckert, and
}Valpy, would give it the meaning of eis, and Chrysostom
I that of gi. Harless adopts thé view expressed by Bengel on
‘1 Thess. iv. 7, and thinks that it signifies an element—indoles
—of the calling. We prefer to regard it as bearing its —
‘mon signification—as pointing to the element in which their
R.
ealling took place—in wna spe, as the Vulgate. 1 Cor. vii. 15;
5

274 | EPHESIANS IV. 5.

1 Thess. iv. 7; Winer, § 50, 5. Sometimes the verb is
simply used, both in the present and aorist (Rom. viii. 30,
ix. 11; Gal. v. 8), and often with various prepositions.
While év represents the element in which the calling takes
effect, év epyvyn, 1 Cor. vii. 15; év yaputi, Gal. i. 6; év aya-
ono, 1 Thess. iv. 7: éméi represents the proximate end, é7’
€revbepia, Gal. v. 13; ovx, él adxafapoia, 1 Thess. iv. 7: eis
depicts another aspect, efs xowwviay, 1 Cor. i. 9; edpyvn—
els Hv, Col. iii. 15; eds To Oavpacrov avtov das, 1 Pet. ii. J—
and apparently also the ultimate purpose, e¢s mrepurrolnow So€ns,
2 Thess. ii. 14; eis Bacvdetav nat do€av, 1 Thess. ii. 12; rijs
aiwviov Cons eis Hv, 1 Tim. vi. 12; eis tHYv ai@viov adtod
dofav, 1 Pet. v.10; other forms being eés todro, 1 Pet. ii. 21;
els TovTo iva, 1 Pet. iii. J—while the instrumental cause is
given by 8:a; the inner, dua yapuros, Gal. i. 15; and the
outer, da Tod evayyediov, 2 Thess. ii. 14. The follow-
ing genitive, xKAjoews, is that of possession—“in one hope
belonging to your calling.” See under i. 18, on similar
phraseology. The genitive of originating cause preferred by
Ellicott is not so appropriate, on account of the preceding
verb éxAnOnre, the genitive of the correlative noun sug-
gesting what belongs to the call and characterized it, when
they received it. The “hope” is “one,” for it has one
object, and that is glory; one foundation, and that is Christ.
Their call—7) dvw xAyjows (Phil. iii. 14), had brought them)
into the possession of this hope. See Nitzsch, System. § 210;
Reuss, 7héol. Chrét. vol. ii. p. 219. “There is one body and
one Spirit,” and the Ephesian converts had experience of this
unity, for the hope which they possessed as their calling was
also “ one,” and in connection with—

(Ver. 5.) Els Kvpwos, pia riots, & Bamticopa—< One
Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Further and conclusive argu-
ment. For the meaning of Kupuos in its reference to Christ,
the reader may turn toi. 2. Had Ireneus attended to the
common, if not invariable Pauline usage, he would not have said
that the father only is to be called Lord—Patrem tantum Deu
et Dominum. Opera, tom. i. 443, ed. Stieren, Lipsia,1849-—50
There is only one supreme Governor over the church. He i
the one Head of the one body, and the Giver of its one Spiri
This being the case, there can therefore be only—

EPHESIANS IV. 6. 275

“One faith.” Faith does not signify creed, or truth be-
lieved, but it signifies confidence in the one Lord—faith, the
subjective oneness of which is created and sustained by the
unity of its object. Usteri, Paulin. Lehrb. p. 300. The one
faith may be embodied in an objective profession. There
being only one faith, there can be only—

“One baptism.” Baptism is consecration to Christ—on?
dedication to the one Lord. Acts xix. 5; Rom. vi 3; Gal.
iii, 27. “One baptism” is the result and expression of the
“one faith” in the “one Lord,” and, at the same time, the
one mode of initiation by the “one Spirit” into the “one
body.” Tertullian argues from this expression against the
repetition of baptism—feliz aqua quod semel affluit. De Bap.
xv. Among the many reasons given for the omission of the
_Lord’s Supper in this catalogue of unity, this perhaps is the
most conclusive—that the Lord’s Supper is only the demon-
stration of a recognized unity in the church, whereas faith and
baptism are the initial and essential elements of it. These
last are also individually possessed, whereas the Lord's Supper
is a social observance on the part of those who, in oneness of
faith and fellowship, honour the “one Lord.” Still farther
and deeper—

(Ver. 6.) Els Ocos nai Ilatnp ardvrwy—" One God and
Father of all ”—ultimate, highest, and truest unity. Seven
‘times does he use the epithet “One.” The church is one
‘body, having one Spirit in it, and one Lord over it; then its
inner relations and outer ordinances are one too; its calling
thas attached to it one hope; its means of union to Him is
‘one faith; its dedication is one baptism: and all this unity is
but the impress of the great primal unity—one God. His
unity stamps an image of itself on that scheme which origin-
ited in Him, and issues in His glory. Christians serve one
God, are not distracted by a multiplicity of divinities, and
need not fear the revenge of one while they are doing homage
> his rival. Oneness of spirit ought to characterize their
ship. “One God and Father of all,” that is, all Christians,
yr the reference is not to the wide universe, or to all men,
las Holzhausen, with Musculus and Matthies, argue—but to
Ithe church. Jew and Gentile forming the one church have
mne God and father. (An illustration of the filial relationship

276 EPHESIANS IV. 6.

of believers to God will be found under i. 5.) The three
following clauses mark a peculiarity of the apostle’s style, viz.
his manner of indicating different relations of the same word
by connecting it with various prepositions. Gal.i. 1; Rom.
iii, 22, xi. 36; Col. i 16; Winer, § 50, 6. It is altogether
a vicious and feeble exegesis on the part of Koppe to say
that these three clauses are synonymous—sententia videtur
una, tantum variis formulis synonymis expressa. A triple
relationship of the one God to the “all” is now pointed out,
and the first is thus expressed—

0 émt mavtwyv—<who is over all.” These adjectives,
mavTwv and maot, are clearly to be taken in the masculine
gender, as the epithet mar#jp would also suggest. Erasmus,
Michaelis, Morus, and Baumgarten-Crusius take them in émi
mavrov and ova Tavtwy as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zacha-
riae, and Koppe accept the neuter only in the second phrase.
‘O émi wavtwv is rendered by Chrysostom—o érdvw Tavtwv.
The great God is high over all, robed in unsurpassable
glory. There is, and can be, no superior—no co-ordinate
sovereignty. The universe, no less than the church, lies
beneath, and far beneath, His throne, and the jurisdiction
of that throne, “high and lifted up,” is paramount and
unchallenged.

kal da tavrwv—“and through all.” The strange inter-
pretation of Thomas Aquinas has found some supporters. He
explains the first clause of God the Father, who is over all—
fontale principium divinitatis; and the clause before us he
refers to the Son—wper quem omnia facta sunt. But this
exegesis, which is adopted by Estius and Olshausen, reverses
the idea of the apostle. It is one thing to say, All things
through God, and quite another to say, God is through a
things. The latter, and not the former, is the express thought
of the inspired writer. Jerome also refers the phrase to the}
Son—quia per filium creata sunt omnia ; while Calvin under
stands by it the third Person of the Trinity—Deus Spirit
sanctificationis diffusus per omnia ecclesie membra.. Mey
holds a similar view. Chrysostom and his patristic followe
along with Beza, Zanchius, Crocius, and Grotius, refer it
God providing for all, and ordering all—r} mpovola
Scouxyjoet. Bengel, Flatt, and Winer understand it

EPHESIANS IV, 6. 277

‘signifying “through all acting.” Winer, § 50, 6. Harless
explains it as meaning “works through all, as the head
through the members.” It is plain that some of these views
do not make any real distinction between the &d of this
clause and the év of the following. The idea of simple
diffusion “through all,” is not far from the idea of “in all.”
But the notion of providence, if taken in a general sense,
comes nearer the truth. The thought seems to be that of a
pervading, and thus a sustaining and working presence.
Though He is “ over all,” yet He lives not in remote splendour
and indifference, for He is “ through all;” His influence being
everywhere felt in its upholding energies.

kal év macw—“and in all.” The Elzevir Text adds vpiv,
as Chrysostom does in his commentary. Others have adopted
jypiv, on the authority of D, E, F, G, K, L, the Syriac and
Vulgate, Theodoret, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster—a reading
admitted by Griesbach, Knapp, Scholz, and Hahn. But the
higher witness of A, B, C, the Coptic and thiopic, and
the text of Ignatius, Eusebius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory,
‘Chrysostom, and Jerome, exclude such a pronoun altogether,
and leave us simply év waow. Accordingly, Lachmann and
Tischendorf strike out the word as an evident gloss. The
pronoun would modify the universality predicated in the two
preceding clauses. He is “in all,” dwelling in them, filling
them with the light and love of His gracious presence. The
idea conveyed by 8d is more external and general in its
Mature—acting through or sustaining; while that expressed
év is intimate and special union and inhabitation. Very
different is such a conception from either ancient or modern
pantheism; from that of Zeno or that of Hegel, or the
poetical mysticism of Pope—

‘* All are but parts of one stupendous whole—
Whose body nature is, and God the soul.’

Thether there be any reference to the Trinity in this remark-
ble declaration, it is impossible to affirm with certainty.
Vhile Theophylact seems to deny it, because heretical notions
sre based upon it, Jerome on the other hand maintains it,
nd it was held by Ireneus and Hippolytus, the former of
|whom explains the first clause of the Father—caput Christe ;

278 - EPHESIANS IV. 6.

the second of the Son—caput ecclesie ; and the third of the
Holy Spirit in us—agua viva. Harless, Olshausen, Stier,
de Wette, von Gerlach, Ellicott, and Alford are of the same
opinion. It has been said in proof, that most certainly in the
third clause—“ in all ””—the reference is to the Holy Ghost,
by whom alone God dwells in believers; so that in the second
clause, and in the words “through all,” there may be an
allusion to Him who is now on the throne of the universe,
and “by whom all things consist ;”* and in the first clause to
the Eternal Father. In previous portions of the Epistle,
triune relation has been distinctly brought out ; only here the
representation is different, for unity is the idea dwelt on, and
it is the One God and Father Himself who works through all
and dwells in all.

All these elements of oneness enumerated in verses 4, d,
and 6, are really inducements for Christians to be forward to
preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It is
plainly of the one holy catholic church that the apostle has
been speaking; not of the visible church, which has in it a
mixed company, many whom Augustine characterizes as being
in fellowship cum ecclesia—“ with the church,” but who are
not 2 ecclesia—“in the church.” “All are not Israel who
are of Israel.” But the real spiritual church of the Redeemer
is one body. All the members of that church partake of the
same grace, adhere to the same faith, are washed in the same
blood, are filled with the same hopes, and shall dwell at
length in the same blessed inheritance. Heretics and ungodly
men may find their way into the church, but they remain
really separated from its “invisible conjunction of charity.”
There may be variations in “lesser matters of ceremony
or discipline,” and yet this essential unity is preserved.
Clement of Alexandria compares the church so constituted to
the various chords of a musical instrument, “for in the midst
of apparent schisms there is substantial unity.” Barrow
again remarks, that the apostle says—‘“one Lord, one faith,
one baptism; not one monarch, or one senate or sanhedrim.”

1 The suspicious and fantastic extremes to which the idea of Jehovah’s triune
being and operations may be carried, will be seen in such a work as that of the
Danish theologian Martensen, Die Christliche Dogmatik, 2 yols., Kiel, 1850.
Compare also Marheineke, Christl. Dogm. § 426; Schleiermacher, Christl.
Glaube, ii. § 170, 3rd ed., Berlin, 1835.

EPHESIANS IV. 7. °79

He does not insist on unity “under one singular, visible
_ government or polity.”’ How sad to think that the passions
|} of even sanctified men have often produced feuds and
alienations, and led them to forget the apostolic mandate !
Christ’s claim for the preservation of unity is upon all the
-churches—a unity of present connection and actual enjoy-
-ment—not a truce, but an alliance, with one livery and
cognizance—not a compromise, but a veritable incorporation
among “all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord, both their Lord and ours.”* “I will give
them one heart and one way ”—a promise the realization of
which is surely not to be deferred till the whole church
assemble in that world where there can be no misunderstand-
ing. The great father of the western church tersely says—
Contra rationem, nemo sobrius; contra Scripturas nemo
Christianus ; contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.

(Ver. 7.) ‘Evi 5€ éxdotp nyav €508n 7 yapis— But to each
of us was given grace.” Unity is not uniformity, for it is
quite consistent with variety of gifts and offices in the church.
|The dé marks a transitional contrast, as the writer passes on
to individual varieties. Still along with this unity there is
variety of gifts. In the addition of évi to éxaor, the idea of
distribution is expressed more distinctly than by the simple
term. Luke iv. 40; Acts ii. 3, xx. 31. B,D’, F,G, L, omit
‘the article 7 before ydpus, but there is no valid reason to reject
it; the preceding 7 of €50@) may have led to its omission.
‘This ydpis is gift, not merely in connection with personal
privilege or labour, but, as the sequel shows, gift in connec-
tion with official rank and function. ‘Eo@n in this verse is
explained by éSw«z in verse 8. While grace has been given

ve

' 1 Mohler, in his Symbolik, § 48, one of the ablest defences of Romanism, con
trasts Lutheranism and Catholicism thus—‘‘ The latter teaches that there is first
the visible church, and then comes the invisible, whereas Protestantism affirms
hat out of the invisible comes the visible church, and the first is the ground of
the last.” Sixth ed., Mainz, 1843.

2It is one of the many instances in which Rothe sets himself to overthrow
Istablished modes of thought and expression, when he attacks the phrase
‘visible church,” as being deceptive and unphilosophical, His objection,
however, compelled Hagenbach to coin a new phrase to express the popular
and with the facility of the Teutonic language for compounds, he gives us
untranslatable epithets—historisch-empirisch, heraustretende, horperliche, —
sbrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, § 71.

280 EPHESIANS IV. 7.

to every individual, and no one is omitted, that grace differs
in form, amount, and aspect in every instance of its bestow-
ment; and as a peculiar sample and illustration of such
variety in unity, the apostle appeals to the offices and dig-
nities in the church. For this grace is described as being
conferred — |

KaTa TO METPOV THS Swpeds ToD XpistodD—“ according to the
measure of the gift of Christ.” The first genitive is subjec-
tive, and the second that of possession or of agent. The gift
is measured ; and while each individual receives, he receives
according to the will of the sovereign Distributor. And
whether the measure be great or small, whether its contents be
of more brilliant endowment or of humbler and unnoticed
talent, all is equally Christ’s gift, and of Christ’s adjustment ;
all is equally indispensable to the union and edification of that
body in which there is “no schism,’ and forms an argument
why each one gifted with such grace should keep the unity of
the Spirit. The law of the church is essential unity in the
midst of circumstantial variety. Differences of faculty or tem-
perament, education or susceptibility, are not superseded. Each
gift in its own place completes the unity. What one devises
another may plead for, while a third may act out the scheme;
so that sagacity, eloquence, and enterprise form a “threefold
cord, not easily broken.” It is so in the material creation— |
the little is as essential to symmetry as the great—the star as _
well as the sun—the rain-drop equally with the ocean, and the —
hyssop no less than the cedar. The pebble has its place as _
fittingly as the mountain, and colossal forms of life-are sur- |
rounded by the tiny insect whose term of existence is limited |
to a summer’s twilight. Why should the possession of this —
grace lead to self-inflation ?_ It is simply Christ’s gift to each ©
one, and its amount and character as possessed by others
ought surely to create no uneasiness nor jealousy, for it is
of Christ's measurement as well as of His bestowment, and
every form and quantity of it, as it descends from the one
source, is indispensable to the harmony of the church. No
one is overlooked, and the one Lord will not bestow conflict-
ing graces, nor mar nor disturb, by the repulsive antipathy of
His gifts, that unity the preservation of which here and in:
this way is enjoined on all the members of His church.

EPHESIANS IV. 8 281

(Ver. 8.) 41d Aeyec—“ Wherefore He saith.” This quotation
no parenthesis, as many take it, nor is it any offshoot from
‘the main body of thought, but a direct proof of previous asser-
tion. And it proves those truths—that the ascended Lord
confers gifts—various gifts—that men are the recipients, and
that these facts had been presented to the faith and hope of
the ancient Jewish church. The apostle, too, must have felt
that the Jewish portion of the Ephesian church would acknow-
ledge his quotation as referring to Jesus. If they disputed the
sense or reference of the quotation, then the proof contained in
it could not affect them. The citation is taken from the 18th
_verse of the 68th Psalm. It is vain to allege, with Storr and
Flatt, that the apostle refers to some Christian hymn in use at
-Ephesus—quod ab Ephesiis cantitari sciret. Opuscula, iii. 309.
The formula Aéyes is not uncommon—a pregnant verb, con-
taining in itself its own nominative, though 4 ypady often
occurs, as in Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11; Gal. iv. 30; Suren-
-husius, Bibl. Katall. 9. There are two points which require
discussion — first, the difference of reading between the
apostle’s citation and the original Hebrew and the Septuagint
version; and, secondly, the meaning and reference of the
quotation itself.
_ The change of person from the second to the third needs
scarcely be noticed. The principal difference is in the last clause.
The Hebrew reads — 0782 Mand ANP? ‘28 May pine nop,
and the Septuagint has in the last clause—édafes doparta év
avOpaTw, or—avOpwrors ; but the apostle’s quotation reads—
wai ESwxev Sopata tois avOpwros—‘and He gave gifts to
men.” Various attempts have been made to explain this
remarkable variation, none of them perhaps beyond all doubt.
It may be generally said that the inspired apostle gives the
uotation in substance, and as it bore upon his argument.
Whiston maintained, indeed, that Paul's reading was correct,
d that the Hebrew and Seventy had both been corrupted.
zovius, Crit. Sacr. p. 3. On the other hand, Jarchi, one
the Targums, the Syriac, and Arabic, have—“Thou hast
iven gifts to the sons of men.” Jerome, followed by Erasmus,
ieves himself of the difficulty by alleging that, as the work of
ist was not over in the Psalmist’s time, these gifts were
y promised as future, and He may be said to have taken

282 EPHESIANS IV. 8.

them or received them. But the giving and taking were alike
future on the part of the Messiah in the age of David. More
acute than this figment of his Eastern contemporary is the
remark of Augustine, that the Psalmist uses the word
“received,” inasmuch as Christ in His members receives the
cifts, whereas Paul employs the term “gave,” because He,
along with the Father, divides the gifts. The idea is too
subtle to be the right one. Some, again, identify the two
verbs, and declare them to have the same significance. Such
is the view of Ambrosiaster, Beza, Zanchius, Piscator, Ham-
mond, Bengel, and a host of others. “The one word,” says
Chrysostom, “is the same as the other.” His Greek followers
held generally the same view. Theodore of Mopsuestia simply
says, “that to suit the connection the apostle has altered the
terms,” and the opinion of Harless is much the same. Theo-
doret says—AapBavov yap thy Tictw avTididwor THY yap,
a mere Spieleret as Harless terms it. We agree with Meyer,
that the Hebrew word npe has often a proleptic signification.
“The giving,” says Hengstenberg, “ presupposes the taking ;
the taking is succeeded “by the giving as its consequence.”
The verb seems often to have the peculiar meaning of danda
sumerc—Gen. xv. 9—“Take for me,” that is, take and give
to me; xviii, 5—“ And I will take you a morsel of bread,”
ie.take and give it you; xxvii. 13—*Go, take them,” we.
take them and give me them; xlii. 16——“ Let him take your ©
brother,” ze. let him take and bring him; Ex. xxvil. 20— ©
“That they take thee pure oil,” ze. take and present it to

thee; so Lev. xxiv. 2; 1 Kings xvii. 10—“ Take me a little
water,” ze. take and offer it me; 2 Kings ii.20; Hos. xiv. 2;
and so in other places; Glassius, Philol. Sacra, p. 185;
Buxtorf, Catalecta Philol.-Theol. p. 39. This interpretation is,
therefore, not so capricious as de Wette affirms. Such is the
idiomatic usage of the verb, and the apostle, as it especially
suited his purpose, seizes on the latter portion of the sense,
and renders—édwxe. The phraseology of Acts ii. 33 is
corroborative of our view—“ Being exalted to the right hand
of God, and having received—AaSwv—from the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this ”—be-
stowed upon the church such gifts of the Spirit. It is of the
gifts of the Spirit, especially in the administration of the

EPHESIANS IV. g. 283

church, that the apostle speaks in this paragraph ; and Peter,

in the style of the Psalmist, describes Messiah as receiving

_ them ere He distributes them. The Mediator wins them by
His blood, receives them from the Father who has appointed
_ and accepted the sacrifice, and holds them for the very purpose

of conferring them on His church. The Psalmist looks on the
gifts in Christ’s possession as ¢aken and held by Him for men:
but the time of bestowment had fully come, what was so held
had now been communicated, and so the apostle from his own
point of view says—“ He gave gifts to man.” Still, in the
original psalm the taking appears to be taking by force of

_ spoil from the conquered foes. But the martial figure of the
Hebrew psalmist is not to be strained.

Our attention must now be turned to the general meaning

of the quotation. The 68th Psalm is evidently a hymn of

victory. The inspired bard praises God for deliverance

-vouchsafed—deliverance resulting from battle and triumph.

;
|

This is also the view of Delitzsch in his Commentar aber den

_ Psalter, published last year (1859). The image of a proces-

sion also appears in some parts of the ode. Very many expo-
sitors, among them Stier and Hofmann, have adopted the view
that it was composed on occasion of the removal of the ark to
Mount Zion, and the view of Alford is the same in substance.
But the frequent introduction of martial imagery forbids such
a hypothesis. What the campaign was at the issue of which
this pean was composed, we cannot ascertain. Hitzig refers
it to the campaign of Joram and Jehoshaphat against the
Moabites (2 Kings iii.), and von Lengerke refers it to some
period of Pharaoh Necho’s reign. Hengstenberg thinks the

occasion was the termination of the Ammonitic wars, and the

capture of Rabbah. 2 Sam. xii. 26. One of his arguments

is at best only a probability. He says, there is reference
to the ark twice in Ps. lxviii. in verses 1 and 24, and

that the ark was with the army during the warfare with
Ammon. But the words in verses 1 and 24 of the psalm
do not necessarily contain a reference to the ark, and the

uage of Joab to David, in 2 Sam. xi. 11, does not affirm
e presence of the ark in the Israelitish camp, but may be
plained by the words of 2 Sam. vii. 2. That the psalm
one of David's times and composition may be proved,

284 | EPHESIANS IV. 8.

against Ewald, de Wette, and Hupfeld, from its style and
diction. The last writer, in his recent commentary (Die
Psalmen, Dritter Band, Gotha, 1860), refers it to the return
from Babylon, and supposes that it is perhaps the composition
of the so-called pseudo-Isaiah, that is, the author of the latter
half of Isaiah’s prophecies. Reuss, in a treatise full of “ per-
siflage,” as Hupfeld says, and which Delitzsch truly calls a
“ Pasquill ”—a “ Harlekinanzug”—brings the psalm down
to the period between Alexander the Great and the Macca-
bees. One of the Targuins refers the passage to Moses and
the giving of the law.’ Its pervading idea—probably without
reference to any special campaign, but combining what had
happened many times when the Lord had shown Himself
“mighty in battle »—is, that He, as of old, had come down
for His people’s deliverance, and had achieved it; had van-
quished their foes, and given them a signal victory, and that,
the combat being over, and captivity led captive, He had
left the camp and gone up again to heaven. This portion of
the psalm seems to have been chanted as the procession wound
its way up Mount Zion to surround the symbols of the Divine
majesty.

“Thou hast ascended on high.” The word Di%?—<on
high ”—in such a connection refers to heaven, in contrast
with earth, where the victory had been won. Ps. xviii. 16;
ia, SXIVY.1S, xh 20> Jer: XxV;-o0.

“Thou hast led captivity captive ”—nyyar@tevoas aiypa-
Awotav. The meaning of this idiom seems simply to be—
Thou hast mustered or reviewed Thy captives. Judg. v. 12;
Gesenius, swb voce. The allusion is to a triumphal procession
in which marched the persons taken in war.

“Thou hast received gifts for men.” There is no need,
with de Wette and others, to translate 3 in, and to regard this

‘The following note is translated from the Rabbinical Commentary of
Mendelssohn :—‘‘ As he mentions (v. 8, 18) the consecration of Sinai, he adds
the act by which it was inaugurated, and says, ‘Thou hast ascended and sat on
high, after giving Thy law, and there Thou hast led captives, viz., the hearts
of the men who said, We shall act and be obedient ; Thou hast taken gifts from
amongst men ; Thou hast taken and chosen some of them as a present, viz., Thy
people, whom Thou hast purchased with Thy mighty hand, who are given to Thee
and are obedient. Though they are at times disobedient, still hast Thou taken
them to dwell amongst them, to forgive their sins.’ ”

EPHESIANS IV. 8, 285

as the meaning—“ Thou hast received gifts in men,” that is,
men constituted the gifts, the vanquished vassals or prose-
lytes formed the acquisition of the conqueror. Commentar
tiber die Psalmen, p. 412; Boettcher, Proben, etc. § 62;
‘Schnurrer, Dissertat. p. 303. The preposition 2 often signifies
“for” or “on account of.” Gen. xviii, 28, xxix. 18; 2
Kings xiv. 6; Jonah i. 14; Lam. ii. 11; Ezek. iv. 17, ete;
Noldius, Concord. Part. Heb. p. 158. Hafnie, 1679. “Thou
hast received gifts on account of men” to benefit and bless
them ; or the preposition may signify “among,” as in 2 Sam.
xxiii. 3; Prov. xxiii 28 ; Jer. xlix. 15; Ewald, Gram. der Heb.
Sprache, § 521, and Delitzsch. These gifts are the results of
His victory, and they are conferred by Him after He has gone
up from the battle-field. To obtain such a sense, however, it
is out of the question, on the part of Bloomfield, to disturb
the Septuagint reading and change the év into éré. But how
can é€v av@pwrw denote “after the fashion of a man,” and how
can D782 in this connection mean, as Adam Clarke and Words-
worth conjecture, “in man”—that is, by virtue of His incar-
nation as the head of redeemed humanity ?

In what sense, then, are those words applicable to the
ascended Redeemer? They are not introduced simply as an
illustration, for the apostle reasons from them in the following
verses. This bare idea of accommodation, vindicated by such
_ exegetes as Morus and even by Doddridge, can therefore have
no place here. Nor can we agree with Calvin, that Paul has
somewhat twisted the words from their original meaning—
“nonnihil a genuino sensu hoc testimonium detorsit Paulus” —
an opinion which wins suspicious praise from Riickert. The
argument of the next verse would in that case be without
solid foundation. Nor does Olshausen, in our apprehension,
fix upon the prominent point of illustration. That point is in
his view not the proof that Christ dispenses gifts, but that
men receive them, so that Gentiles, as partakers of humanity,
have equal right to them with Jews. While the statement in
the latter part is true, it seems to be only a subordinate infer-
ence, not the main matter of argument. That men had the
gift was a palpable fact; but the questions were—Who gave
them? and does their diversity interfere with the oneness of
the church? Besides, it is the term dvafds on which the

286 EPHESIANS IV, 8.

apostle comments. Nor can we bring ourselves to the notion
of a typical allusion, or “emblem” as Barnes terms it, as if
the ark carried up to Zion was typical of Christ’s ascent to
heaven; for we cannot convince ourselves that the ark is, so
formally at least, referred to in the psalm at all. Nor will it
do merely to say, with Harless, that the psalm is applicable to
Christ, because one and the same God is the revealer both. of
the Old and New Testaments. Still wider from the tenor of
the apostle’s argument is one portion of the notion of Locke,
that Paul’s object is to prove to unconverted Jews out of
their own scriptures that Jesus must die and be buried. Our
position is, that the same God is revealed as Redeemer both
under the Old and New Testament, that the Jehovah of the
one is the Jesus of the other, that Ps. xviii. is filled with
imagery which was naturally based on incidents in Jewish
history, and that the inspired poet, while describing the
interposition of Jehovah, has used language which was fully
realized only in the victory and exaltation of Christ. Not
that there is a double sense, but the Jehovah of the theocracy
was He who, in the fulness of the time, assumed humanity,
and what He did among His people prior to the incarnation
was anticipative of nobler achievements in the nature of man,
John xii. 41; Rom. xiv 10, 11; 1 Cor. x. 4; Heb. i. 10.
The Psalmist felt this, and under the influence of such emo-
tions, rapt into future times, and beholding salvation com-
pleted, enemies defeated, and gifts conferred, thus addressed
the laurelled Conqueror—“Thou hast ascended on_ high.”
Such a quotation was therefore to the apostle’s purpose. There
are gifts in the church—not one donation but many—gifts the
result of warfare and victory—gifts the number and variety
of which are not inconsistent with unity. Such blessings are
no novelty; they are in accordance with the earnest expecta-
tions of ancient ages ; for it was predicted that Jesus should
ascend on high, lead captivity captive, and give gifts to men.
But those gifts, whatever their character and extent, are
bestowed according to Christ’s measurement; for it was He
who then and now ennobles men with these spiritual endow-
ments. Nor has there been any change of administration.
Gifts and graces have descended from the same Lord. Under

the old theocracy, which had a civil organization, these gifts —

|

EPHESIANS IV. 8. 287

might be sometimes temporal in their nature ; still, no matter

what was their character, they came from the one Divine

Dispenser, who is still the Supreme and Sovereign Benefactor.

The apostle says—

dvaBas eis typos iypadwtevoev aiyparwolav—* having

ascended on high, He led captivity captive.” The reference

in the aorist participle is to our Lord’s ascension, an act pre-

_ ceding that of the finite verb. Winer, § 45, 6; Kriiger, § 56,

10; Acts i.9. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase corre-
sponding to the last two words has been already given. Such
a use of a verb with its cognate substantive is, as we have
seen again and again, a common occurrence. Lobeck, Parali-
pomena, Dissert. vili., De figura etymologica, p. 499, has given
many examples from the classics. The verb, as well as the
kindred form aiyyadwrtifw, belongs to the later Greek—extrema
Grecia senectus novum palmitem promisit. Lobeck, ad Phry-
nichus, p. 442. The noun seems to be used as the abstract
for the concrete. Kiihner, ii. § 406; Jelf, § 353; Diodorus
Siculus, xvii. 76; Num. xxxi. 12; Judg. v. 12; 2 Chron.
Xxviii. 11-13; Amos i. 6; 1 Mace. ix. 70, 72, xiv. 7. The
prisoners plainly belong to the enemy whom He had defeated,
and by whom His people had long been subjugated. This is

_ the natural order of ideas—having beaten His foes, He makes

captives of them. The earlier fathers viewed the captives

as persons who had been enslaved by Satan—as Satan's
prisoners, whom Jesus restored to liberty. Such is the view
of Justin Martyr,’ of Theodoret and GEcumenius in the Greek
church, of Jerome and Pelagius in the Latin church, of
Thomas Aquinas in medieval times, of Erasmus, and in
later days, of Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. But such an
idea is not in harmony with the imagery employed, nor can it
be defended by any philological instances or analogies. On
the contrary, Christ’s subjugation of His enemies has a

peculiar prominence in the Messianic oracles; Ps. cx. 1;

Isa. liii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 25; Col. ii. 15; and in many
other places.

What, then, are the enemies of Messiah? Not simply as in
‘the miserable rationalism of Grotius, the vices and idolatries

1 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 129, ed. Otto, Jenw, 1843. The genuineness of this
Dialogue has, however, been disputed.

288 EPHESIANS IV. 8.

of heathendom, nor yet as in the equally shallow opinion of
Flatt, the hindrances to the spread and propagation of the
gospel. Quite peculiar is the strange notion of Pierce, that
the “captives” were the good angels, who, prior to Christ's
advent, had been local presidents in every part of the world,
but who were now deprived of this delegated power at Christ’s
resurrection, and led in triumph by Him as He ascended
to glory. Notes on Colossians, appendix. The enemies of
Messiah are Satan and his allies—every hostile power which
Satan originates, controls, and directs against Jesus and His
kingdom. The captives, therefore, are not merely Satan, as
Vorstius and Bodius imagine; nor simply death, as is the
view of Anselm; nor the devil and sin, as is the opinion of
Beza, Bullinger, and Vatablus; but, as Chrysostom, Calvin,
Calixtus, Theophylact, Bengel, Meyer, and Stier show, they
include Satan, sin, and death. “He took the tyrant captive,
the devil I mean, and death, and the curse, and sin ”—such
is the language of Chrysostom. The psalm was fulfilled, says
Calvin—quum Christus, devicto peccato, subacta morte, Satand
profligato, in celum magnifice sublatus est. Christ’s work on
earth was a combat—a terrible struggle with the hosts of
darkness whose fiercest onsets were in the garden and on the
cross—when hell and death combined against Him those
efforts which repeated failures had roused into desperation.
And in dying He conquered, and at length ascended in vic-
tory, no enemy daring to dispute His right or challenge His
march; nay, He exhibited His foes in open triumph. He
bruised the head of the Serpent, though His own heel was
bruised in the conflict. As the conqueror returning to his
capital makes a show of his beaten foes, so Jesus having gone
up to glory exposed His vanquished antagonists whom He
had defeated in His agony and death.

[cai] &axev Sopata tots avOpwrous—“ and He” (that is, the -
exalted Saviour) “gave gifts to men.” Acts ii. 33. There is
no «ai in the Septuagint, and it is omitted by A, C?, D!, E,
F, G, the Vulgate, and other authorities; while it is found in
B, C' (C*), D’®, I, K, L, and a host of others. Lachmann
omits it; Tischendorf omitted it in his second edition, but
inserts it in his seventh; Alford inserts and Ellicott rejects it.
The Septuagint has €y av@epr@, which Peile would harshly |

F

EPHESIANS IV. 9. 289

render—“after the fashion of a man.”' In their exegesis
upon their translation of the Hebrew text, Harless, Olshausen,
and von Gerlach understand these gifts to be men set apart
to God as sacred offerings. “Thou hast taken to Thyself
gifts among men—that is, Thou hast chosen to Thyself the
redeemed for sacrifices,” so says Olshausen with especial refer-
ence to the Gentiles. According to Harless, the apostle alters
he form of the clause from the original to bring out the
idea—“ that the captives are the redeemed, who by the grace
of God are made what they are.” But men are the receivers
of the gift—not the gift itself. Comment. in Vet. Test. vol.
iii. p.178. Lipsie, 1838; Uebersetz. und Ausleg. der Psalmen,
p- 305. Hofmann understands it thus—that the conquered
won by Him get gifts from Him to make them capable
of service, and so to do Him honour. Schriftb. ii. part 1,
"p. 488. See also his Weissagung und Erfiillung, i. 168, ii. 199.
Stier says rightly, that these dduara are the gifts of the
Holy Spirit — die Geistes-gaben Christi. These gifts are
plainly defined by the context, and by the following xal
Utds Edwkev. Whatever they are—a “free Spirit,” a perfect
salvation, and a completed Bible—it is plain that the office
of the Christian ministry is here prominent among them.
The apostle has now proved that Jesus dispenses gifts, and
has made good his assertion that grace is conferred “ according
o the measure of the gift of Christ.”

(Ver. 9.) To 8€, avéBn, ti éotuv—* Now that he ascended,
what is it?” Now this predicate, avé8n, what does it mean or
mply? The particle Sé introduces a transitional explanation
pr inference. The apostle does not repeat the participle, but
kes the idea as expressed by the verb and as placed in con-
rast with xaté8n—
ei uy Ste Kal KatéBn eis 1a KaTwrepa [pépn] TIS YAS j—
unless that He also descended to the lower parts of the
arth.” The word mpa@tov found in the Textus Receptus
yefore eis has no great authority, but Reiche vindicates it
‘Com. Crit. p. 173); and pépy is not found in D, E, F, G.
endorf rejects it, but Scholz, Lachmann, Tittmann,
fahn, and Reiche retain it, as it has A, B, C, D®, K, L, and
1 Bloomfield has well remarked, that Peile’s ingenious reading of this clause

the Septuagint virtually amounts to a re-writing of it.
T

290 EPHESIANS IV. 9.

the Vulgate in its favour. The Divinity and heavenly abode
of Christ are clearly presupposed. His ascension implies a
previous descent. He could never be said to go up unless He
had formerly come down. If He go up after the victory, we
infer that he had already come down to win it. But how
does this bear upon the apostle’s argument? We can scarcely
agree with Chrysostom, Olshausen, Hofmann, and Stier,
that the condescension of Christ is here proposed as an
example of those virtues inculcated in the first verse, though
such a lesson may be inferred. Nor can we take it as being
the apostle’s formal proof, that the psalm is a Messianic one
—as if the argument were, descent and ascent cannot be
predicated of God the Omnipresent ; therefore the sacred ode
can refer only to Christ who came down to earth and again |
ascended to glory. But the ascension described implies such
a descent, warfare, and victory, as belong only to the incarnate
Redeemer.

els TA KaTMTEpA THS yHs—“ to the lower parts of the earth.
Compare in Septuagint such places as Deut. xxxil. 22; Neh.
We boc) Ps: Ix. OS 0 xxv 13.) exxxias 10>. bam
iii. 55, and the prayer of Manasseh in the Apocrypha. The
phrase represents the Hebrew formula—/7287 Ninn, the super-
lative being commonly employed—«catwtatos. The rabbins
called the earth sometimes generally D°2snnN7, Bartolocci, Bid. -
Rab. 1. p. 320.

1. Some suppose the reference to be to the conception off
Jesus, basing their opinion on Ps. cxxxix. 15, where the
psalmist describes his substance as not hid from God, when.
he was “made in secret,” and “curiously wrought in the
lower parts of the earth.” Such is the opinion of scholars
no less distinguished than Colomesius, Observat. Sacre, p. 36,
Cameron, Myrothecitum Evang. p. 251, Witsius, Piscator,

”

Calixtus. But the mere poetical figure in the psalm denoting —
secret and undiscoverable operation, can scarcely be placed in
elas to the highest heaven.

2. Chrysostom, with Theophylact and (£cumenius, Bul :
tthwar. Phavorinus, and Macknight, refer it to the death
of “Christ ; while Vorstius, Pe caren, Drusius, Cocceius,
Whitby, Wilke, and Crellius, see a special reference to the
grave. But there is no proof that the words can bear such

ee ae te

lia

EPHESIANS IV. 9 291
.
a meaning. Certainly the descent described in the psalm
quoted from did not involve such humiliation.
_ 3. Many refer the phrase to our Lord’s so-called descent
into hell—descensus ad inferos. Such was the view of Ter-
| tullian, Ireneeus, Jerome, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster among
the Fathers; of Erasmus, Estius, and the majority of Popish
expositors; of Calovius, Bengel, Riickert, Bretschneider,
Olshausen, Stier, Turner, Meyer in his third edition, Alford,
and Ellicott. See also Lechler, das Apost. Zeit. p. 84, 2nd
ed. 1857; Acta Thome, xvi. p. 199, ed. Tischendorf,
1851. Thus Tertullian says, that Jesus did not ascend in
sublimiora celorum, until He went down in inferiora ter-
—rarum, ut illic patriarchas et prophetas compotes Sui faceret.
De Anima, 55; Opera, vol. ii. p. 642, ed. (Ehler. Catholic
writers propose a special errand to our Lord in His descent
into hell, viz., to liberate the’ old dead from torment—or a
peculiar custody in the limbus patrum, or Abraham’s bosom.
—Catechismus Roman. § 104. These doctrines are, however,
_superinduced upon this passage, and in many parts are con-
trary to Scripture. Pearson on the Creed, p. 292, ed. 1847.
Stier admits that Christ could suffer no agony in Hades.
| Olshausen’s tamer idea is, that Jesus went down to Sheol, not
to liberate souls confined in it, but that this descent is the
natural consequence of His death. The author shrinks from
the results of his theory, and at length attenuates his opinion
to this—‘ That in His descent Jesus partook of the misery of
those fettered by sin even unto death, that is, even unto the
depths of Hades.” Such is also the view of Robinson (sub
voce)" But the language of the apostle, taken by itself, will
not warrant those hypotheses. For, 1. Whatever the view
‘taken of the “descent into hell,” or of the language in
/1 Pet. iii. 19, the natural interpretation of which seems to
imply it, it may be said, that though the superlative

|
“warararos may be the epithet of Sheol in the Old
i

—-s. «see

Testament, why should the comparative in the New Testament

| ‘*In Pott’s Excursus, in connection with his interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 18,
E 9, will be found a good account of the various opinions on the ‘‘descent into
hell,” as also in Dittelmeier, Historia Dogmatis de Descensu C., ete., Altorf,
% 761. But a more complete treatise on the same dogma in its various aspects
| is the more recent one of Giider—Die Lehre von der Erecheinung Jesu Chriati
er den Todten, ete., 1853.

292 EPHESIANS IV. 9,

be thought to have the same reference? Is it in accordance
with Scripture to call Hades, in this special sense, a lower
portion of the earth, and is the expression analogous to Phil.
11.10; Matt. xii 40% 2. The ascension of Jesus, moreover,
as has been remarked, is always represented as being not
from Hades but from the earth. John iii. 13, xvi. 28, ete.
3. Nor is there any force in Ellicott’s remark, that the use of
the specific term aéys “would have marred the antithesis,”
for we find the same antithesis virtually in Isa. xiv. 13,
15, and expressly in Matt. xii 23, while wrepavw and
KaTwtTepa are in sharp contrast on our hypothesis. But
heaven and earth are the usual contrast. John viii. 23;
Acts ii. 19. And the phrase, “that He might fill all things,”
depends not on the descent, but on the ascension and its
character. 4. Those who suppose the captives to be human
spirits emancipated from thraldom by Jesus, may hold the
view that Christ went to hell to free them, but we have seen
that the captives are enemies made prisoners on the field of
battle. 5. Nor can it be alleged, that if Satan and his fiends
are the captives, Jesus went down to his dark domain and
conquered him; for the great struggle was upon the cross,
and on it “through death He destroyed him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil.” When He cried, “It is
finished,” the combat was over. He commended His spirit
into the hands of His Father, and promised that the thief
should be with Himself in paradise—certainly not the scene
of contention and turmoil. But if we adopt Hebrew imagery,
and consider the region of death as a vast ideal underworld,
into which Jesus like every dead man descends, there would
then be less objection to the hypothesis under review. 6. If
we suppose the apostle to have had any reference to the
Septuagint in his mind, then, had he desired to express the
idea of Christ’s descent into Hades, there were two phrases,
any of which he might have imitated —éé dSov xatwrdtov
(Ps. Ixxxvi. 13); or more pointed still, ws aSov xatwratouv.
Deut, xxxii. 22, See Trom. Concord. Why not use aéns,
when it had been so markedly employed before, had he wished
to give it prominence? Unmistakeable phraseology was
provided for him, and sanctioned by previous usage. But the
apostle employs y4 with the comparative, and it is therefore to

EPHESIANS IV. 9. 293

be questioned whether he had the Alexandrian version in his
mind at all. And if he had, it is hard to think how he could
attach the meaning of Hades to the words éy tots catwratw
Ths yns; for in the one place where they occur (Ps. cxxxix.
15), they describe the scene of the formation of the human
embryo, and in the only other place where they are used (Ps.
-lxiii. 9), they mark out the disastrous fate of David’s enemies,
-—a fate delineated in the following verse as death by the
sword, while the unburied corpses were exposed to the ravages
of the jackal. Delitzsch in loc. Nor is there even sure
| ground for supposing that in such places as Isa. xliv. 23,
Ezek. xxvi. 20, xxxii. 18-24, the similar Hebrew phrase
which occurs, but which is not rendered @édns in the
Septuagint, means Sheol or Hades. In Isa. xliv. 23, it is as
here, earth in contrast with heaven, and perhaps the foun-
dations of the globe are meant, as Ewald, the Chaldee, and the
Septuagint understand the formula. In Ezek. xxvi. 20 “the
low parts of the earth” are “places desolate of old;” and in
Ezek. xxxii. 18-24 the “nether parts of the earth” are
associated with the “pit,” and “graves set in the sides of the
pit ’"—-scenes of desolation and massacre. The phrase may
be a poetical figure for a dark and awful destiny. It is very
doubtful whether Manasseh in the prayer referred to
deprecates punishment in the other world, for he was in a
dungeon and afraid of execution, and, according to theocratic
principles, might hope to gain life and liberty by his
penitence; for, should such deliverance be vouchsafed, he
adds, “I will praise Thee for ever, all the days of my life.”
It is to be borne in mind, too, that in all these places of the
Old Testament, the phraseology occurs in poetical com-
positions, and as a portion of Oriental imagery. But in the
verse before us, the words are a simple statement of facts in
nnection with an argument, which shows that Jesus must
have come down to earth before it could be said of Him that
He had gone up to heaven.
4, So that we agree with the majority of expositors who
derstand the words as simply denoting the earth. Such is
e view of Thomas Aquinas, Beza,' Aretius, Bodius, Rollock,
Calvin, Cajetan, Piscator, Crocius, Grotius, Marloratus, Schoett-
} Beza refers his reader with a query to the first opinion we have noted. Nor

294 EPHESIANS IV. 9.

gen, Michaelis, Bengel, Loesner, Vitringa, Cramer, Storr, Holz-
hausen, Meier, Matthies, Harless, Wahl, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Scholz, de Wette, Raebiger, Bisping, Hofmann, Chandler,
Hodge, and Winer, § 59, 8,a. A word in apposition is some-
times placed in the genitive, as 2 Cor. v. 5, rov appaBava rod
mvevpatos—the earnest of the Spirit—the Spirit which is the
earnest; Rom. villi. 23, iv. 11, onpetov rrepetouyns—the sign
of circumcision, that is, the sign, to wit, circumcision. - Acts
iv. 22; 1 Pet. ii. 7; Col. iii, 24; Rom. vin. 21, etc. The
same mode of expression occurs in Hebrew—Stuart’s Heb.
Gram. § 422; Nordheimer’s do. § 815. So, too, we have in
Latin— Urbs Rome—the city of Rome; fluvius Euph®tis—
or as we say in English, “the Frith of Clyde,” or “Frith of
Forth.” Thus, in the phrase before us, “the lower parts of
the earth” mean those lower parts which the earth forms or
presents in contrast with heaven, as we often say—heaven
above and earth beneath. The éyos of the former verse
plainly suggested the xarwtepa in this verse, and t7repava
stands also in correspondence with it. So the world is called
7 y) Katw. Acts ii. 19. When our Lord speaks Himself of
His descent and ascension, heaven and earth are uniformly the
termini of comparison. Thus in John iii. 13, and no less than
seven times in the sixth chapter of the same gospel. Com-
parantur, says Calvin, non una pars terre cum altera, sed tota
terra cum celo. Reiche takes the genitive, as signifying terra
tanquam universi pars inferior. Christ’s ascension to heaven
plainly implies a previous descent to this nether world. And
it is truly a nether or lower world when compared with high
heaven. May not the use of the comparative indicate that
the descent of Christ was not simply to 7 4 xatw, but els Ta
xatotepa? Not that with Zanchius, Bochart (Opera, i. 985,
ed. Villemandy, 1692), Fesselius (Apud Wolf., in loc.), Kiitt-
ner, Barnes, and others, we regard the phrase as signifying, in
general, lowliness or humiliation—status exinanitionis. Theo-
logically, the use of the comparative is suggestive. He was
born into the world, and that in a low condition; born not
under fretted roofs and amidst marble halls, but He drew His
first breath in a stable, and enjoyed His first sleep in a

are we sure whether by “‘ terra” he does not mean the grave, when he defines it
as—pars mundi infima. ;

EPHESIANS IV. 10. 295

manger. Asa man, He earned His bread by the sweat of
His brow, at a manual occupation with hammer and hatchet,
“going forth to His work and to His labour until the evening.”
The creatures He had formed had their house and haunt after
their kind, but the Heir of all things had no domicile by legal
right; for “the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay His
head.” Reproach, and scorn, and contumely followed Him as
a dark shadow. Persecution at length apprehended Him,
accused Him, calumniated Him, scourged Him, mocked Him,
and doomed the “ man of sorrows” to an ignominious torture
and a felon’s death. His funeral was extemporized and hasty;
nay, the grave He lay in was a borrowed one. He came truly
“to the lower parts of the earth.”

(Ver. 10.) ‘O xataBas, aitos éotww Kal o avaBas irepavw
_TavtTwy Tav ovpavav—* He that descended, He it is also who
ascended high above all the heavens.” ‘O xataSas is emphatic,
and avtos is He and none other. Winer, § 22, 4, note. Ov
yap addos KatedyjrvOe, says Theodoret, nal ddXos avedndrvOer.
. The identity of His person is not to be disputed. Change of
_ position has not transmuted His humanity. It may be refined
_and clothed in lustre, but the manhood is unaltered. That
- Jesus—

‘* Who laid His great dominion by,
On a poor virgin’s breast to lie ;”

who, to escape assassination, was snatched in His infancy into
_Egypt—who passed through childhood into maturity, growing
in wisdom and stature—who spoke those tender and impres-
sive parables, for He had “compassion on the ignorant, and
on them that were out of the way ””—who fed the hungry,
relieved the afflicted, calmed the demoniac, touched the leper,
raised the dead, and wept by the sepulchre, for to Him no
form of human misery ever appealed in vain—He who in

unger hasted to gather from a fig-tree—who lay weary and
wayworn on the well of Jacob—who, with burning lips, upon
the cross exclaimed “I thirst’”—He whose filial affection in
the hour of death commended his widowed mother to the
care of His beloved disciple—HE it is who has gone up. No

onder that a heart which proved itself to be so rich with

ery tender, noble, and sympathetic impulse, should rejoice

Ee Oo

296 EPHESIANS IV. 10.

in expending its spiritual treasures, and giving gifts to mem
Nay, more, He who provided spiritual gifts in His death, is
He who bestows them in His ascension on each one, and all
of them are essential to the unity of His church. But as His
descent was to a point so deep, His ascent is to a point as
high, for He rose—

imepavw Tdvtwy THY ovpavav—“above all the heavens.”
John iii. 13 ; Heb. vii. 26. See under i. 21. Od odpavoi are
those regions above us through which Jesus passed to the
heaven of heavens—to the right hand of God. The apostle
himself speaks of the third heaven. 2 Cor. xii. 2. It is needless
to argue whether the apostle refers to the third heaven, as
Harless supposes, or to the seventh heaven, as Wetstein and
Meyer argue. There was an dnp, an aiOnp, and tpitos ovpavos
(Schoettgen, 773; Wetstein under 2 Cor. xii. 2); but the
apostle seems to employ the general language of the Old
Testament, as in Deut. x. 14, 1 Kings viii. 27, where we have
“the heaven, and the heaven of heavens;” or Ps. Ixviii. 33,
exlviii. 4, in which the phrase occurs—* heavens of heavens.”
We find the apostle in Heb. iv. 14 saying of Jesus—6veA-
AvOoTa Tovs ovpavods—that He has “ passed through the
heavens,” not “into the heavens,” as our version renders it.
Whatever regions are termed heavens, Jesus is exalted far
above them, yea, to the heaven of heavens. The loftiest
exaltation is predicated of Him. As His humiliation was so
low, His exaltation is proportionately high. Theophylact says—
He descended into the lowest parts—pe@’ & od ot Erepov Th,
and He ascended above all—imép & ov« éortiv Erepa. His

position is the highest in the universe, being “far above all —
heavens”’—all things are under His feet. See under i. 20,

21,22. And He is there—

iva TANpeon Ta Tavra— that He might fill all things.”

The subjunctive with iva, and after the aorist participle, repre-
sents an act which still endures. Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 618.

The ascension is past, but this purpose of it still remains, or

is still a present result. The translation of Anselm, Koppe,
and others, “that He might fulfil all things,” that is, all the
prophecies, is as remote from the truth as the exegesis of
Matthies and Riickert, “that He might complete the work of
redemption.” Nor is the view of Zanchius more tenable,

|

i
\
4
4
i

&

EPHESIANS IV. 1L 297

“that he might discharge all his functions.” The versions
of Tyndale and Cranmer, and that of Geneva, use the term
“fulfil,” but Wickliffe rightly renders, “that he schulde fill
alle thingis.” Jer. xxiii 24. The bearing of this clause on
the meaning of the term 7Anpwya, the connection of Christ's
fulness with the church and the universe, and the relation of
the passage to the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity of the
Redeemer, will be found in our exegesis of the last verse of
the first chapter, and need not therefore be repeated here. We
are not inclined to limit rd wayta to the church, as is done
by Beza, Grotius, and Meier, for reasons assigned under the
last clause of the first chapter. The church filled by Him
becomes “ His fulness,” but that fulness is not limited by
such a boundary. The explanation of Calvin, that Jesus fills
all, Spiritus sui virtute; and of Harless, mit seiner Gnaden-
gegenwart—appears to be too limited. Chrysostom’s view is
better — ris évepyelas avtov Kal tis Seomorteias. Stier
compares the phrase with the last clause of the verse quoted
from Ps. Ixviii., that “God the Lord might dwell among
them,” to which corresponds the meaning given by Bengel—
Se Ipso.

(Ver. 11.) The apostle resumes the thought that seems to
have been ripe for utterance at the conclusion of ver. 7.

Kai avtos éwxe—“ And Himself gave ”—avdros emphatic,
and connected with the avtos of the preceding verse, while at
the same time the apostle recurs to the aorist. This Jesus who
ascended—this, and none other, is the sovereign donor. The
provider and bestower are one and the same; and such gifts,
though they vary, cannot therefore mar the blessed unity of
the spiritual society. There is no reason, with Theophylact,
Harless, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bisping, to call edwxe
a Hebraism, as if it were equivalent to €@ero—the term which
is used in 1 Cor. xii. 28; Acts xx. 28. See under chap. i. 22.
*Edwxe is evidently in unison with €600 and Swped in ver. 7,
and with éw«xe Soyvara in ver. 8. The object of the apostle,
in harmony with the quotation which he has introduced, is
not simply to affirm the fact that there are various offices in
the church, or that they are of divine institution ; but also to
show that they exist in the form of donations, and are among
the peculiar and distinctive gifts which the exalted Lord

298 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

has bequeathed. The writer wishes his readers to contem-
plate them more as gifts than as functions. Had they
sprung up in the church by a process of natural development,
they might perchance have clashed with one another; but
being the gifts of the one Lord and Benefactor, they must
possess a mutual harmony in virtue of their origin and object.
He gave—

Tous pey atrooToAous—“ some as, or to be, apostles.” On
the particle wév, which cannot well be rendered into English,
and on its connection with pia—see Donaldson’s New Craty-
lus, § 154, and his Greek Grammar, § 548, 24, and § 559.
The official gifts conferred upon the church are viewed not in
the abstract, but as personal embodiments or appellations.
Instead of saying—‘“ He founded the apostolate,” he says—
“He gave some to be apostles.” The idea is, that the men
who filled the office, no less than the office itself, were a
Divine gift.

The apostles were the first and highest order of office-
bearers—those “twelve whom also He named apostles.”
Luke vi. 13. Judas fell; Matthias was appointed his suc-
cessor and substitute (if a human appointment, and one prior
to Pentecost, be valid); and Saul of Tarsus was afterwards
added to the number. The essential elements of the apostolate
were—

1. That the apostles should receive their commission
immediately from the living lips of Christ. Matt. x. 5;
Mark vi. 7; Gal. i. 1. In the highest sense, they held a
charge as “ambassadors for Christ ;” they spoke “in Christ’s
stead.” Matt. xxviii. 19; John xx. 21, 23; Hase, Leben
Jesu, § 64.

2. That having seen the Saviour after He rose again, they
should be qualified to attest the truth of His resurrection.
So Peter defines it, Acts i. 21, 22; so Paul asserts his claim,
1 Cor. ix. 1, 5, 8; so Peter states it, Acts ii. 32; and so the
historian records, Acts iv. 33. The assertion of this crowning
fact was fittingly assumed as the work of those “ chosen wit-
nesses to whom He showed Himself alive after His passion,
by many infallible proofs.”

3. They enjoyed a special inspiration. Such was the pro- —
mise, John xiv. 26, xvi. 13; and such was the possession, —

EPHESIANS IV. 11. 299

1 Cor. ii. 10; Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Thess. ii. 13. Infallible
exposition of Divine truth was their work ; and their qualifi-
cation lay in their possession of the inspiring influences of the
- Holy Ghost.

4. Their authority was therefore supreme. The church
was under their unrestricted administration. Their word was
law, and their directions and precepts are of permanent obliga-
tion. Matt. xviii, 18, 20 ; John xx. 22, 23; 1 Cor. v. 3-6;

» 2 Cor. x. 8.

5. In proof of their commission and inspiration, they were
_ furnished with ample credentials. They enjoyed the power
of working miracles. It was pledged to them, Mark xvi. 15;
and they wielded it, Acts ii. 43, v.15; and 2 Cor. xii. 12.
_ Paul calls these manifestations “the signs of an apostle ;”
and again in Heb. ii. 4, he signalizes the process as that
of “God also bearing them witness.” They had the gift of
tongues themselves, and they had also the power of imparting
spiritual gifts to others. Rom. i. 11; Acts viii. 17, xix. 6.

6. And lastly, their commission to preach and found churches
- was universal, and in no sense limited. 2 Cor. xi. 28.

This is not the place to discuss other points in reference
to the office. The title seems to be applied to Barnabas,
Acts xiv. 4, 14, as being in company with Paul; and in an
inferior sense to ecclesiastical delegates. Rom. xvi. 7;
2 Cor. viii. 23; Phil. ii. 25; Winer, Real-Worterbuch, art.
_ Apostel; Kitto’s Bib. Cycl. do.; M‘Lean’s Apostolical Com-
mission, Works, i. p. 8; Spanhemius, de Apostolatu, etc.,
Leyden, 1679.

tovs 5¢ mpodntas— and some to be prophets.” 4é looks
back to pév and introduces a different class. We have already
had occasion to refer especially to this office under ii. 20 and
iii. 5. The prophets ranked next in order to the apostles, but
wanted some of their peculiar qualifications. They spoke
under the influence of the Spirit; and as their instructions
were infallible, so the church was built on their foundation as
well as that of the apostles; ii. 20. Prophecy is marked out
‘as one of the special endowments of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor.
xii. 10), where it stands after the apostolic prerogative of
working “miracles. The revelation enjoyed by apostles was
communicated also to prophets, iii, 5. The name has its

300 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

origin in the peculiar usages of the Old Testament. Thé
Hebrew term 8) has reference, in its etymology, to the
excitement and rhapsody which were so visible under the Divine
afflatus ; and the cognate verb is therefore used in the niphal
and hithpael conjugations. Gesenius, sub voce; Knobel,
Prophetismus, i. 127. The furor was sometimes so vehement
that, in imitation of it, the frantic ravings of insanity received a
similar appellation. 1 Sam. xviii. 10; 1 Kings xviii. 29. As
the prophet’s impulse came from God, and denoted close alliance
with Him, so any man who enjoyed special and repeated Divine
communications was called a prophet, as Abraham, Gen. xx. 7.
Because the prophet was God’s messenger, and spoke in
God’s name, this idea was sometimes seized on, and a
common internuncius was dignified with the title. Ex. vii 1.
This is the radical signification of rpogjrns—one who speaks
—rpo—for, or in name of another. In the Old Testament,
prophecy in its strict sense is therefore not identical with
prediction ; but it often denotes the delivery of a Divine
message. Ezrav. 1. Prediction was a strange and sublime
province of the prophet’s labour; but he was historian and
bard as well as seer. Again, as the office of a prophet was
sacred, and was held in connection with the Divine service,
lyric effusions and musical accompaniments are termed pro-
phesying, as in the case of Miriam (Ex. xv. 20), and of the
sons of the prophets, 1 Sam. x. 5. So it is too in Num. xi.
26; Tit. 1 12. In 1 Chron. xxv. 1, similar language
occurs—the orchestra “ prophesied with a harp to give thanks
and to praise the Lord.” Koppe, Hacursus iii. ad Comment.
in Epist. ad Ephesios. Thus, besides the special and technical
sense of the word, prophesying in a wider and looser signifi-
cation means to pour forth rapturous praises, in measured
tone and cadence, to the accompaniment of wild and stirring
music. Similar is the usage of the New Testament in refer-
ence to Anna in Luke i. 36, and to the ebullition of Zachariah
in Luke i. 67. While in the New Testament spogytns is
sometimes used in its rigid sense of the prophets of the Old
Testament, it is often employed in the general meaning of
one acting under a Divine commission. Foundation is thus
laid for the appellation before us. Once, indeed (Acts xi. 28),
prediction is ascribed to a prophet; but instruction of a pecu-

EPHESIANS IV. 11, 301

liar nature—so sudden and thrilling, so lofty and penetrating
—tmerits and receives the generic term of prophecy. Females
sometimes had the gift, but they were not allowed to exercise
it in the church. This subordinate office differed from that of
the Old Testament prophets, who were highest in station in
their church, and many of whose inspired writings have been
preserved as of canonical authority. But no utterances of the
prophets under the New Testament have been so highly
honoured.

Thus the prophets of the New Testament were men who
were peculiarly susceptible of Divine influence, and on whom
that afflatus powerfully rested. Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. xii. 28,
says of them—o pév rpodntev@y travta amd Tod TvEevpaTos
POeyyerat. They were inspired improvisatori in the Christian
-assemblies—who, in animated style and under irresistible
impulse, taught the church, and supplemented the lessons of
the apostles, who, in their constant itinerations, could not
remain long in one locality. Apostles planted and prophets
watered ; the germs engrafted by the one were nurtured and
matured by the other. What the churches gain now by the
spiritual study of Scripture, they obtained in those days by
such prophetical expositions of apostolical truth. The work
of these prophets was in the church, and principally with such
as had the semina of apostolical teaching; for the apostle says
—“He that prophesieth speaketh unto men, to edification,
and exhortation, and comfort” (1 Cor. xiv. 3); and again,
“ prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for
them that believe,” though not for unbelievers wholly useless,
‘as the sudden and vivid revelation of their spiritual wants
and belongings often produced a mighty and irresistible impres-
sion. 1 Cor. xiv. 22, 24, 25; Neander, (Geschichte der
Pflanzung der Christl. K. p. 234, 4th ed. Though the man
who spake with tongues might be thrown out of self-control,
this ecstasy did not fall so impetuously upon the prophets ;
they resembled not the Greek pavtis, for “the spirits of the
prophets are subject to the prophets.” One would be apt to
infer from the description of the effect of prophecy on the
ind of an unbeliever, in laying bare the secrets of his heart,
at the prophets concerned themselves specially with the sub-
tive side of Christianity—with its power and adaptations ;

302 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

that they appealed to the consciousness, and that they showed
the higher bearings and relations of those great facts which had
already been learned on apostolical authority. 1 Cor. xiv. 25.
This gift had an intimate connection with that of tongues
(Acts xix. 6), but is declared by the apostle to be superior to
it. Though these important functions were superseded when a
written revelation became the instrument of the Spirit’s opera-
tion upon the heart, yet the prophets, having so much in common
with the apostles, are placed next to them, and are subordinate
to them only in dignity and position. Rom. xii. 6. Whether
all the churches enjoyed the ministrations of these prophets
we know not. They were found in Corinth, Rome, Antioch,
Ephesus, and Thessalonica. If our account, drawn from the
general statements of Scripture, be correct, then it is wrong
on the part of Noesselt, Riickert, and Baumgarten-Crusius to
compare this office with that of modern preaching; and it is
too narrow a view of it to restrict it to prediction ; or to the
interpretation of Old Testament vaticinations, like Macknight;
or to suppose, with Mr. M‘Leod, that it had its special field
of labour in composing and conducting the psalmody of the
primitive church. Divine Inspiration, by E. Henderson, D.D.,
p. 207: London, 1836; A View of Inspiration, ete. by
Alexander M‘Leod, p. 133: Glasgow, 1831. Most improbable
of all is the conjecture of Schrader, that the apostle here refers
to the prophets of the Old Testament.

Tovs O€ evayyehictas—“ and some to be evangelists.”
That those evangelists were the composers of our historical
gospels is an untenable opinion, which Chrysostom deemed ~
possible, and which Gicumenius stoutly asserts. On the other
hand, Theodoret is more correct in his description—zrepriovtes
éxnpuTTov-—* going about they preached.” Eusebius, Historia
Eccles. iii. 37. The word is used only thrice in the New
Testament—as the designation of Philip in Acts xxi. 8,
and as descriptive of one element of the vocation of Timothy.
2 Tim. iv. 5. In one sense apostles and prophets were evan-
gelists, for they all preached the same holy evangel. 1 Cor.
i. 17, But this official title implies something special in their
function, inasmuch as they are distinguished also from
“teachers.” These gospellers may have been auxiliaries of —
the apostles, not endowed as they were, but furnished with —

EPHESIANS IV. 11. 303

clear perceptions of saving truth, and possessed of wondrous
power in recommending it to others. Inasmuch as they
itinerated, they might thus differ from stationary teachers.
Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung, etc., 259, 4th ed. While
the prophets spoke only as occasion required, and their language
was an excited outpouring of brilliant and piercing thoughts,
the evangelists might be more calm and continuous in their
work. Passing from place to place with the wondrous story
7 of salvation and the cross, they pressed Christ on men’s
_ acceptance, their hands being freed all the while from matters
of detail in reference to organization, ritual, and discipline.
_ The prophet had an droxddvyis as the immediate basis of
his oracle, and the evangelist had “the word of knowledge”
as the ultimate foundation of his lesson. Were not the
seventy sent forth by our Lord a species of evangelists, and
might not Mark, Luke, Silas, Apollos, Tychicus, and Tro-
phimus merit such a designation? The evangelist Timothy

was commended by Paul to the church in Corinth. 1 Cor. iv.
| 17, xvi. 10. Mr. M‘Leod’s notions of the work of an evan-
gelist are clearly wrong, as he mistakes addresses given to
. Timothy as a pastor for charges laid upon him in the character
_ of an evangelist. A View of Inspiration, p. 481. The com-
mand to “do the work of an evangelist,” if not used in a
generic sense, is something distinct from the surrounding
admonitions, and characterizes a special sphere of labour.

tous S€ mounvas Kat Sidacxarovs—‘“and some to be
pastors and teachers.” Critical authorities are divided on the
question as to whether these two terms point out two different
classes of office-bearers, or merely describe one class by two
combined characteristics. The former opinion is held by
Theophylact, Ambrose, Pelagius, Calvin, Beza, Zanchius,
Calixtus, Crocius, Grotius, Meier, Matthies, de Wette,
Neander, and Stier; and the latter by Augustine, Jerome,
(Ecumenius, Erasmus, Piscator, Musculus, Bengel, Riickert,
Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, and Davidson. Ecclesiastical
Polity, p. 156.
Those who make a distinction’ between pastors and
teachers vary greatly in their definitions. Thus Theodoret,
llowed by Bloomfield and Stier, notices the difference, as if
were only local—rovs kata modv xal kopnv—" town and

304 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

country clergy.” Theophylact understands by “pastors”
bishops and presbyters, and deacons by “teachers,” while
Ambrosiaster identifies the same teachers with exorcists.
According to Calixtus, with whom Meier seems to agree, the
“pastors” were the working class of spiritual guides, and the
“teachers” were a species of superintendents and professors
of theology, or, according to Grotius, metropolitans.
Neander’s view is, that the “pastors” were rulers, and the
“teachers” persons possessed of special edifying gifts, which
were exerted for the instruction of the church. The West-
minster Divines also made a distinction—‘“ The teacher or
doctor is also a minister of the Word as well as the pastor; ”
“He that doth more excel in exposition of Scripture, in
teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than
he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein,
may be called a teacher or doctor;” “A teacher or doctor is
of most excellent use in schools and universities,” ete.
Stier remarks that “each pastor should, to a certain extent at
least, be a teacher, but every teacher is not therefore a
pastor.” By some reference is made for illustration to the
school of divinity in Alexandria, over which such men as
Didymus, Clement, and Origen presided! None of these
distinctions can be scripturally and historically sustained.

We agree with those who hold that one office is described
by the two terms. Jerome says—Non enim ait ; alios autem
pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut que
pastor est, esse debeat et magister ; and again—Nemo pastoris
sibi nomen assumere debet, nist possit docere quos pascit. The
view of Bengel is similar. The language indicates this,
for the recurring tods S€ is omitted before ScdacKdXovus, and
a simple xai connects it with aouévas. The two offices seem

to have had this in common, that they were stationary— —

mept Eva ToTov noyoAnpévotr, as Chrysostom describes them.

Grotius, de Wette, and others, refer us to the functional —

vocabulary of the Jewish synagogue, in which a certain class
of officers were styled j'o5, after which Christian pastors
were named ézicxoro. and mpeoBitepo. Vitringa, De

1 But Bodius compares ‘‘ teachers” to titular doctors of divinity, a title, he
adds, which is not without its value—si absit hinc quidem omnis ambitus, et
vanus titulorum hujusmodi affectus.

ee ee ee

EPHESIANS IV. 11 305

)

Synagog. Vet. p. 621; Selden, De Synedriis Vet, Heb. lib. i.
cap. 14. ie

The idea contained in zrocunv is common in the Old Testa-
ment. The image of a shepherd with his flock, picturing out
the relation of a spiritual ruler and those committed to his
charge, often occurs. Ps. xxiii. 1, lxxx. 1; Jer. ii. 8, iii. 15,
and in many other places; Isa. lvi. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 2,
xxxvil. 24; Zech. x. 3; John x. 14, xxi 15; Acts xx. 28;
1 Pet. v. 2. Such pastors and guides rule as well as feed the
flock, for the keeping or tending is essential to the successful
feeding. The prominent idea in Ps. xxiii is protection
and guidance in order to pasture. The same notion is
involved in the Homerié¢ and classic usage of roupnv as
‘governor and captain. “The idea of administration is,”
Olshausen remarks, “prominent in this term.” It implies
careful, tender, vigilant superintendence and government, being
the function of an overseer or elder. The official name
émicxotros is used by the apostle in addressing churches
formed principally out of the heathen world—as at Ephesus,
Philippi, and the island of Crete (Acts xx. 28; Phil. i 1;
1. Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7); while wpeoSurepos, the term of
honour, is more Jewish in its tinge, as may be found in many
portions of the Acts of the Apostles, and in the writings of
James, Peter,and John. Speaking to Timothy and Titus, the
apostle styles them elders (and so does the compiler of the
Acts, in referring to spiritual rulers); but describing the
duties of the office itself, he calls the holder of it émricxorros.
See under Phil. i 1.

The Sddexadou, placed in the third rank by the apostle in
1 Cor. xii. 28, were persons whose peculiar function it was
expound the truths of Christianity. While teaching was
e main characteristic of this office, yet, from the mode of
ischarging it, it might be called a pastorate. The d:dacxados
teaching, did the duty of a owunv, for he fed with know-
e; and the vrouuy in guiding and governing, prepared
the flock for the nutriment of the ddacxados. It is declared
1 Tim. iii. 2 that a Christian overseer or pastor must be
apt to teach "—S:Saxrixds ; and in Tit. i. 9 it is said that,
virtue of his office, he must be able “by sound doctrine
th to exhort and convince the gainsayers.” Again, in Heb,
U

306 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

xiii. 7, thase who had governed the church are further
characterized thus—olrives éXadXnoav byiv Tov Aoyov Tod Oeod.

The one office is thus honoured appropriately with the two
appellations. It comprised government and instruction, and
the former being subordinate to the latter, duddoxnado. are
alone mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, but there the
evangelists are formally omitted; while the apostle by a
sudden change uses the abstract, and the “ helps” and “ govern-
ments” then referred to are, like “healing” and “tongues,”
not distinct offices possessed by various individuals, but
associated with those previously named. The evangelists
and deacons were indeed helps, but government devolved
upon the teachers and elders. See Henderson, Divine Inspira-
tion, Lect. iv. p. 184; Riickert, 2nd Beilage—Komment. diber
Corinth-B.; Davidson, Ecclesiastical Polity, 178. We are
ignorant to a very great extent of the government of the
primitive church, and much that has been written upon it is
but surmise and conjecture. The church represented in the
Acts was only in process of development, and there seem to
have been differences of organization in various Christian
communities, as may be seen by comparing the portion of
the epistle before us with allusions in the three letters
to Rome, Corinth, and Philippi. Offices seem to be mentioned
in one which are not referred to in others. It would appear,
in fine, that this last office of government and instruction was
distinct in two elements from those previously enumerated ;
inasmuch as it was the special privilege of each Christian
community—not a ministerium vagum, and was designed also
to be a perpetual institute in the church of Christ. The
apostle says nothing of the modes of human appointment or
ordination to these various offices. He descends not to law,
order, or form, but his great thought is, that though the
ascended Lord gave such gifts to men, yet their variety and
number interfere not with the unity of the church, as he also
conclusively argues in the twelfth chapter of his first epistle
to the church in Corinth." &

1 How a learned Irvingite of the Continent labours to find in such a p
the kind of intricate hierarchy which his so-called apostolic church delights in,
may be seen in the work of Thiersch—Die Kirche in dem A postolischen Zeitalter, |
etc. Frankfurt, 1852. :

EPHESIANS IV. 12 307

(Ver. 12.) IIpés tov xatapricpov tav dyiwv, els Spyov
Siaxovias, eis oixodophy Tod c@patos Tod Xprotoo—* In order
to the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The meaning of this
verse depends upon its punctuation. There are three clauses,
and the question is—how are they connected ?

1. Some regard the three clauses as parallel or co-ordinate.
He gave all these gifts “for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ.” Such is the rendering of the English version, as if
each clause contained a distinct purpose, and each of the three
purposes related with equal independence to the divine gift of
the Christian ministry. This mode of interpretation claims
the authority of Chrysostom, Zanchius, Bengel, von Gerlach,
Holzhausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius. But the apostle
changes the preposition, using mwpds before the first clause,
while eds stands before the other two members of the verse,
so that, if they are all co-ordinate, a different relation at least
is indicated.

2. A meaning is invented by Grotius, Calovius, Rollock,

Michaelis, Koppe, and Cramer, through the violent and unwar-
anted transposition of the clauses, as if Paul had written—
‘for the work of the ministry, in order to. the perfecting of the
saints, in order to the edifying of the body of Christ.” Simi-
larly Tyndale—‘“ that the sainctes might have all things
necessarie to work and minister withall.”
8. Harless and Olshausen suppose the prime object to be
‘described in the first clause which begins with pos, and the
ther clauses, each commencing with eis, to be subdivisions
the main idea, and dependent upon it, as if the meaning
were—the saints are prepared some of them to teach, and
thers, or the great body of the church, to be edified. Our
jection to such an exegesis is, that it introduces a division
here the apostle himself gives no hint, and which the lan-
)guage cannot warrant. For all the d@yios are described as
\@njoying the “perfecting,” and they are identical with “the
\body of Christ” which is to be edified. The opinion of
(Zachariae is not very different, as he makes the second eds
\depend upon the first—* For the work of the ministry insti-
\tuted in order to the edifying of the body of Christ.”

308 * EPHESIANS IV. 12.

4. Meier, Schott, Riickert, and Erasmus also regard the two
clauses introduced by eés as dependent upon that beginning
with mpos. Their opinion is—that the apostle meant to say,
“for the perfecting of the saints unto all that variety of
service which is essential unto the edification of the church.”
This interpretation we preferred in our first edition. But
Meyer argues that dsaxovia, in such a connection, never signi-
fies service in general, but official service ; and his objection
therefore is, that the saints, as a body, are not invested with
official prerogative.

5. Meyer’s own view is, that the two last clauses are co-ordi-
nate, and that both depend on édwxe, while the first clause
contains the ultimate reason for which Christ gave teachers.
He has given teachers—ets—“ for the work of the ministry,
and—eis—for the edifying of His body—zpds—in order to
the perfecting of His saints.” Ellicott and Alford follow
Meyer, and we incline now to concur in this opinion, though
the order of thought appears somewhat inverted. Jelf, § 625, 3.
It is amusing to notice the critical manceuvre of Piscator—
eis Epyov, says he, stands for év épy@, and that again means
5c’ pyou—the perfecting of the saints by means of the work of
the ministry.

The verbal noun catapticpds is not, as Pelagius and Vata-
blus take it, the filling up of the number of the elect, but as
Theodoret paraphrases the participle—rérevos ev mao Tpaypyact
The verb caraprifewv—to put in order again—is used materially
in the classics, as to refit a ship (Polyb. i. 24,4; Diodorus Sic.
xiii. 70) or reset a bone (Galen); also in Matt. iv. 21; Marki.
19; Heb. x. 5, xi. 3. In its ethical sense it is used properly,
Gal. vi. 1; and in its secondary sense of completing, perfect-
ing, it is found in the other passages where it occurs, as here.
Luke vi. 40 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. The meaning of @ysos has been
explained underi. 1. The Christian ministry is designed to
mature the saints, to bring them nearer the Divine law in
obedience, and the Lord’s example in SCO LY |

eis Epyov Svaxovias—* for work of service.” For the ety=
mology of the second term, see under iii. 7. These val |
office-bearers have been given for, or their destination is, the
work of service. “Epyov is not superfluous ; as Koppe say
it is that work in which the diaxovia busies ‘itself. Win

EPHESIANS IV. 13. 309

§ 65,7; Acts vi. 4, xi. 29; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 12, 13,
xi. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 5,iv. 11. Neither noun has the article;
for dvaxovias being indefinite, the governing noun becomes
also anarthrous. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 48.

els oixodouny ToD a@patos Tod Xpictod—“ for the building
_up of the body of Christ.” This second parallel clause is a
_™ore specific way of describing the business or use of the
Christian ministry—a second purpose to which the office-
bearers are given. In ii, 21, oixodour signified the edifice
—here it denotes the process of erection. The ideas involved
in this term have been illustrated under ii. 22, and those in
capa Xpicrov have been given under i. 23. The spiritual
advancement of the church is the ultimate design of the
Christian pastorate. It labours to increase the members of
the church, and to prompt and confirm their spiritual pro-
gress. The ministry preaches and rules to secure this, which
is at the same time the purpose of Him who appointed and
_who blesses it. So that the more the knowledge of the saints
grows and their piety ripens; the more vigorous their faith,
the more ardent their love, and the more serene and heavenly
their temperament; the more of such perfecting they gather to
_ them and enjoy under the ordinances of grace—then the more
do they contribute in their personal holiness and influence to
the extension and revival of the church of Christ.

(Ver. 13.) Méypt xatavticwpev oi mavtes—“ Until we
all come.” Méyps measures the time during which this
arrangement and ministry are to last, and it is here used,
without dv, with a subjunctive, a usage common in the later
writers and in the New Testament. Winer, § 41, 3,b; Stall-
baum, Plato, Philebus, p. 61; Schmalfeld on “Eas, § 128.
Kiihner, § 808, 2. This formula occurs only in this place ;
dypis ob being the apostle’s common expression. The
insertion of the particle dv would have given such an idea as
this, “till we come (if ever we come).” Hartung, ii. p. 291;
Bernhardy, p. 400. The subjunctive is employed not merely
express a future aim, as Harless says, but it also connects
is futurity with the principal verb-—édwxe—as its expected
rpose. Jelf, § 842, 2; Scheuerlein, § 36, 1. “We all,”

1On dygand wixe, see Tittmann, de Synon. p. 33 ; and on the various forms
the words, Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 14; Fritzsche, ad Rom. i. p. 908.

310 EPHESIANS IV, 13.

the apostle includes himself among all Christians, for he
stood not apart from the church, but in it, the article
specifying them as one class. Katavytdw needs not to be
taken in any such sense as to intimate that believers of
different nations meet together; nor can mdvrtes denote all
men, as Jerome, Morus, and Allioli understand it, but only all
the saints—dayio. The meaning is, that not only is there a
blessed point in spiritual advancement set before the church,
and that till such a point be gained the Christian ministry
will be continued, but also and primarily, that the grand
purpose of a continued pastorate in the church is to enable
the church to gain a climax which it will certainly reach; for
that climax is neither indefinite in its nature nor contingent
in its futurity. And the apostle now characterizes it by a
triple description, each member beginning with ets—

els THY EvOTNTA THs TlaTews Kal THS Emvyv@TEews TOU VIOD
tov Ocov-—“ to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of
the Son of God.” Katavtdw is followed by eds in a literal
sense, as often in Acts, and here also in a tropical sense. See
under Phil. iii, 11. Very different is the sense from that
involved in the view of Pelagius—ejus plenitudinem imitari.
Every noun in the clause has the article prefixed. We take
the genitive tod viod tod Ocod as that of object, and as
governed both by wiotews and émvyvéoews—“ the faith of the
Son of God, and the knowledge of the Son of God.” Winer,
§ 30. But we cannot adopt the view of Calvin, Calovius,
Bullinger, and Crocius, that tis émuyvdcews is epexegetical of
THs Tiatews, for it expresses a different idea, Nor can we
with Grotius regard eis as meaning ¢y—the rendering also of
the English version, while Chandler gives it the sense of “by
means of,” and Wycliffe renders “into unyte of faith.’ The
preposition marks the terminus ad quem. The apostle has—
already in this chapter introduced the idea of unity, and has
shown that difference of gifts and office is not incompatible
with it; and now he shows that the variety of offices in the
church of Christ is intended to secure it. For the meaning
of the term Son, the reader may go back to what is said under ~
i. 3. The apostle uses this high appellation here, for Jesus as
God’s Son—a Divine Saviour, is the central object of faith. —
Christians are all to attain to oneness of faith, that is, all of

(oe Pie? "an ~o

'

— -

Se ee

——————— el

EPHESIANS IV, 13. 311

them shall be filled with the same ennobling and vivifying
confidence in this Divine Redeemer—not some leaning more
to His humanity, and others showing an equally partial and
defective preference for His divinity—not some regarding

_ Him rather as an instructor and example, and others drawn
_ to Him more as an atonement—not some fixing an exclusive

gaze on Christ without them, and others cherishing an intense
and one-sided aspiration for Christ within them—but all
reposing a united confidence in Him—“ the Son of God.” It
would be too much to say that subjectively all shall have the
same faith so far as vigour is concerned, but a unity in
essence and permanence, as well as in object, is an attainable
blessing.

Unity of knowledge is also specified by the apostle.
*"Eriyvocts is a term we have considered underi.17. Chris-
tians are not to be, as in times past, some fully informed in
one section of truth, but erring through defective information
on other points concerning the Saviour—some with a superior
knowledge of the merits of His death, and others with a
quicker perception of the beauties of His life; His glory the
theme of correct meditation with one, and His condescen-
sion the subject of lucid reflection with another—but they
are to be characterized by the completeness and harmony
of their ideas of the power, the work, the history, the
love, and the glory of the “Son of God.” Olshausen
thinks that the unity to which the apostle refers, is a unity
subsisting between faith and knowledge, or, as Bisping
technically words it—/ides implicita developing into /ides
explicita. This idea does not appear to be the prominent
one, but it is virtually implied, since knowledge and faith
are so closely associated—faith not only embracing all that
is known about the Saviour, and its circuit enlarging with
the extent of information, but also being itself a source of
knowledge. The hypothesis of Stier is at once mystical
and peculiar. The phrase tod viod rod Ocod is, he says,
“the genitive of subject or possession ;” and the meaning
then is, till we possess that oneness of faith and knowledge

which the Son of God Himself possessed in His incarnate

state, till the whole community become a son of God in such
respects. Now, one great aim of preaching and ecclesiastical

O12 EPHESIANS IV. 13.

organization, is to bring about such a unity. There is no
doubt, therefore, that it is attainable; but whether here or
hereafter has perplexed many commentators. The opinion of
Theodoret—rijs 5¢ TeXevoTnTos ev TO pédrovTe Biw TevEopweba
—has been adopted by Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and Holz-
hausen. On the other hand, the belief that such perfection is
attainable here, is a view held by Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and CEcumenius, by Jerome and Ambrosiaster, by Thomas
Aquinas and Estius, by Luther, Calovius, Crocius, and
Cameron, and by the more modern expositors, Riickert, Meier,
Matthies, de Wette, Meyer, Delitzsch, and Stier. Perfection,
indeed, in an absolute sense, cannot be enjoyed on earth,
either personally or socially. But the apostle speaks of the
results of the Christian ministry as exercised in the church
below; for that faith to which Christians are to come exists
not in its present phase in heaven, but is swallowed up in
vision. Had faith been described only as a means, the
heavenly state might have been formally referred to. Still
the terms employed indicate a state of perfection that has
never been realized, either by the apostolic or by any other
church. Phil. iii. 13. Our own view is not materially dif-
ferent from that of Harless, viz., that the apostle places this
destiny of the church on earth, but does not say whether on
earth that destiny is to be realized. Olshausen says, that Paul
did not in his own mind conceive any antithesis between this
world and that to come, and he gives the true reason, that
“the church was to the apostle one and only one.” For the
church on earth gradually passes into the church in heaven,
and when it reaches perfection, the Christian ministry, which
remains till we come to this unity, will be superseded. In
such sketches the apostle holds up an ideal which, by the aim
and labour of the Christian pastorate, is partially realized on
earth, and ought to be more vividly manifested; but which
will be fully developed in heaven, when, the effect being
secured, the instrumentality may be dispensed with.

eis avdpa téXevov—“to a perfect man.”! This expres-
sive figure was perhaps suggested by the previous capa

' Augustine says, Nonnulli propter hoc quod dictum est—donec occurramus

omnes in virum perfectum, nec in sexu femineo resurrecturas feminas credunt—
sed in virili.— De Civitate, xxvii. 16. See also Aquinas and Anselm.

EPHESIANS IV. 13. 313

Xpictod. The singular appears to be employed as the con-
crete representative of that unity of which the apostle has
been speaking. "Avyp tédevos is opposed to vjmwws in the
following verse, which probably it also suggested, and is used
in such a sense by the classics. Tédesos is tropically con-
trasted with vymios in 1 Cor. ii. 6 and iii. 1, and it stands
‘ opposed to To 逫 pépous. 1 Cor. xiii. 10. Other examples
may be seen from Arrianus and Polybius in Raphelius,
Annotat. Sac. ii. p. 477. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 7, 6. Hof-
mann, Schriftb. ii. part 2, p. 111, proposes to begin a new
period with this clause, connecting it with av&jowper of the
15th verse, thus separating it from any connection with the
previous iva, and giving it the sense of “let us grow.” Such
a construction is needlessly involved, and mars the rapid
simplicity of the passage. The Christian church is not full-
grown, but it is advancing to perfect age. What the apostle
means by a perfect manhood, he explains by a parallel
expression—

els pétpov HALKlas TOD TANPwWpuATOS ToD Xpictrot—“to the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” The im-
portant term 7\cx«/a is rendered “ full age "—etas virilis—by
Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, Holzhausen, and Har-
less. “It is,’ says Harless, “the ripeness of years in con-
trast with the minority of youth.” Meyer takes it simply as
age—age defined by the following words. Chrysostom says,
“by stature here he means perfect knowledge.” It may sig-
nify age, John ix. 21, or stature, Luke xix. 3. The last is
the view of Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Riickert, Stier,
Ellicott, Alford, and the Syriac version. And to this view we
are inclined, first, because avyp TéAevos is literally a full-grown
man—a man of mature stature; and, secondly, because the
apostle gives the idea of growth, and not of age, very peculiar
prominence in the subsequent illustrations, and particularly in
the sixteenth verse. Though pérpov, as in the well-known
phrase, 48s wétpov (Homer, Od. xviii. 217), bears a general
signification, there is no reason why it should not have its
original meaning in the clause before us, for the literal sense
is homogeneous—“ measure of stature.” Lucian, Jmag. p. 8,
Opera, vol. vi. ed. Bipont. The words are but an appro-
"priate and striking image of spiritual advancement. The

314 EPHESIANS IV. 13.

stature referred to is characterized as that of “the fulness of
Christ.” This phrase, which has occurred already in the
epistle, has been here most capriciously interpreted even by
some of those who give 7Avxla the sense of stature. Luther,
Calvin, Beza, Morus, and others, take wAxpwpa as an adjec-
tive—rKia TwemAnpwpevn or HrLKla TANnpwOévTos Xpictod.
Luther renders in der masse des vollkommenen Alters Christe
—‘“the measure of the full age of Christ.” Calvin gives it,
atas justa vel matura; Beza has it, ad mensuram stature
adulti Christi. Such an exegesis does violence to the lan-
‘guage, and is not in accordance with the usual meaning of
mrnpwpya, It is completely out of place on the part of Storr,
Koppe, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to understand mAnpopa of |
the church, for the phrase qualifies 7Av«/a, and is not in simple
apposition. Nor is the attempt of Gicumenius and Grotius at
all more successful, to resolve 7Anpwpa into the knowledge of
Christ. For wAjpwpa see under i. 10, 23. Xprorod is the
genitive of subject, and wAnp@paros that of possession; the
connection of so many genitives indicating a varied but linked
relationship characterizing the apostle’s style. Winer, § 30, 3,
Obs. i.; Eph. i. 6, 19. The church, as we have seen, 18
Christ’s fulness as filled up by Him, and so this “stature”
is of His “ fulness ”—filled up by Him, and deriving from this
imparted fulness all its height and symmetry. Such is
the general view of Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, Meier, and
Holzhausen, save that they do not take Axia in the sense
of stature. But this translation of “stature” appears, as
we have said, more in harmony with the imagery employed,
for he says, “we grow up” “and the whole body maketh
increase of the body.” This stature grows just as it receives
of Christ’s fulness; and when that fulness is wholly enjoyed,
it will be that of a “perfect man.” The idea conveyed by ©
the figure cannot be misunderstood. The Christian ministry —
is appointed to labour for the perfection of the church of ©
Christ, a perfection which is no romantic anticipation, but
which consists of the communicated fulness of Christ. We
need scarcely notice the hallucinations of some of the Fathers
—that man shall rise from the grave in the perfect age of
Christ—that is, each man’s constitution shall have the form
and aspect of thirty-three years of age, the age of Christ at

EPHESIANS IV, 14, 315

His death. Augustine, De Civit. lib. xxii. cap. 15. Another
purpose is—

(Ver. 14.) "Iva pnxérs dpev vyjmrv0i—* In order that we may
be no longer children.” . This and the following verse are

illustrative of the preceding one, and show the peculiar - weak-
_ ness and dangers to which believers in an imperfect state are
exposed. “Iva points to a negative and intermediate purpose
resulting from that of the preceding verses, but not as if that
were taken as realized, for he immediately adds av&jowpev—
implying that teXevorns has not been attained. The period of
maturity is, indeed, future; but meantime, in the hope of it,
and with the assistance of the Christian ministry, believers
are to be “no longer children;” ceasing to be children is
meanwhile our duty. The ministry is instituted, and this
glorious destiny is portrayed, in order that in the meantime
we may be no longer children. Nyzrvos is opposed to avnp
tédevos. Polybius, Hist. v. 29, 2. Mnxéts is employed after
iva. Gayler, Part. Grac. Neg., cap. vii. A, 1-8, p. 168. We
have been children long enough—let us “put away childish

The apostle now refers to two characteristics of childhood
—its fickleness, and its liability to be imposed upon. Child-
hood has a peculiar facility of impression—

Krvdwrifouevor kal repipepopevot Travtl dvéum tis didac-
_ wkadlas — “tossed and driven about with every wind of
teaching.” Kndvdwrfopevor—tossed about as a surge; xAvdw-
vifopwevos is passive; instances may be found in Krebs and
Wetstein. Heb. xiii. 9; Jas. i 6. The billow does not
swell and fall on the same spot, but it is carried about by the
wind, driven hither and thither before it—the sport of the
tempest. The term dvéu@, dative of cause (Kriiger, § 48,
15), is applied to d&dacxadia—not to show its emptiness, as
Matthies explains it by windig-leere Hinfalle, but to describe
its impulsive power. The article rijs before d:dacxad/as gives
definitive prominence to “the teaching,” which, as a high
function respected and implicitly obeyed, was very capable of
seducing, since whatever false phases it assumed, it might find
and secure followers. Such wind, not from this or that
direction only, but blowing from any or “every quarter,
causes the imperfect and inexperienced to surge about in

316 EPHESIANS IV. 14.

fruitless commotion. The moral phenomenon is common.
Some men have just enough of Christian intelligence to
unsettle them, and make them the prey of every idle
suggestion, the sport of every religious novelty. How many
go the round of all sects, parties, and creeds, and never
receive satisfaction! If in the pride of reason they fall into
rationalism, then if they recover they rebound into mysticism.
From the one extreme of legalism they recoil to the farthest
verge of antinomianism, having travelled at easy stages all the
intermediate distances. Men like Priestley and Channing
have gradually descended from Calvinism to Unitarianism ;
others, like Schlegel and the Countess Ida Hahn-Hahn,
make a swift transition from Protestant nihilism to Popish
pietism and superstition. Decision and firmness are indis-
pensable to spiritual improvement. Only one form of teach-
ing is beneficial, and all deviations are pernicious. More
pointedly—

év tH KuBela tav dvOperwv—in the sleight of men.”
KvBeta from «xvBos—a cube, or one of the dice—signifies
gambling, and then by an easy and well-known process, the
common accompaniment and result of gambling—fraud and
imposition. Suicer, sub voce. The rabbins have the word
also in the form of §23?. Schoettgen, Hore Heb. p. 775;
Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. p. 1984. Salmasius renders the term actio
temeraria ; Beza, varie et inepte subtilitates ; and Matthies,
gewinnsiichtiges Spiel— play for the greed of winning.”
These meanings are inferior to the ordinary translation of
fallacia by Jerome, the nequitia of the Vulgate, and “ sleight”
of the English version. Theodoret renders the noun by
mavoupyla. The opinion of Meyer and de Wette, that év
denotes the instrumental cause, is scarce to be preferred to
that of Harless, Matthies, Olshausen, and Ellicott, who suppose. |
that the preposition signifies the element in which the false
doctrine works. The apostle shows how the false teaching —
wields its peculiar power—acting like a wary and dexterous
gambler, and winning by dishonesty without being suspected
of it. Oc dv@pw7o are men, in contrast not with Christ’s
office-bearers, but with the “Son of God.” The next clause
is parallel and explanative— .

év tavoupyia mpos thy peBodciay Ths mrAdvns—“in craft

EPHESIANS IV, 15. 317

with a view to a system of error.” Codex A adds rod
SiaBorov. “Craft” is the meaning which is uniformly
attached to the first noun in the New Testament. 1 Cor. iii.
19; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3. IIpos indicates the purpose of the
mavoupyia which is not followed by any article. The craft
is exercised in order to carry out the tricks of error; wAdvns
being genitive of subject and defined by the article.
Me@oéera is rendered by Hesychius téyvn, and by Theodoret
pnxavn, plan or settled system. Aquila renders 77%, “to lie
in wait” (Ex. xxi. 13), by peOodevce. The Greek verb
* originally had a good meaning, “to pursue a settled plan,” but
the bad meaning soon came—its history and use, as in the
ease of such English words as “prevent” and “ resent,”
showing man’s evil nature. This false teaching, 7 mAdvn,
has a systematic process of deception peculiar to itself—
» peOode(a ;; and that this mechanism may not fail or scare
away its victims by unguarded revelations of its nature and
purpose, it is wrought with special manceuvre—zravoupy(a.
There is, however, no distinct declaration that such seduction
and mischievous errors were actually in the church at
Ephesus, though the language before us seems to imply it,
and the apostle’s valedictory address plainly anticipated it.
Acts xx. 29. We may allude, in fine, to the strange remark
of Riickert, that this severe language of Paul against false
teachers, sprang from a dogmatical defiance, and was the weak
side in him as in many other great characters. But the
apostle’s attachment to the truth originated in his experience
of its saving power, and he knew that its adulteration often
robbed it of its healing virtue. Love to men, fidelity to
Christ, and zeal for the purity and glory of the church,
demanded of him this severe condemnation of errorists and
heresiarchs, The spiritual vehemence and truth-love of such
a heart are not to be estimated by a common criterion, and
when such puerile estimates of Paul’s profound nature are
formed, we are inclined to ascribe it to moral incompetence
of judgment, and to say to Herr Riickert—*Sir, thou hast
nothing to draw with, and the well is deep.”

(Ver. 15.) "ArnOevovtes 82, év aydrry avtjowpev eis adtov
7a révra— But imbued with truth, that in love we should
grow up to or into Him inall things.” The construction still

318 EPHESIANS IV. 15.

depends upon éva in ver. 14, 8é placing the following positive
clauses in opposition to the preceding negative ones. We
must hold, against Meyer, that the context requires adAn@evwv
to be understood as meaning not “speaking the truth,” which
it often or usually means, but “having and holding the
truth,’ —“truthing it;” for it is plainly opposed to such
vacillation, error, and impositions as are sketched in the pre-
ceding verse. Had the false teachers been referred to, speak-
ing truth would have been the virtue enjoined on them; but
as their victims, real or possible, are addressed, holding the
truth is naturally inculcated on them. We cannot say with
Pelagius and others, that it is truth in general to which
the apostle refers; but we agree with Theophylact, that the
allusion is to wevdH ddéypara, though we cannot accede to his
additional statement, that it specially regards and inculcates
sincerity of life. Nor can we adopt the translation of the

yn y
Syriac —DAnD ~};s—hbeing “confirmed in love.” The

Gothic renders sunja tawjandans—“ doing truth,’ and the
Vulgate—veritatem facientes. Many of the professed inter-
pretations of the words are, therefore, inferential rather than
exegetical. So far from being children tossed, wandering,
and deluded with error, let us be possessing and professing
the truth.

Many expositors join év ayd77n to the participle, and impute
very various meanings to the phrase. Perhaps the majority
understand it as signifying “ striving after the truth in love”
—and such is in general the view of Erasmus, Calvin, Koppe,
Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, and Alford. Some refer it to
studium mutue communicationis ; others regard it as meaning
a species of indulgence to the weaker and the erring brethren ;
while others, such as Luther, Bucer, and Grotius, take the
participle as pointing out the sincerity and truthful quality
of this ayamn—sincere alios diligentes. Conybeare’s version
is very bald—*living in truth and love.” But while it is
evident that truth and love are radically connected, and that
there can be no truth that lives not in love, and no love
that has not its birth in truth, still we prefer, with Harless,
Meyer, Passavant, Olshausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to join
év ayarn to the verb avéjocwpev—for the words in the con-

EPHESIANS IV. 15. 319

clusion of the following verse have plainly such a connection.
Besides, in Pauline style, though Alford denies it, qualifying
clauses may precede the verb. See under i. 4. The chief
_ element of spiritual growth is love—év dydmy being repeated.
Avénowper is used not in an active, but in an intransitive
_ sense, as (Ecumenius, Theophylact, and Jerome understood it.
_ The verb has reference at once to the condition of the vio
_ —children iinmature and ungrown, and to the pérpoy HruKlas
_ —the full stature of perfect manhood. Our growth should
_ be ever advancing—-spiritual dwarfhood is a misshapen and
shameful state. Besides, as believers grow, their spiritual
_ power developes, and their spiritual senses are exercised, so
that they are more able to repel the seductions of false and
_erafty teachers.
_ Harless connects eis avdrov with év aydmrn—in love to
Him.” But the position of the words forbids such a connec-
tion; and though the hyperbaton were allowable, the idea
_ brought ought by such an exegesis is wholly out of harmony
with the train of thought. Kiihner,§ 865. The idea of Har-
- less is, that the spiritual growth here referred to, is growth
- toward the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of
God, and that this depends on love to Christ. Now, we
_know that love to Christ rules and governs the believing
_ spirit, and that it contributes to spiritual advancement ; but in
the passage before us such a connection would limit the opera-
tion of this grace, for here, as in the following verse, it stands
absolutely. ‘Ev ayamrn describes the sphere of growth, and
the meaning is, not that we are to grow in love, as if love
were the virtue in which progress was to be made, but that
in love we are to grow in reference to all things—all the
elements essential to perfection ; love being the means and the
sphere of our advancement. The phrase e/s avtov does not
mean “in Him,” according to the erroneous rendering of
_ Jerome, Pelagius, Grotius, and Riickert; nor yet “ like Him,”
as is the paraphrase of Zanchius; but “to Him,” to Him as
- the end or aim of this growth, as is held by Crocius, Estius,
- Holzhausen, Meyer, Olshausen, and de Wette ; or “ into Him,”
into closer union with Him, as the centre and support of life
| and growth. Buttmann, Neutest. Sprach. p. 287.
It is almost superfluous to remark, that the syntax of

320 EPHESIANS IV. 15.

Wahl, Holzhausen, Koppe, and Schrader, in making ta ravta
equivalent to of wavres, cannot be received. The words
mean “as to all”—«xard being the supplement, if one were
needed; but such an accusative denoting “contents or com-
pass” often follows verbs which cannot govern the accusative
of object. Madvig, § 25. And the phrase is not simply
mavta, but ta mavta. We cannot acquiesce in the view of
Harless, who restricts the words to the évorns of ver. 13.
Stier, giving the article the same retrospective reference,
includes faith, knowledge, truth, and love. That ta wavta
has often a special contextual reference, the passages adduced
by Harless are sufficient proof. But it is often used in an
absolute sense (Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. vill. 6); or if these, from
their peculiarity of meaning, be not reckoned apposite refer-
ences, we have in addition 1 Cor. xv. 28; Mark iv. 11; Acts
xvii, 25; Rom. viii.32. Besides, “the unity of the faith and
of the knowledge of the Son of God,” is the end to which
Christians are to come, and cannot therefore be well reckoned
also among the elements of growth. Meyer’s idea is, that
Ta wTavta denotes “all in which we grow,” and he supposes the
apostle to mean, that all things in which we grow should have
reference to Christ. Luther, Beza, Riickert, and Matthies,
render pro omnia, or prorsus. The article gives mavTa an
emphatic sense—‘“the whole;” and as the reference of the
apostle is to a growing body, ta wavra may signify all that
properly belongs to it; or, as Olshausen phrases it, “we are
to grow in all those things in which the Christian must
advance.” The apostle first lays down the primary and per-
manent means of growth, holding the truth—dAnOevovres ;
then he describes the peculiar temperament in which this
srowth is secured and accelerated —év aydrn; then he speci-
fies its aim and end—es avrov; and, lastly, he marks its
amount and harmony—rta wdvta. The body becomes mon-
strous by the undue development of any part or organ, and
the portion that does not grow is both unsightly and weak,
and not fitted to honour or serve the head. The apostle thus
inculcates the duty of symmetrical growth, each grace ad-
vancing in its own place, and in perfect unison with all
around it. That character is nearest perfection in which the
excessive prominence of no grace throws such a withering

EPHESIANS IV. 16. 321

shadow upon the rest, as to signalize or perpetuate their
defect, but in which all is healthfully balanced in just and
delicate adaptation. Into Him—
bs €otw 4 Kepary, Xpiotds—*“who is the head—Christ.”
D, E, F, G, K, L, prefix the article to Xpiords, but A, B,
and C, with other authorities, read Xpiords without the
article, perhaps rightly. The article in the New Testament is
oftener omitted than inserted. When Alford warns against
our former rendering—*the Christ”—he evidently puts a
polemic meaning into the phrase—which is not necessarily in
it. The meaning of xefady in such a connection has been
already explained; i. 22. That Head is Christ—Xpuortos
being placed with solemn emphasis at the end of the verse—
being in the nominative and in assimilation with the preceding
relative. Stallbaum, Plato Apol. p.41; Winer,§ 59,7. The
Head is Christ—one set apart, commissioned, and qualified as
Redeemer, and who by His glorious and successful inter-
position has won for Himself this illustrious pre-eminence.
(Ver. 16.) We would not say with Chrysostom, that “the
apostle expresses himself here with great obscurity, from his
wish to utter all at once—ro@ mwavta ood Oedjoas eitreiv ;”
but we may say that the language of this verse is as com-
pacted as the body which it describes.
_ é€ o}—“from whom,” that is, from Christ as the Head.
This phrase does not and cannot mean “to whom,” as Koppe
‘gives it, nor “ by whom,” as Morus, Holzhausen, and Flatt
maintain. The preposition é« marks the source. “From
“whom,” as its source of growth, “the body maketh increase.”
‘The body without the head is but a lifeless trunk. It was
eis aitéy in the previous verse, and now it is é€ od. The
‘growth is to Him, and the growth is from Him—Himself its
| origin and Himself its end. The life that springs from Him
|as the source of its existence, is ever seeking and flowing
| back to Him as the source of its enjoyment. The anatomical
| figure is as follows—
| wav 76 capa cvvapporoyotpevov Kal cuvpPiBalopevov—
| “all the body being fitly framed together and put together.”
| The verb connected with oda as its nominative is wovetras,
| The first participle occurs at ii. 21, and is there explained. It
| denotes—“ being composed of parts fitted closely to each
> 4

322 EPHESIANS IV. 16,

other.” The second participle is used in a tropical sense in
the New Testament (Acts ix. 22, xvi. 10; 1 Cor. ii. 16), but
here it has its original signification—*“brought and held
together.” The two participles express the idea that the
body is of many parts, which have such mutual adaptation in
position and function, that it is a firm and solid structure—
Sia tdons adis THs émrvyopnylas—<by means of every
joint of the supply.” This clause has originated no little
difference of opinion. We take it as closely connected by dva
with the two preceding participles, and as expressing the
instrumentality by which this symmetry and compactness are
secured. Meyer, Stier, and Alford, following Bengel, and
contrary to its position, join the phrase to the verb zrocetras.
The Greek fathers, followed by Meyer, render a¢n by
aia @nous—touch, sense of touch; tactum subministrationis is
found in Augustine, De Civ. Det, xxii. 18, and similarly
Wycliffe—* bi eche joynture of undir seruynge.” But, with
the majority of expositors, we take the word as explained
by the parallel passage in Col. ii. 19, and as the Vulgate
renders it—junctura. ’Emvyopnyia denotes aid or assistance,
and is taken by Flatt, Riickert, Harless, and Olshausen, as
the genitive of apposition, and as referring to the Holy Spirit.
The Greek fathers, and Meyer, render—“ through our feeling
of divine assistance.” Chrysostom says—“ that spirit which
is supplied to the members from the head, touches, or com-
municates itself to each single member, and thus actuates it.”
Their idea is, through the joint or bond of union, which is
the supply or aid of the Holy Spirit. We prefer taking
émtyopnylas as the genitive of use—compacted together by
every joint which serves forsupply. John v. 29; Heb. ix. 21;
Winer, § 30, 2 8. ’Emvyopnyia is thus the assistance which —
the joints give in compacting and organizing the body. So
in Col. ii. 19 —8a tav addv kai cvvdécpwv ériyopnyotpevov,
Such is also the general view of Grotius, Zanchius, Calvin, -
Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Ellicott. We understand —
it thus—From whom all the body, mutually adapted in all its’
parts, and closely compacted by means of every joint whose
function it is to afford such aid— |
kat évépyerav év péTpm évds ExdoTou wepovs—“ according
to energy in the measure of each individual part.” The MSS,

> |

EPHESIANS IV. 16. 323

A and C, with others of less note, along with the Vulgate,
Coptic, and Syriac versions, and Chrysostom, Jerome, and
Pelagius, read pédous, which fits the passage so well as an
explanation of yépous, that we can easily conceive how it was
introduced. Riickert and Bretschneider take car’ évépyeav
as an adverbial phrase, but without any real ground. The
noun has been explained under i. 19, iii. 7. It signifies
“ inworking ”—effectual influence or operation, and is a modal
explanation attached to the following verb. No article is
between it and the following noun indicating unity of con- .
ception. ‘Ev pétp»—“in the measure of every one part,” a
plain reference to ver. 7. Bernhardy, p. 211. The connection
has been variously supposed :—1. Harless takes the phrase in
connection with the participle cupBiBafouevov. Such a con-
' nection is, we think, fallacious, for the compactness and the
union of the body depend upon the functional assistance of the
joints, not merely on the energy which pervades each part of
the body, and which to each part is apportioned. But the
growth depends on this évépyeva, or distributed vital power,
and so we prefer to connect the clause with the following
_verb—“ maketh increase.” And it puzzles us to discover any
reason why Harless should understand by the “ parts” of the
body, the pastors and teachers mentioned in ver. 11. Such
-an idea wholly mars the unity of the figure. 2. Others,
‘among whom are Stier, Flatt, and Matthies, join the phrase
to émyopnyias, as if the assistance given by the joints were
according to this energy. To this we have similar objection,
and we would naturally have expected the repetition of the
article, though it is not indispensable. “Energy,” “measure,”
“part,” belong rather to the idea of growth than to stability.
_ This energy is supposed by some, such as Theophylact, Gro-
' tius, and Beza, to be that of Christ, and Zanchius takes along
' with this the reflex operation of grace among the members of
the church. The whole body—

thy av&noww Tov cwpaTtos Tovetrac— carries on the increase
| ¢ ‘the body. ” Col. ii. 19. Though capa was the nominative,
| @awparos is repeated in the genitive—the body maketh increase
| of the body, even of itself. Luke iii. 19 ; John ix. 5; Winer,
| § 22,2; Bornemann, Scholia in Luc. xxx. p. 5. The sentence
| being 80 long, the noun is repeated, especially as éavrod occurs

324 EPHESIANS IV. 16.

in the subsequent clause. The use of the middle voice
indicates either that the growth is of internal origin, and is
especially its own—it makes growth “for itself,” or a special
intensity of idea is intended. See under iii. 18; Kriiger,
§ 52, 8,4. The middle voice in this verb often seems to
have little more than the active signification (Passow, sub
voce), but the proper sense of the middle is here to be acknow-
ledged, signifying either that the growth is produced from vital
power within the body, or denoting the spiritual energy with
which the process is carried on. Winer, § 38, 5, note. The
body, so organized and compacted, developes the body’s growth
according to the vital energy which is measured out to each
one of its parts. The purpose of this growth is now stated—

els olkodouny éavtod év ayamn—‘for the building up of
itself in love.” The phrase év ayd7n, however, plainly
connects this verse with the preceding one. Meyer errs in
connecting €v ayarn with the verb or the whole clause. The
words are the solemn close, and the verb has been twice
conditioned already. Love is regarded still as the element in
which growth is made. And it isnot to be taken here in any
restricted aspect, for it is the Christian grace viewed in its
widest relations—the fulfilment of the law. Such we conceive
to be the general meaning of the verse.

The figure is a striking one. The body derives its vitality
and power of development from the head. See under i. 22,
23. The church has a living connection with its living Head,
and were such a union dissolved, spiritual death would be the
immediate result. The body is fitly framed together and
compacted by the functional assistance of the joints. Its
various members are not in mere juxtaposition, like the
several pieces of a marble statue. No portion is superfluous ;
each is in its fittest place, and the position and relations of
none could be altered without positive injury. “ Fearfully
and wonderfully made,” it has its hard framework of bone so
formed as to protect its vital organs in the thorax and skull,
and yet so united by “curiously wrought” joints, as to
possess freedom of motion both in its vertebral column and
limbs. But it is no ghastly and repulsive skeleton, for it is
clothed with flesh and fibre, which are fed from ubiquitous
vessels, and interpenetrated with nerves—the Spirit’s own

EPHESIANS IV. 16, 325

sensational agents and messengers. It is a mechanism in
which all is so finely adjusted, that every part helps and is
helped, strengthens and is strengthened, the invisible action of
the pores being as indispensable as the mass of the brain and
the pulsations of the heart. When the commissioned nerve
moves the muscle, the hand and foot need the vision to guide
them, and the eye, therefore, occupies the elevated position of
-asentinel. How this figure is applicable to the church may
_be seen under a different image at ii. 21. The church enjoys
a similar compacted organization—all about her, in doctrine,
discipline, ordinance, and enterprise, possessing mutual adap-
tation, and showing harmony of structure and power of
increase.
“The body maketh increase of the body” according to the
energy which is distributed to every part in its own pro-
portion. Corporeal growth is not effected by additions from
without. The body itself elaborates the materials of its own
development. Its stomach digests the food, and the numerous
-absorbents extract and assimilate its nourishment. It grows,
each part according to its nature and uses. The head does
not swell into the dimensions of the trunk, nor does the
“little finger” become “thicker than the loins.” Each has
_ the size that adapts it to its uses, and brings it into symmetry
with the entire living organism. And every part grows.
_ The sculptor works upon a portion only of the block at a
' time, and, with laborious effort, brings out in slow succession
the likeness of a feature or a limb, till the statue assumes its
intended aspect and attitude. But the plastic energy of
“nature presents no such graduated forms of operation, and
“needs no supplement of previous defects. Even in the
| embryo the organization is perfect, though it is in miniature,
| and harmonious growth only is required. For the “energy
| is in every part at once, but in every part in due apportion-
“ment. So the church universal has in it a Divine energy,
and that in all its parts, by which its spiritual development
is secured. In pastors and people, in missionaries and
‘eatechists, in instructors of youth and in the youth them-
“selves, this Divine principle has diffused itself, and produces
| everywhere proportionate advancement. And no ordinance
‘or member is superfluous. Blessing is invoked on the word

326 EPHESIANS IV. 17.

preached, and the eucharist is the complement of baptism.
Praise is the result of prayer, and the “keys” are made alike
to open and to shut. Of old the princes and heroes went to
the field, and “wise-hearted women did spin.” While Joshua
fought, Moses prayed. The snuffers and trays were as
necessary as the magnificent lamp-stand. The rustic style of
Amos the herdsman has its place in Scripture, as well as the
polished paragraphs of the royal preacher. The widow’s mite
was commended by Him who sat over against the treasury.
Solomon built a temple. Joseph provided a tomb. Mary
the mother gave birth to the child, and the other Maries
wrapt the corpse in spices. Lydia entertained the apostle,
and Phceebe carried an epistle. A basket was as necessary
for Paul’s safety at one time as his burgess ticket and a troop
of cavalry at another. And the result is, that the church is
built up, for love is the element of spiritual progress. That
love fills the renewed nature, and possesses peculiar facilities
of action in “edifying” the mystical body of Christ. And,
lastly, the figure is intimately connected with the leading idea
of the preceding paragraph, and presents a final argument on
behalf of the unity of the church. The apostle speaks of but
one body—z7av 1o o@ua. Whatever parts it may have,
whatever their form, uses, and position, whatever the amount
of energy resident in them, still, from their connection with
the one living Head, and from their own compacted union and
mutual adjustment, they compose but one growing structure
“in love :”—
‘**T’m apt to think, the man

That could surround the sum of things, and spy

The heart of God and secrets of His empire,

Would speak but love. With him the bright result .

Would change the hue of intermediate scenes, |

And make one thing of all theology.” ;
}
}
(Ver. 17.) Todro ody Aéyw— This, then, I say.” The
apostle now recurs to the inculcation of many special and
important duties, or as Theodoret writes—adw avédraBe ; and
he begins with the statement of some general principles. The
singular toro gives a species of unity and emphasis to the
following admonitions, for it here refers to succeeding state-
ments, as in 1 Cor. vii. 29; 1 Thess. iv. 15. Other

EPHESIANS IY, 17. 327

examples may be seen in Winer, § 23, 5. Ody is not merely
resumptive of the ethical tuition begun in ver. 1 (Donaldson,
§ 548, 31), but it has reference also to the previous paragraph
from vers. 4 to 16, which, thrown out as a digression from
ver. 3, runs at length into an argument for the exhortations

which follow. Granting, as Ellicott contends, that gram-

matically ody is only resumptive, it may be admitted that
such a resumption is modified by the sentiment of the

_ intervening verses. The apostle in resuming cannot forget
_ the statements just made by him—the destined perfection of

the church, its present advancement, with truth for its
nutriment and love for its sphere, and its close and living
connection with its glorified Head. How emphatic is his
warning to forsake the sins and sensualities of surrounding

- heathendom! Rom. xii. 3.

Aéyw Kal paptupouar év Kupiw—‘TI say and testify in the
Lord.” Rom. ix. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim.
ii. 14, iv.1. The apostle does not mean to call the Lord to
witness, as if év Kup» could mean “by the Lord,” as Theodoret
and some of his imitators render it; but he solemnly charges

_ “in the Lord”—the Lord being the element in which the

vs

~~

RR a re ae een

Oh eee

charge is delivered—

pnkere twas Tepirateiy xabws kal Ta rovra EOvn TepiTaTet
—that ye walk no longer as also the other Gentiles walk.”
1 Pet. iv. 3. It is to the Gentile portion of the church that
the apostle addresses himself. The adverb ynxétz, “no longer,”
is here used with the infinitive, though often with iva and the
subjunctive. The infinitive, which grammatically is the object
of Aeyw, expresses not so much what is, as what ought to be.
Bernhardy, p. 371; Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 371 ; Winer, § 44,
3,b; Donaldson, § 584. They once walked as Gentiles, but
they were to walk so no longer. The verb wepsrareiy, in its
reference to habits of life, has been explained under ii. 2. The
wai after xa0ws means “also.” Hartung, i. p. 126. In some
such cases cai occurs twice, as in Rom. i. 13, on which see
the remarks of Fritzsche in his Comment. A, B, D’, F, G,
the Coptic, the Vulgate, and most of the Latin fathers omit
Aowrd. But the great majority of MSS. retain it, such as D,
D*, E, K,L, and the Greek fathers, with the old Syriac version.
We therefore prefer, with Tischendorf, to keep it, and we

328 EPHESIANS IV. 17.

can easily imagine a finical reason for its being left out by
early copyists, as the Ephesian Christians seem by Aou7md to be
reckoned among Gentiles yet. But being Gentiles by extrac-
tion, they are exhorted not to walk as the rest of the Gentiles
—such as still remain unconverted or are in the state in which
they always have been. Just as a modern missionary might
say to his congregation in Southern Africa, Walk not as the
other Kaffirs around you. The other Gentiles walked—

éy patawtTnts Tov voos avT@v—“<in the vanity of their
mind.” The sphere in which they walk is described by év.
Rom. i. 21. Nods is not intellect simply, but in the case of
believers it signifies that portion of the spiritual nature whose
function is to comprehend and relish Divine truth. Usteri,
Lehrb. p. 35. It is the region of thought, will, and suscepti-
bility—the mind with its emotional capabilities. Beck, Seelenl.
p. 49, etc.; Delitzsch, Psych. p. 244. In the Hebrew psycho-
logy the intellect and heart were felt to act and react on one
another, so that we have such phrases as “ an understanding
heart,” 1 Kings iii. 9; “hid their heart from understanding,”
Job xvii. 4; “the desires of the mind,” Eph. ii. 3, ete.
That mind was characterized by “vanity.” Its ideas and
impulses were perverse and fruitless. We do not, with some
exegetes, restrict this vanity to the Hebrew sense of idolatry —
b3n—or as Theodoret thus defines it—ra ju) 6vta Oeorrovobyra.
The meaning seems to be, that all the efforts and operations
of their spiritual nature ended in dreams and disappointment.
Speculation on the great First Cause, issued in atheism,
polytheism, and pantheism ; and discussions on the supreme
good failed to elicit either correct views of man’s intellectual
nature in its structure, or to train its moral nature to a right
perception of its capabilities, obligations, and destiny ; while
the future was either denied in a hopeless grave without a
resurrection, or was pictured out as the dreary circuit of an
eternal series of transmigrations, or had its locality in a
shadowy elysium, which, though a scene of classical retire-
ment, was “earthly, sensual, devilish ”—the passions unsub-
dued, and the heart unsanctified. The ethical and religious
element of their life was unsatisfactory and cheerless, alike in
worship and in practice, the same as to present happiness as
to future prospect, for they knew not “ man’s chief end.”

EPHESIANS IV. 18 329

(Ver. 18.) "Eoxoticpévor tH Scavola, Svtes darndXotpiopévor
tis Sons tod Ocod—“ Darkened in their understanding, and
being alienated from the life of God.” Critics have differed
as to which of the two leading perfect participles the participle
_ 6yres should be joined. Many attach it to the first of them,
such as Clement (Protrept. ix. p. 69), Theodoret, Bengel,
Harless, Meyer, Stier, de Wette, and the editors Knapp,
Lachmann, and Tischendorf. In the New Testament, when
any part of the verb e¢ué is joined to a participle, it usually
precedes that participle. Besides, in the twin epistle (Col. i.
21) the very expression occurs, the second participle being
_ regarded as a species of adjective. Nor by such a connection
j is the force of the sentence broken, as Alford contends. For
the first participle, éoxot:opévor, assigns a reason for the pre-
vious clause—“darkened, inasmuch as they are darkened ;”
and the second, dmndAotpiwpévor, parallel to the first, adjoins
another reason and yet more emphatically—évres—being
alienated and remaining so. Winer, § 45,5. The gender is
changed to the masculine, agreeing in meaning but not in form
_ with ra dowd éOvn, and the entire sense is often said to be a
_ species of parallelism, which might be thus arranged—

>} See ee ee

Having been darkened in their understanding,

By the ignorance that is in them,
Forasmuch as they have beer. alienated from the life of God,
By the hardness of their hearts.

_ Bengel and Olshausen arrange the verse thus, and Jebb
_ calls it an “alternate quatrain.” Sacred Literature, p. 192,
_ ed. London, 1831. Forbes, Symmetrical Structure of Scripture,
_p. 21. But such an artificial construction, though it may
happen in Hebrew poetry, can scarcely be expected to be
found in a letter. Nor does it, as Meyer well argues, yield a
good sense. According to such a construction, “the ignorance
that is in them” must be regarded as the cause or instrument
| of their being darkened in their understanding. But this
| reverses the process described by the apostle, for ignorance is
‘the effect, and not the cause, of the obscuration. Shadow
‘results from darkening or the interception of light. De Wette
| tries to escape the difficulty by saying that dyvoa is rather
theoretic ignorance, while the first clause has closer reference

330 EPHESIANS IV. 18.

to what is practical; but it is impossible to establish such a
distinction on sufficient authority. We therefore take the
clauses as the apostle has placed them. Avavoia, explained
under ii. 3 and i. 18, is the dative expressive of sphere.
Winer, § 31, 3. The word here, both from the figurative
term joined with it, and from the language of the following
clause, seems to refer more to man’s intellectual nature, and is
so far distinguished from vods before it and xapdia coming
after it. See Rom. i. 21, and xi. 10. Other instances of
similar usage among the classics may be seen in the lexicons.
Deep shadow lay upon the Gentile mind, unrelieved save by
some fitful gleams which genius occasionally threw across it,
and which were succeeded only by profounder darkness. A
child in the lowest form of a Sunday school, will answer
questions with which the greatest minds of the old heathen
world grappled in vain.

And that darkness of mind was associated with spiritual
apostasy. The participle dmnAdoTpiwpévos has been explained
in our remarks on ii. 12, and there it occurs also in a
description of Gentile condition. 2Zw7 Tod Oeod is not a life
according to God—# xatd Oecov fw, or a virtuous life, as
Theodoret, Theophylact, and others describe it; nor is it
merely “a life which God approves,” as is held by Koppe,
Wahl, Morus, Scholz, Whitby, and Chandler. The term does
not refer to course or tenor of conduct—Sios—but to the
element or principle of Divine life within us. Vomel, Synon.
Worterb. p. 168. Nor has the opinion of Erasmus any
warrant, that the genitive is in apposition—vera vita, qui est
Deus. The genitive Qeod is genitivus auctoris—that of origin,
as is rightly held by Meyer, de Wette, Harless, Riickert, and
Olshausen. It is that life from God which existed in unfallen
man, and re-exists in all believers who are in fellowship with
God—the life which results from the operation and indwelling
of the Holy Ghost. Compare ii. 1-5; Trench, Syn. § xxviii.
Harless will not admit any allusion to regeneration in this life} |
but refers us to the Logos in whom is “the life of men.” :
Granted ; but that light “only penetrates, and that life only
pulsates, ‘through the “applying energies of the Holy Ghost.
The Gentile world having severed ‘itself from this life was”
spiritually dead, and therefore a sepulchral pall was thrown

EPHESIANS IV. 19. 331

over its intellect. There could be no light in their mind,
because there was no life in their hearts, for the life in the
Logos is the light of men. The heart reacts on the intellect.
And the apostle now gives the reason—

did Thy Gyvoiay Thy odeay ev adtois, Sud Thy Tapwow Tis
kapdias aitav—*through the ignorance which is in them,
through the hardness of their hearts.” These clauses assign

the reason for their alienation from the Divine life—tfirst,
ignorance of God, His character, and dispensations; this
ignorance being “in them”—r7v odcav (dvres being already
employed)—as a deep-seated element of their moral condition.
In reference to immortality, for example, how sad their igno-
rance! Thus Moschus sighs—

‘One rest we keep,
One long, eternal, unawakened sleep.”

Nox est perpetua, una, dormienda, sobs Catullus. The second

clause commencing with éca assigns a co-ordinate and expla-
matory second reason for their alienation from the life of
God—the hardness of their hearts. IIwpwo1s—obtuseness or
callousness, not blindness, as if from mwpos (Fritzsche, ad
Rom. xi. 7), is a very significant term—their mwpwors having,
as Theodoret says, no feeling—é.a To mwavTedas vevexp@obar.
The unsusceptibility of an indurated heart was the ultimate
cause of their lifeless and ignorant state. The disease began
in the callous heart. It hardened itself against impression
and warning, left the mind uninformed and indifferent, alien-
ated itself from the life of God, and was at last shrouded
in the shadow of death. Surely the Ephesians were not
to walk as the other Gentiles placed in this hapless and
_ degraded state. This view of the Gentile world differs from
that given in chap. ii. This has more reference to inner
condition, while that in the preceding chapter characterizes
principally the want of external privilege with its sad results.

(Ver. 19.) Ofriwes dandynkites éavtods mapébwxay TH
daedyela— Who as being past feeling have given themselves
over to uncleanness.” For dzndynxores, the Codices D, E
read dandmixétes, and F, G admdmixores; the Vulgate with

its desperantes, and the Syriac with its CoURD aame>

332 EPHESIANS IV. 19.

follow such a reading. But the preponderance of evidence is
on the side of the Textus Receptus, which is also vindicated
by Jerome, who, following out the etymology of the word,
defines it in the following terms—hi swnt, qui, postyuam pecca-
verint, non dolent. The heathen sinners are described as being
a class—oitives—beyond shame, or the sensation of regret.
Kiihner, § 781, 4,5. The apathy which characterized them
only induced a deeper recklessness, for they abandoned them-
selves to lasciviousness ; éavrovs being placed, as Meyer says,
mit abschreckendem Nachdruck—with terrific emphasis. Sub-
jection to this species of vice is represented as a Divine
punishment in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
—‘“God gave them up to it.” But here their own conscious
self-abandonment is brought out—they gave themselves up to
lasciviousness. Self-abandonment to deeper sin is the Divine
judicial penalty of sin. ’*Acedyela is insolence (Joseph. Antig.
iv. 612, xviii 13, 1; Plutarch, Alcibiades, viii.), and then
lust, open and unrestrained. Trench, Syn. § xvi. Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 184. This form of vice was predominant in the
old heathen world, and was indulged in without scruple or
reserve. Rom.i. 24, xiii. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v.19. The
apostle introduces it here as a special instance of that degraded
spiritual state which he had just described in the former verse.

eis épyaciay axalapoias taons—“to the working of all
uncleanness.” Eis denotes purpose, “in order to”—zrdons
being placed after the noun, and not, as more usually, before
it. ’Epyacia is not a trade, as in Acts xix. 25, nor the gain
of traffic, but as in Septuagint, Ex. xxvi. 1; 1 Chron. vi.
49. ’Axa@apoia in Matt. xxiii. 27 signifies the loathsome
impurity of a sepulchre; but otherwise in the New Testament,
and the instances are numerous, it usually denotes the special
sin of lewdness or unchastity. The vice generally is named
lasciviousness, but there were many shapes of it, and they
wrought it in all its forms. Even its most brutal modes were
famous among them, as the apostle has elsewhere indicated.
The refinements of art too often ministered to such grovelling
pursuits. The naked statues of the goddesses were not
exempted from rape (Lucian, Amores, 15, p. 272, vol. v. ed.
Bipont), and many pictures of their divinities were but the
excitements of sensual gratifications. The most honoured

a

EPHESIANS IV. 19. 333

| symbols in their possessions and worship were the obscenest,

and thus it was in India, Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, and

_ Etruria. There was a brisk female trade in potions to
induce sterility or barrenness. In fact, one dares not describe
_ the forms, and scenes, and temptations of impurity, or even
translate what classical poets and historians have revealed

without a blush. The relics preserved from Herculaneum and
Pompeii tell a similar tale, and are so gross that they cannot
meet the public eye. The reader will see some awful revela-
tions in Tholuck’s 7’ract on Heathenism, published in Neander’s
Denkwiirdigkeiten, and translated in the 2nd vol. of the

_ American Bib. Repository. Who can forget the sixth satire of
_ Juvenal ?

"Ev mdeoveEia— in greediness ”—the spirit in which they
gave themselves up to wantonness. The explanation of this
word is attended with difficulty :—1. Many refer the term to
the greed of gain derived from prostitution, and both sexes
were guilty of this abomination. Such is the view of Grotius,

3 Bengel, Koppe, Chandler, Stolz, Flatt, Meier, and _ Bihr.
_ 2. The Greek commentators educe the sense of ayetp/a—in-
satiableness; and also Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Roell,

Crocius, Harless, Stier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and

_ Trench, Syn. xxiv. Suicer, in his Thesaurus, says, “that
- such a meaning was no uncommon one among the Greek

fathers,” but they seem to have got it from the earlier inter-

_ pretations of this very verse. The meaning assigned it by

the Greek fathers cannot be sustained by the scriptural usage

to which appeal is made, as 1 Cor. v. 10, Eph. v. 3—as in

the first instance it is disjoined by 4 from zropvos, but joined

by «ai to the following dprafw according to preponderant

authority. In this epistle, v. 2, mopve‘a and axaBapcla
are joined by «ai, but dissociated from m)eovefia by 7—and
in v. 5, wAcovéxtns is termed an idolater. See under Col.
iii. 5. See Ellicott. 3. Olshausen takes it as meaning
“physical avidity, pampering oneself with meat and drink,
or that luxury and high feeding by which lust is provoked.”
“This last meaning suits well, and embodies a terrible and
disgusting truth, but it takes +Aeovef/a in a sense which can-
| not be borne out. Beza and Aretius render it certatim, as if
‘the heathen outvied one another in impurity. 4. We prefer

334 EPHESIANS IV. 20, 21.

the common meaning of the noun—*“greediness.” This
spirit of covetous extortion was an accompaniment of their
sensual indulgences. Self was the prevailing power—the
gathering in of all possible objects and enjoyments on one-
self was the absorbing occupation. This accompaniment of
sensualism sprang from the same root with itself, and was but
another form of its development. The heathen world mani-
fested the intensest spirit of acquisition. It showed itself in
its unbounded licentiousness, and its irrepressible thirst of
gold. There might be reckless and profligate expenditure on
wantonness and debauchery, but it was combined with insati-
able cupidity. Its sensuality was equalled by its sordid greed
—rréov, more; that point gained, mAéov—more still. Self
in everything, God in nothing.

(Ver. 20.) ‘Ypets dé ody od tws éwabete tov Xpiotov—< But
ye did not thus learn Christ.” 4é is adversative, and tpeis
is placed emphatically. Xpsoros is not simply the doctrine
or religion of Christ, as is the view of Crellius and Schlich-
ting, nor is it merely apet7—virtue, as Origen conceives it
(Catena, ed. Cramer, Oxford, 1842), but Christ Himself. Col.
ii. 6. See also Phil. iii. 10. Harless even, Riickert, Meier,
and Matthies, take the verb pav@dvw in the sense of “to
learn to know ”’—“ ye have not thus learned to know Christ.”
But this would elevate a mere result or reference to be part
of the translation. The knowledge of Christ is the effect of
learning Christ ; but it is of the process, not of its effect, that
the apostle here speaks. Christ was preached, and Christ was
learned by the audience—ottws. The manner of their learning
is indicated‘ Ye have not learned Christ so as to walk any
more like the rest of the Gentiles.” Your lessons have not
been of such a character—they have been given in a very
different form, and accompanied with a very different result.
Once dark, dead, dissolute, and apathetic, they had learned
Christ as the light and the life—as the purifier and perfecter
of His pupils. The following division of this clause is a vain
attempt—tpels 5¢ ody ovtws [éore]—“ but ye are not so;”— _
ye have learned Christ. Yet such an exegesis has the great
names of Beza and Gataker in its support. Adversaria Sacra,
p. 158.

(Ver. 21.) Elye adrov jxovcare— If indeed Him ye have —

EPHESIANS IV, 21. 335

heard ;” not in living person, but embodied and presented in
the apostolical preaching. 1 Cor.i, 23. The particle etye
does not directly assert, but rather takes for granted that
what is assumed is true. See under iii. 2.
kal év avT@ é5:5d4xOnre—“ and in Him were taught.” "Ep
avr@ signifies, as in other previous portions of the epistle—
“in Him,” that is, “in union with Him;” i. 7, etc. It does
not mean “ by Him,” as is the rendering of the English ver-
sion, and of Castalio, who translates—ab co, and of Beza, one
of whose versions is—yper eum. Still less can the words bear
the translation—about Him. It denotes, as is proved by
- Harless, Olshausen, and Matthies, preceded by Bucer—* in
Him.” Winer, § 48, a. It is the spiritual sphere or
condition in which they were taught. They had not received
a mere theoretic tuition. The hearing is so far only external,
but being “in Him,” they were effectually taught. One with
Him in spirit, they were fitted to become one with Him in
mind. The interpretation of Olshausen gives the words a
doctrinal emphasis and esoterism of meaning which they
cannot by any means bear. The hearing Christ and in Him
being taught, are equivalent to learning Christ, in the pre-
_ vious verse—are rather the two stages of instruction.
_ The connection of this clause with the next clause, and
_ with the following verse, has originated a great variety of
criticisms. The most probable interpretation is that of Beza,
_ Koppe, Flatt, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, and Winer, and
may be thus expressed: “If indeed ye heard Him, and in
_ Him were taught, as there is truth in Jesus—taught that ye
put off the old man.” This appears to be the simplest and
most natural construction. The apostle had been describing
_ the gloom, death, and impurity of surrounding heathenism.
His counsel is, that the Ephesian converts were not to walk
| in such a sphere; and his argument is, they had been better
_ tutored, for they learned Christ, had heard Him, and in Him
| had been taught that they should cast off the old man, the
| governing principle in the period of their irregeneracy, when
they did walk as the other Gentiles walked. Meyer and
| Baumgarten - Crusius, preceded by Anselm, Vatablus, and
| Bullinger, however, connect dro@écGa: in the following verse
with ddj0ca—it is “the truth in Jesus, that ye put off the

=~ ™

336 EPHESIANS IY. 21.

old man;” thus making it the subject of the sentence. The
instances adduced by Raphelius of such a construction in
Herodotus are scarcely to the point, and presuppose that
arnGeva has the same signification as the term voyos
employed by the historian. Meyer lays stress on the duds,
but it is added to mark the antithesis between their present
and former state. It is certainly more natural to connect it
with the preceding verb, but we cannot accede to the view of
Bengel, a-Lapide, Stier, and Zachariae, who join it with
paptvpopas in ver. 17, for in that case there would be a long
and awkward species of parenthesis. “Taught ”—

Kabus éotiv arjnOea év to ’Incotp—“as there is truth in
Jesus.” We cannot but regard the opinion of de Wette,
Harless, and Olshausen as defective, in so far as it restricts
the meaning of ad7Geva too much to moral truth or holiness.
“What in Jesus,” says Olshausen, “is truth and not sem-
blance, is to become truth also in believers.’ The idea of
Harless is, “As there is truth in Jesus, so on your part put
off the old man;” implying a peculiar comparison between
Jesus and the Ephesian believers addressed. This is not very
different from the paraphrase of Jerome—Quomodo est veritas
in Jesu sic ertt et in vobis qui didicistis Christum ; nor is the
paraphrase of Estius greatly dissimilar. The notions of the
Greek fathers are narrower still. &cumenius makes it the
same as Sixavocvvn. It means 7d dpOas Body, says Chry-
sostom ; and the same view, with some unessential variety, is
expressed by Luther, Camerarius, Raphelius, Wolf, Storr,
Flatt, Riickert, Meier, and MHolzhausen. But the noun
adnGeva does not usually bear such a meaning in the New
Testament, nor does the context necessarily restrict it here.
It is directly in contrast not only with amdrns in the next
verse, but with év wata.otnti—éoxoticpévoi—awyvoia in vers,
17,18. Nor can the word bear the meaning assigned to it
by those who make dazro@éc@ax depend upon it—their render-
ing being, “ If indeed ye heard Him, and in Him were taught,
as it is truth in Jesus for you to put off the old man.” The
meaning held by Meyer is, that unless the old man is laid
off, there is no true fellowship in Jesus. But this notion
elevates an inference to the rank of a fully expressed idea.
We take aA7@eva in its common meaning of spiritual truth,

EPHESIANS IV. 21. 337

that truth which the mediatorial scheme embodies—truth in
all its own fulness and circuit ; that truth especially which
lodged in the man Jesus—daA7Oea and év r@ Incod being one
conception. The words év t@ ‘Incod express the relation of
_the truth to Christ, not in any sense the fellowship of
believers with Him. The historical name of the Saviour is
employed, as if to show that this truth had dwelt with
humanity, and in Him whom, as Christ, the apostles preached,
and whom these Ephesians had heard and learned. We find
the apostle commencing his hideous portraiture of the heathen
world by an assertion that they were the victims of mental
vanity, that they had darkened intellects, and that there was
ignorance in them. But those believers, who had_ been
brought over from among them into the fold of Christ, were
' enlightened by the truth as well as guided by it, and must
‘have felt the power and presence of that truth in the
illumination of their minds as well as in the renewal of their
hearts and the direction of their lives. Why, then, should
' this same dA7Oea be taken here in a limited and merely
ethical sense? It wants the article, indeed, but still it may
‘bear the meaning we have assigned it. The article is in F,
G, but with no authority.
| The phrase, xaOws €otiw adryOea ev T@ 'Inood, points out
the mode of tuition which they had enjoyed. The meaning
of xaQws may be seen under i. 4, and here it is a predicate of
manner attached to the preceding verb. It stands in contrast
0 ovy otws in ver. 20—“ ye have not so learned "—ye have
not learned Him in such a way—ovy ottws—as to feel a licence
o walk like the other Gentiles, but ye heard Him, and in Him
ere taught in this way—«a0ws—as there is truth in Him.
It tells the kind of teaching which they had enjoyed, and the
next verse contains its substance. Their teaching was not
| according to falsehood, nor according to human invention, but
| according to truth, brought down to men, fitted to men, and
| communicated to men, by its being lodged in the man Jesus.
They were in Him—the Christ—and so came into living
contact with that truth which was and is in Jesus, This
‘appears on the whole to be a natural and harmonious inter-
pretation, and greatly preferable to that of Calixtus, Vatablus,
iscator, Wolf, and others, who give xa@ws the sense of “ that”
Y

338 EPHESIANS IV. 22.

—gquod; ye have been taught that there is truth in Jesus, or
what the truth in Jesus really is. Such a version breaks up
the continuity both of thought and syntax, and is not equal
to that of Flatt and Riickert, who give the xa@os an argu-
mentative sense—“ And ye in Him have been taught, for
there is truth in Him.” Calvin, Rollock, Zanchius, Mac-
knight, Rosenmiiller, and others, falsely suppose the apostle
to refer in this verse to two kinds of religious knowledge—
one vain and allied still to carnality, and the other genuine
and sanctifying in its nature. Credner’s opinion is yet wider
of the mark, for he supposes that the apostle refers to the
notion of an ideal Messiah, and shows its nullity by naming
him Jesus. “ Taught ”—

(Ver. 22.) ’AroGécOat twas— That you put off.’ The
infinitive, denoting the substance of what they had been thus
taught (Donaldson, § 584; Winer, 44, 3), is falsely rendered
as a formal imperative by Luther, Zeger, and the Vulgate.
Bernhardy, p. 358. Our previous version, “have put,’ is
not, as Alford says of it, “inconsistent with the context,
as in ver. 25,” for perfect change is not inconsistent with
imperfect development. But as Madvig, to whom Ellicott
refers, says, § 171, b—the aorist infinitive in such a case
“differs from the present only as denoting a single transient
action.” See on Phil. iii. 16. It is contrary alike to sense
and syntax on the part of Storr and Flatt, to take uuas
as governed by a7ofécPar—* that you put off yourselves !”
and it is a dilution of the meaning to supply dew, with
Piscator. "Arro0écOat and évdvcac@ar are figurative terms
placed in vivid contrast. *Azro#éc@at is to put off, as one puts
off clothes. Rom. xiii. 12-14; Col. ill. 8; Jas.1.21. Wet-
stein adduces examples of similar imagery from the classics,
and the Hebrew has an analogous usage. The figure has its
origin in daily life, and not, as some fanciful critics allege, in
any special instances of change of raiment at baptism, the
racecourse, or the initiation of proselytes. Selden, de Jure
Gentium, etc., lib. ii. 5; Vitringa, Observat. Sac..139. “That
you put off ”— f

Kata THv TpoTépay avactpopiy Tov Tadawov avOpwrov—
“as regards your former conversation, the old man.” It is
contrary to the ordinary laws of language to translate these

Tov Kata Tpotépay avaotpodyv. Yet this has been done by
Jerome and (Ecumenius, Grotius and Estius, Koppe, Rosen-
miiller, and Bloomfield. *Avaorpédw occurs under ii. 3. Gal.
i. 13; 1 Tim. iv. 12; Suicer, sub voce. This former conver-
sation is plainly their previous heathen or unconverted state.
The apostle says, they were not now to live like the rest of
heathendom, for they had been instructed to put off as regards
their manner of life, “ the old man ”—voy tradavdv advOpwrov.
Rom. vi. 6; Col. iii, 9. The meaning of a somewhat similar
idiom—o éow dvOpwros—may be seen under iii. 16. Rom.
vii. 22. It is needless to seek the origin of this peculiar phrase
in any recondite or metaphysical conceptions. It has its
foundation in our own consciousness, and in our own attempts
to describe or contrast its different states, and is similar to our
current usage, as when we speak of our “former self” and
our “present self,’ or when we speak of a man’s being
“beside himself” or coming “to himself.” It does not sur-
“prise us to find similar language in the Talmud, such as—
“the old Adam,” etc. Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. 516; Tr. Jova-
moth, 62. Phraseology not unlike occurs also among the
classics. Diogenes Laertius, 9,66. The words are, therefore,
-a bold and vivid personification of the old nature we inherit
' from Adam, the source and seat of original and actual trans-
gression. The exegesis of many of the older commentators does
"not come up to the full idea. This “self” or man is “old,”
not simply old in sin, as Jerome and Photius imagine—
| év Tais dpapriats TadaiwGeis—but as existing prior to our con-
verted state, and as Athanasius says—rov do Tis Trwgews
tod ’Aday yeyevvnpévov—yet not simply original sin. This
| old man within us is a usurper, and is to be expelled. As
| the Greek scholiast says, the old man is not gvovs in its
essential meaning, but—rijs dpaptias évépyea. With all

EPHESIANS IV. 22. 339
words as if the apostle had written—rov radaiv dvOpwrov
\

Tov POeipopevov Kata Tas emiOupias THs amatns—" being
| corrupt according to the lusts of deceit.’ Kara ras ém

Ovuias stands in contrast with cata Oeor in ver. 24, and rijs
| dadrns with tijs adnOelas of the same verse. The old man is
| growing corrupt, and this being his constant condition and

340 EPHESIANS IV. 22.

characteristic, the present tense is employed—the corruption
is becoming more corrupt. And this corruption does not
describe merely the unhappy state of the old man, for, as
Olshausen remarks, this opinion of Harless is superficial.
The old man is “corrupt,” filled with that sin which contains
elt it the elements of its own punishment, and he is unfitted
by this condition for serving God, possessing the Divine life,
or enjoying happiness. That corruption is described in some
of its features in vers. 17 and 18. But the apostle adds more
specifically—*“ according to the lusts of deceit.” The pre-
position «ard does not seem to have a causal significance.
Harless indeed ascribes to it a causal relation, but it seems to
have simply its common meaning of “according to” or “in
accordance with.” Winer,§49,d. °E7v@vuia is irregular and
excessive desire. Olshausen is wrong in confining the term
to sensual excesses, for he is obliged to modify the apostle’s
statement, and say, that “from such forms of sin individual
Gentiles were free, and so were the mass of the Jewish
nation.” But émiuuia is not necessarily sensual desire.
Where it has such a meaning—as in Rom. i. 24, 1 Thess.
iv. 5—the signification is determined by the context. The
“lusts of the flesh” are not restricted to fleshly longings.
Gal. v. 16,24. The term is a general one, and signifies those
strong and self-willed desires and appetites which distinguish
unrenewed humanity. Rom. vi. 12, vii. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 9;
Tit. iii, 3. The genitive—vis amatns—may be, as Meyer
takes it, the genitive of subject, amatn being personified.
Though it is a noun of quality, it is not to be looked on as
the mere genitive of quality. These lusts are all connected
with that deceit which is characteristic of sin; a deceit which
it has lodged in man’s fallen nature—the offspring of that first
and fatal lie which )

‘ “ Brought death into the world and all our woe.”

Heb. iii. 13; 2 Cor. xi. 3. This “deceit” which tyrannizes}
over the old man, as the truth guides and governs the new
man (ver. 24), is something deeper than the erroneous and
seductive teaching of heathen priests and philosophers. These
“lusts of deceit” seduce and ensnare under false pretensions.
There is the lust of gain, sinking into avarice ; of power swell-

EPHESIANS IV. 23 341

ing into ruthless and cruel tyranny; of pleasure falling into
beastly sensualism. Nay, every strong passion that fills the
spirit to the exclusion of God is a “lust.” Alas! this deceit
is not simply error. It has assumed many guises. It gives
_a refined name to grossness, calls sensualism gallantry, and
it hails drunkenness as good cheer. It promises fame and
renown to one class, wealth and power to another, and tempts
a third onward by the prospect of brilliant discovery. But
- genuine satisfaction is never gained, for God is forgotten, and
these desires and pursuits leave their victim in disappointment
and chagrin. “ Vanity of vanities,” cried Solomon in vexation,
after all his experiments on the swummum bonum. “TI will pull
_ down my barns, and build greater,” said another in the idea
that he had “ much goods laid up for many years ;” and yet, in
the very night of his fond imaginings, “ his soul was required
of him.” JBelshazzar drank wine with his grandees, and
_ perished in his revelry. The prodigal son, who for pleasure
and independence had left his father’s house, sank into penury
and degradation, and he, a child of Abraham, fed swine to a
heathen master.
(Ver. 23.) "Avaveotobar 5¢ 7 mvevpate Tod voos Lpav—
“ And be renewing in the spirit of your mind.” This passive
_ (not middle) infinitive present still depends on éd:d¢yOnte—6€
_ being adversative, as the apostle passes from the negative to
the positive aspect. As Olshausen has observed, all attempts
to distinguish between dvaveodc@at and dvaxaiwovcbai are
needless for the interpretation of this verse. See Trench,
~ Syn. xviii.; Col. iii. 10; Tittmann, p. 60. The ava, in com-
' position, denotes “again” or “ back”—restoration to some
' previous state—renovation. See on following verse. Such
_ moral renovation had its special seat “in the spirit of their
' mind.” ‘This very peculiar phrase has been in various ways
- misunderstood. (Ecumenius, Theophylact, Hyperius, Bull,
and Ellicott understand wvedua of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit
" renewing the mind by dwelling within it 8:4 rod mvevparos Tob
€v 7 vol Hpav xatouodvtos. See Fritzsche, ad Kom. vol. ii.
_p. 2. But, 1. The wvedya belongs to ourselves—is a portion
of us—language that can scarcely in such terms be applied
| to the Spirit of God. 2. Nor does Ellicott remove the
‘objection by saying that mvedpa is not “the Holy Spirit

—_= a =”

342 EPHESIANS IV. 23.

exclusively, or per se, but as*in a gracious union with the
human spirit.” This idea is in certain aspects theologically
correct, but is not conveyed by these words—zvedpa in
such a case cannot mean God’s Spirit, for it is called
Tov voos vuav; it is only man’s spirit though it be filled
with God’s. In Rom. viii. 6, the apostle makes a formal
distinction. 3. There is no analogous expression. None
of the genitives following wvetya are like this, but often
denote possession or character as Spirit of God—Spirit of
holiness—Spirit of adoption. 4. Nor can we give it the
meaning which Robinson has assigned it, of “disposition or
temper.” Quite like himself is the notion of Gfrorer, that
mvedua is but the rabbinical figment of a 7¥, founded on a
misinterpretation of Gen. li. 7, and denoting a kind of Divine
“breathing” or gift conferred on man about his twentieth
year. Urchrist. ii. p. 257. 5. Augustine, failing in his usual
acuteness, identifies mvedwa and vods—quia omnis mens
spiritus est, non autem omnis spiritus mens est, spiritum mentis
dicere voluit ewm spiritum, que mens vocatur. De Trinitate, lib.
xiv. cap. 16. Estius follows the Latin father. Grotius and
Crellius hold a similar view, joined by Koppe and Kiittner,
who idly make the unusual combination a mere periphrasis.
6. IIvevpa is not loosely, as Riickert and Baumgarten-Crusius
take it, the better part of the mind, or vovs; nor can we by
any means agree with Olshausen, who puts forth the following
opinion with a peculiar consciousness of its originality and
appropriateness—“ that mrvedua is the substance and vods the
power of the substance.” Such a notion is not supported by
the biblical psychology. 7. IIvedpa is the highest part of that
inner nature, which, in its aspect of thought and emotion, is
termed voids. So the apostle speaks of “ soul” and “ spirit”
—ryvy7 often standing to c@ya as trvedua to vods. It is not
merely the inmost principle, or as Chrysostom phrases it,
“the spirit which is in the mind,” but it is the governing
principle, as Theodoret explains it—rv opuny Tod voos mvev-
patixny eipnxe. This generally is the idea of Réell, Harless,
de Wette, Meier, and Turner. Meyer in his last edition
retracts his opinion in the second, and says that the usual
interpretation is correct, according to which—das mrvedya das
menschliche ist—that mvedpa being—das Hohere Lebensprineip.

EPHESIANS IV. 24. 343

Delitzsch, Bib. Psych. p. 144. The renewal takes place not
simply in the mind, but in the spirit of it. The dative points
out the special seat of renewal. Winer, § 31, 6, a; Matt. xi. 29;
Acts vii. 51; 1 Cor. xiv. 20. The mind remains as before,
both in its intellectual and emotional structure—in its memory
and judgment, imagination and perception. These powers do
not in themselves need renewal, and regeneration brings no
new faculties. The organism of the mind survives as it was,
but the spirit, its highest part, the possession of which distin-
guishes man from the inferior animals, and fits him for receiv-
ing the Spirit of God, is being renovated. The memory, for
example, still exercises its former functions, but on a very
different class of subjects; the judgment still discharging its
old office, is occupied among a new set of themes and ideas ;
and love, retaining all its ardour, attaches itself to objects quite
in contrast with those of its earlier preference and pursuit.
The change is not in mind psychologically, either in its
essence or in its operation ; neither is it in mind, as if it were
a superficial change of opinion, either on points of doctrine or
of practice; but it is “in the spirit of the mind,” in that
which gives mind both its bent and its materials of thought.
It is not simply in the spirit, as if it lay there in dim and
mystic quietude; but it is “in the spirit of the mind,” in the
power which, when changed itself, radically alters the entire
sphere and business of the inner mechanism.

(Ver. 24.) Kal évdvcacOar tov xawov avOpwrov—* And
put on the new man.” Col. iii. 10. The renewal, as Meyer
remarks, was expressed in the present tense, as if the moment
of its completion were realized in the putting on of the new
man, expressed by the aorist. The verb also is middle,
denoting a reflexive act. Trollope and Burton discover, we
know not by what divination, a reference in this phraseology
to baptism. The putting on of the new man presupposes the
laying off of the old man, and is the result or accompaniment
of this renewal; nay, it is but another representation of it,
This renewal in the spirit, and this on-putting of the new
man, may thus stand to each other as in our systems of theo-
logy regeneration stands to sanctification, The “new man
is Kawvos, not véos—recent. The apostle, in Col. iii. 10, says
‘rov véov Tov dvaxawovpevov; here he joins dvaveodo@a with

344 EPHESIANS IV. 24.

Tov Kawvov avOpwrov. In the other epistle the verbal term
from xaics is preceded by véos; in the place before us the
verbal term from véos is followed by caves. Néos generally
is recent—oivov véov, wine recently made, opposed to wadavor,
made long ago; doxovs xatvovs—fresh skins—opposed to
maXavovs, which had long been in use. Matt. ix. 17. So
xaivn Sia@yxn is opposed to the economy so long in existence
(Heb. viii. 8), but once it is termed véa (Heb. xii. 24) as
being of recent origin. Compare Rom. xii. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 16,
v. 15,17; Gal. vi. 15. Hence also, John xix. 41, pvnpetov
xawov—not a tomb of recent excavation, but one unused, and
thus explained, ev @ ovdémw ovdels éréOy. Pillon, Syn. Grecs.
332. The “new man” is in contrast with the “old man,”
and represents that new assemblage of holy principles and
desires which have a unity of origin, and a common result of
operation. The “new man” is not, therefore, Christ Himself,
as is the fancy of Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Hilary, De Trini-
tate, lib. xii. The origin of the “new man” is next shown—

Tov Kata Ocov xticbévra— who was created after God.”
Winer, § 49, d. What the apostle affirms is not that creation
is God’s work and prerogative and His alone, but that as the
first man bore His image, so does the new man, for he is
created cata @eov, “according to God,” or in the likeness
of God; or, as the apostle writes in Col. iii, 10, nav’ eixova
Tod Kticavtos avtov. Hofmann’s exegesis is feeble and
incorrect—von dem gottlicher Weise geschaffenen Menschen.
The allusion is to Gen. i. 27. What God created, man
assumes. The newness of this man is no absolute novelty,
for it is the recovery of original holiness, As the Creator
stamps an image of Himself on all His workmanship, so the
first man was made in His similitude, and this new man, the
result also of His plastic energy, bears upon him the same
test and token of his Divine origin; for the moral image of
God reproduces itself in him. It is no part of our present
task to inquire what were the features of that Divine image
which Adam enjoyed. See under Col. iii. 10; Miiller, Lehre
von der Stinde, vol. ii. p. 482, 3rd ed. The apostle characterizes
the new man as being created—

év Suxatocvvn Kal oavotnte THs adnOevas—in the right-
eousness and holiness of the truth”—the elements in which

EPHESIANS IV. 24. 345

_ this creation manifests itself. Morus and Flatt, on the one
hand, are in error when they regard éy as instrumental, for

the preposition points to the manifestation or development
of the new man; and Koppe and Beza blunder also in sup-
posing that év may stand for eis, and denote the result of the
new creation. In Col. iii. 10, as Olshausen remarks, “the
intellectual aspect of the Divine image is described, whereas
in the passage before us prominence is given to its ethical
aspect.” In Wisdom ii. 23, the physical aspect is sketched.
Aixatocvvn is that moral rectitude which guides the new man
in all relationships. It is not bare equity or probity, but it
leads its possessor to be what he ought to be to every other

creature in the universe. The vices reprobated by the apostle

in the following verses, are manifest violations of this right-
eousness. It follows what is right, and does what is right,
in all given circumstances. See under v. 9. ‘Oovorns, on
the other hand, is piety or holiness—Ta pos tovs avOpwrous
Sixaia Kal Ta Tpos Tovs Oeovs dora. Scholium, Hecuba, v. 788.
The two terms occur in inverted order in Luke i. 75, and the
adverbs are found in 1 Thess. ii. 10; Tit. i. 8. The new
man has affinities not only with created beings, but he has a
primary relationship to the God who made him, and who
surely has the first claim on his affection and duty. Whatever
feelings arise out of the relation which a redeemed creature
bears to Jehovah, this piety leads him to possess—such as
veneration, confidence, and purity. Both righteousness and

holiness are—

Tis adnOeras—“ of the truth.” John i. 17; Rom i. 25,

iii. 7. This subjective genitive is not to be resolved into an
adjective, after the example of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bodius,

;
)
}
"
i
h
¢
*
of
~

y
Als

n
’
E

Grotius, Holzhausen, and the English version, as if the mean-
ing were—true righteousness and holiness; nor can it be

_ regarded as joining to the list a distinct and additional virtue
_—an opinion advanced by Pelagius, and found in the reading
of D', F, G—xal ddnOeia. Those critics referred to who give
_ the genitive the simple sense of an adjective, think the meaning
to be “true,” in opposition to what is assumed or counterfeit ;
while the Greek fathers imagine the epithet to be opposed to
the typical holiness of the ancient Israel. The exegesis of

Witsius, that the phrase means such a desire to please as is

346 EPHESIANS IV. 25.

in harmony with truth (De Gconomia Federum, p. 15), is as
truly against all philology as that of Cocceius, that it denotes
the studious pursuit of truth. “H dd7@ea in connection with
the new man, stands opposed to 7 awdtn in connection with
the old man, and is truth in Jesus. While this spiritual
creation is God’s peculiar work—for He who creates can
alone re-create—this truth in Jesus has a living influence
upon the heart, producing, fostering, and sustaining such
rectitude and piety.

The question of natural and moral ability does not come
fairly within the compass of discussion in this place. The
apostle only says, they had been taught the doctrine of a
decided and profound spiritual change, which had developed
its breadth and power in a corresponding alteration of cha-
racter. He merely states the fact that the Ephesians had
been so taught, but how they had been taught the doctrine,
in what connections, and with what appliances and argu-
ments, he says not. Its connection with the doctrine of
spiritual influence is not insisted on. “ Whatever,” says Dr.
Owen, “ God worketh in us in a way of grace, He presenteth
unto us in a way of duty, and that, because although He do
it in us, yet He also doth it by us, so as that the same work is
an act of His Spirit, and of our own will as acted thereby.”
On the Holy Spirit, Works, ii. p. 4382; Edinburgh, 1852,
See under i. 1.

The apostle descends now from general remarks to special
sins, such sins as were common in the Gentile world, and to
which Christian converts were, from the force of habit and
surrounding temptation, most easily and powerfully seduced.

(Ver. 25.) 41d amroBéuevos Td Yrevdos—* Wherefore, having
put away lying.” By 6u0—“wherefore”—he passes to a deduc-
tion in the form of an application. See under ii.11. Since the
old man and all his lusts are to be abandoned, and the new
man assumed who is created in the righteousness and holiness
of the truth—arnOeva; the vice and habit of falsehood—pedSos
—are to be dropt. Col. iii. 9. It might be a crime palliated
among their neighbours in the world, but it was to have no
place in the church, being utterly inconsistent with spiritual
renovation. The counsel then is—

Aareite GrnOevav, ExacTos weTAa TOU TANTIov avTov—* speak

EPHESIANS IV. 25. 347

ye truth every one with his neighbour.” The clause is found
in Zech. viii. 16, with this variation, that the apostle uses peTa
for the mpés of the Septuagint which represents the particle in
wmyyns, The “neighbour,” as the following clause shows, is
not men generally, as Jerome, Augustine, Estius, and Grotius
suppose, but specially Christian brethren. Christians are to
speak the whole truth, without distortion, diminution, or
exaggeration. No promise is to be falsified—no mutual
understanding violated. The word of a Christian ought to be
as his bond, every syllable being but the expression of “ truth
in the inward parts.” The sacred majesty of truth is ever
to characterize and hallow all his communications. It is
of course to wilful falsehood that the apostle refers—for a
man may be imposed upon himself, and unconsciously deceive
others—to what Augustine defines as falsa significatio cum
voluntate fallendi. As may be seen from the quotations
made by Whitby and other expositors, some of the heathen
philosophers were not very scrupulous in adherence to truth,
and the vice of falsehood was not branded with the stigma
which it merited. And the apostle adds asa cogent reason—

Ste é€opev adArAnAwWY péAn—“ for we are members one of
another.” Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12—27. Christians are bound
up together by reciprocal ties and obligations as members of
the one body of which Christ is the one Head—the apostle
glancing back to the image of the 16th verse. Their being
-members one of another springs from their living union with
Christ. Trusting in one God, they should therefore not create
distrust of one another; seeking to be saved by one faith, they
should not prove faithless to their fellows; and professing to
be freed by the truth, they ought not to attempt to enslave their
brethren by falsehood. Truthfulness is an essential and pri-
mary virtue. Chrysostom, taking the figure in its mere applica-
tion to the body, draws out a long and striking analogy—“ Let
not the eye lie to the foot, nor the foot to the eye. If there bea
deep pit, and its mouth covered with reeds shall present to the
eye the appearance of solid ground, will not the eye use the
foot to ascertain whether it is hollow underneath, or whether
it is firm and resists? Will the foot tell a lie, and not the
truth as it is? And what again if the eye were to spy a
serpent or a wild beast, will it lie to the foot?” ete.

348 EPHESIANS IV. 26.

(Ver. 26.) "OpyifecOe kai un dpaptavere—“ Be ye angry
and sin not.” This language is the same as the Septuagint
translation of Ps. iv. 4. The verb #31 may bear such a
sense, as Hengstenberg maintains,-—Prov. xxix. 9; Isa. xxvii.
21; Ezek. xvi. 43,—though Gesenius, Hupfeld, Ewald, and
Phillips maintain that the meaning is “tremble,” or “stand
in awe,” as in the English version. Delitzsch also renders
Bebet—“ quake,” Tholuck, Hrzittert, and J. Olshausen, Zittert.
The Hebrew verb is of the same stock with the Greek dpyn
and the Saxon “rage,” and denotes strong emotion. The
peculiar idiom has been variously understood: 1. Some under-
stand it thus—*If ye should be angry, see that ye do not sin.”
Such is the view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Gicumenius,
Piscator, Wolf, Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Holz-
hausen, Meier, and Bishop Butler; while Harless supposes
the meaning to be—ziirnet in der rechten Weise—be angry in
the right way. Hitzig renders it grollet, aber verfehlt euch
nicht. 2. Beza, Grotius, Clarius, and Zeltner take the first
verb in an interrogative sense—Are ye angry? It is plain
that the simple construction of the second clause forbids such
a supposition. The opinion of the Greek fathers has been
defended by a reference to Hebrew syntax, in which, when
two imperatives are joined, the first expresses a condition, and
the second a result. Gesenius, § 127, 2; Nordheimer, § 1008.
This clause does not, however, come under such a category,
for its fair interpretation under such a law would be—“ Be
angry, and so ye shall not sin,” or, as in the common phrase
—divide et impera—* divide, and thou shalt conquer.” The
second imperative does not express result, but contemporaneous
feeling. 3. Nor do we see any good grounds for adopting the
notion of a permissive imperative, as is argued for by Winer,
§ 43, 2'—“ Be angry ”"—(I cannot prevent it), 1 Cor. vii.
13. As Meyer has remarked, there is no reason why the one
imperative should be permissive and the other jussive, when
both are connected by the simple cat. 4. The phrase is idio-
matic—‘“ Be angry ”—(when occasion requires), “but sin
not ;” the main force being on the second imperative with pm.
It is objected to this view by Olshausen and others, that anger
is forbidden in the 31st verse. But the anger there repro-—

1 Moulton, p. 392. |

EPHESIANS IV. 26. 349

bated is associated with dark malevolence, and regarded as the
offspring of it. Anger is not wholly forbidden, as Olshausen
imagines it is. It is an instinctive principle—a species of
thorny hedge encircling our birthright. But in the indulgence
of it, men are very apt to sin, and therefore they are cautioned
against it. Ifa mere trifle put them into a storm of fury—if
they are so excitable as to fall into frequent fits of ungovern-
able passion, and lose control of speech or action—if urged
by an irascible temper they are ever resenting fancied affronts
and injuries, then do they sin. Matt. v. 21,22. But specially
_ do they sin, and herein lies the danger, if they indulge anger
for an improper length of time :—

0 HALtos py emidvéTw er) TO Tapopyicuo tuaov— let not
the sun go down upon your indignation.” Similar phrase-
ology occurs in Deut. xxiv. 15; in Philo, and in Plutarch.
See Wetstein, iz Joc. apopyicpos, a term peculiar to
biblical Greek, is a fit of indignation or exasperation; mapd
—referring to the cause or occasion; while the dpy7, to be
put away from Christians, is the habitual indulgence of anger.
1 Kings xv. 30; 2 Kings xxiii, 26; Neh. ix. 18. IIapop-
yiouos is not in this clause absolutely forbidden, as Trench

wrongly supposes (Synon. p. 141), but it is to cease by
sunset. The day of anger should be the day of reconciliation.
It is to be but a brief emotion, slowly excited and very soon
dismissed. If it be allowed to lie in the mind, it degenerates
into enmity, hatred, or revenge, all of which are positively
and in all circumstances sinful. To harbour ill-will; to feed
a grudge, and keep it rankling in the bosom; or to wait a
fitting opportunity for successful retaliation, is inconsistent
with Christian discipleship—* Let not the sun go down upon
your wrath.” Augustine understands by sun, “the Sun of
righteousness” (on Ps. xxv.; Op. vol. iv. p. 15, ed. Paris), and
Anselm “the sun of reason.” Theodoret well says—pétpov
Ewxe TO Ovpao Tis huépas TO pétpov. The Pythagorean
disciple was to be placated, and to shake hands with his foe
—rplv 4 rov troy Sivas. Plutarch, de Am. Frat. 488, b."

1 The exegesis of the witty Thomas Fuller may be subjoined: ‘‘St. Paul saith

—‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath ;’ to carry news to the antipodes
fn another world of thy revengeful nature. Yet let us take the apostle’s
‘meaning rather than his words—with all possible speed to depose our passion ;

350 EPHESIANS IV. 27, 28.

(Ver. 27.) Mnéé diSore torov rH SiaBokw~—* Also give
no place to the devil.” Mnéé, not pyre, is the true reading,
upon preponderant authority, and closely connects this clause
with the preceding exhortation, not certainly logically or as a
_ developed thought, but numerically as an allied injunction,
more closely than what Klotz calls fortucitus concursus. Ad
Devar. ii. p. 6. Hartung, i. 210; Buttmann, § 149; Winer,
§ 55, 6; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157. ‘O éudBoros is plainly
the Evil One, not viewed simply in his being, but in some
special element of his character. It is wrong to render it
here—the accuser or calumniator, though the Syriac version,
Luther, Er. Schmid, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, have so
rendered it. The notion of Harless appears to be too
restricted, namely, that the reference is to Satan as endanger-
ing the life and peace of the Christian church, not as gaining
the ascendency over individuals. To “give place to,” is to
yield room for, dare locum. Luke xiv. 9; Rom. xii. 19;
Cicero, de Natura Deorwm, ii. 33. See also Wetstein, in loc.
The idea indicated by the connection is, that anger nursed in
the heart affords opportunity to Satan. Satan has sympathy
with a spiteful and malignant spirit, it is so like his own.
Envy, cunning, and malice are the pre-eminent feelings of the
devil, and if wrath gain the empire of the heart, it lays it

open to him, and to those fiendish passions which are—

identified with his presence and operations. Christians are
not, by the indulgence of angry feeling, to give place to him;
for if he have any place, how soon may he have all place!
Give him “ place” but in a point, and he may speedily cover
the whole platform of the soul.

(Ver. 28.) ‘O krérrtav unkéte KrXeTTéEToW— Let the stealer
steal no more.” We cannot say that the present participle is
here used for the past, as is done by the Vulgate in its gui
furabatur, by Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Cramer, and others,
Even some MSS. have o kréyas. “O xrdértwv is the thief,

not understanding him so literally that we may take leave to be angry till —
sunset: then might our wrath lengthen with the days ; and men in Greenland, —

where days last above a quarter of a year, have plentiful scope of revenge. And
as the English, by command from William the Conqueror, always raked up
their fire and put out their candles when the curfew-bell was rung, let us then
also quench all sparks of anger and heat of passion.” Holy and Profane State,
p. 161 ; London, 1841.

|
.

;

A ra

EPHESIANS IY. 28. 351

one given to the vice of thieving, or, as Peile renders it, “the
thievish person.” Winer, § 45, 7; Bernhardy, p. 318; Gal. i. 23.
It is something, as Stier says, between «reas and «dérrns.
Some, again, shocked at the idea that any connected with the
Ephesian church should be committing such a sin, have
attempted to attenuate the meaning of the term. Jerome set
the example, and he has been followed by Calvin, Bullinger,
Estius, Zanchius, Holzhausen, and partially by Hodge. But
the apostle condemns theft in every form, and in all probability
he alludes to some peculiar aspect of it practised by a section
of the idle population of Ephesus. According to the testimony
of Eusebius, in the tenth chapter of the sixth book of his
Preparatio Evangelica, throughout the Eastern world few
persons were much affronted by being convicted of theft—
0 Aodopovpevos ws KAETTNS OV Tavy ayavaxte. See 1 Cor.
v. 1, and 2 Cor. xii. 21, for another class of sinners in the
early church. The apostle’s immediate remedy for the vice is
honourable industry, with a view to generosity—
padXov Sé xomiatw épyatopevos tats dias xepaly To ayabov
-—*“but rather let him labour, working with his own hands
that which is good.” The differences of reading are numerous
in this brief clause. In some MSS. rats yepoiv is omitted,
and in others 7d dyaOov. Clement reads simply 10 dyaGor,
and Tertullian only tats xepow. Some insert idiais_before
xepoiv, and others affix avrod after it. Several important
MSS., such as A, D', E F,G; the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic,
and Ethiopic Armenian; Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Epi-
_ phanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius—read rats idiacs
xepoiv To dyaOov. Lachmann adopts this reading; K inverts
_ this order, 76 dyaOov traits iSlacs yepoly ; but Tischendorf, Hahn,
and Alford read 76 daya6ov rais yepalv, with L and the great
' Majority of mss. Chrysostom, Theophylact, (Ecumenius,
"and the Received Version. B has tais yepoly 70 dyabov.
We agree with Stier in saying that Harless and Olshausen
| overlook the proof, when at once they prefer the shortest
| reading, and treat 76 dyaOov as an interpolation taken from
| Gal. vi. 10. Maddov S¢—but “ rather or in preference ” let
| him work, and with his own hands, tais /ddats xepotv. “Id«os,
like proprius in Latin instead of suus or gus, is here _used
| with distinct force. Matt. xxv. 15; John x. 3; Rom. vi. 32;

352 EPHESIANS IV. 29.

Winer, § 22, 7. Manual employment was the most common
in these times. Acts xx. 34; 1 Thess. iv. 11. To dyaOor is
something useful and profitable. His hands had done what
was evil, and now these same were to be employed in what
was good. Ifa man have no industrious calling, if he cannot
dig, and if to beg he is ashamed, his resort is to plunder for
self-support :
‘* Now goes the nightly thief, prowling abroad
For plunder ; much solicitous how best

He may compensate for a day of sloth
By works of darkness and nocturnal wrong.”

But if a man be active and thrifty, then he may have not only
enough for himself, but even enjoy a surplus out of which he
may relieve the wants of his destitute brethren—

iva éyn weTadioovar TH Ypelav éyovrc—“ that he may have
to give to him who hath need.” This is a higher motive than
mere self-support, and is, as Olshausen remarks, a specifically
Christian object. Not only is the thief to work for his own
maintenance, but Christian sympathy will cheer him in his
manual toil, for the benefit of others. Already in the days of
his indolence had he stolen from others, and now others were
to share in the fruits of his honest labour—truest restitution.
“Tt is more blessed to give than to receive.”

(Ver. 29.) IIas Xoyos campos ex tov atowatos UuoVv py
extropevéc Ow—* Let no filthy word come out of your mouth.”
This strong negation contained in the use of was with py, is a
species of Hebraism. Winer, N 26,1; Ewald, Heb. Gram.
§ 576. The general meaning of campos is foul, rotten, use-
less, though sometimes, from the idea of decay—old, obsolete,
ugly, or worthless. Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, p. 337. In Matt.
vii. 17, 18, xii. 33, and in Luke vi. 43, the epithet charac-
terizes trees and their fruit, and in the Vulgate is rendered
simply malus. In Matt. xiii. 48, it is applied to fishes. In
all these places the contrasted adjective is dyaO0s. Locke in ~
his paraphrase has, “no misbecoming word.” The term is of
course used here in a tropical sense, but its meaning is not to—
be restricted, as Grotius advocates, to unchaste or obscene —
conversation, which is afterwards and specially forbidden. It
signifies what is noxious, offensive, or useless, and refers to”
language which, so far from yielding “grace” or benefit, has a

s 4

EPHESIANS IV. 29. 353

tendency to corrupt the hearer. 1 Cor. xv. 33; Col. iv. 6.
Chrysostom, deriving his idea from the contrast of the follow-
ing clause, defines the term thus—d gy tiv idlav ypelay
_ mnpot ; and several vices of the tongue are also named by
_him, with evident reference to Col. iii. 8. Meier narrows its
meaning, when he regards it as equivalent to dpyds in Matt.
xii. 36. May there not be reference to sins already con-
demned? All falsehoods and equivocations; all spiteful
epithets and: vituperation; all envious and vengeful detrac-
tion ; all phrases which form a cover for fraud and chicanery
—are filthy speech, and with such language a Christian’s
mouth ought never to be defiled. “ Nothing ”—
GN’ el tis ayab0s pds oixodouny Tis ypelas—* but that
which is good for edification of the need.” Instead of xypecas,
some MSS., as D’, E!, F, G, and some of the Latin fathers,
read miotews, which is evidently an emendation, as Jerome
has hinted. “A-yaOos, followed by pds, signifies “ good,” in
the sense of “suitable,” or rather serviceable for, examples of
which may be found in Kypke, Observat. ii, 298; Passow,
sub voce; Rom. xv. 2. Our version, following Beza, inverts
_ the order and connection of the two nouns, and renders, “ for
_ the use of edifying,” whereas Paul says, “ for edification of the
need.” Xpeias, as the genitive of object, is almost personified.
To make it the genitive of “ point of view,” with Ellicott, is a
needless refinement. The paraphrase of Erasmus, gud sit opus—
and that of Casaubon, quoties opus est, are defective, inasmuch
as they suppose the need to be only incidental or occasional,
whereas the apostle regards it as a pressing and continuous
fact. The precious hour should never be polluted with corrupt
speech, nor should it be wasted in idle and frivolous dialogue.
We are not indeed to “give that which is holy to dogs”—a
_ due and delicate appreciation of time and circumstance must
_ govern the tongue. Jucta, says Jerome, jurta opportunttatem

J

. ~~ vo Fs

va 8@ ydpw tots dxovovow—" that it may give grace to
» hearers.” Xdpis is taken by some to signify what is
Z

354 EPHESIANS IY. 30.

agreeable or acceptable. Theodoret thus explains it—iva
gavn Sextos tots adxovove.— that it may seem pleasant to
the hearer;” and the same view has been held by Luther,
Riickert, Meier, Matthies, Burton, and the lexicographers
Robinson, Bretschneider, Wilke, Wahl, and Schleusner. One
of the opinions of Chrysostom is not dissimilar, since he
compares such speech to the grateful effect of ointment or
perfume on the person. That yapis may bear such a meaning
is well known, but does it bear such a sense in such a phrase
as ydpw dovar? In Plut. Agis. c. 18—SedaxoTa ydpuy ;
Euripides, Medea, v. 702—rvde cou Sodvar yap ; Sophocles,
Ajax, 1354—péuvno’ oroim dott thy yapw didws ; and in
other quotations adduced by Harless, yapiw Sodvar is “to
confer a favour—to bestow a gift.” Ast, Lex Platon. sub voce.
So we have the phrase in Jas. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5; and it is
found also in the Septuagint, Ex. ili. 21; Ps. Ixxxiv. 12.
And such is the view of Olshausen, Harless, Meyer, de Wette,
and in former times of Bullinger, Zanchius, and virtually of
Beza, Grotius, Elsner, and Calvin. Speech good to the edifi-
cation of need brings spiritual benefit to the hearer; it may
excite, or deter, or counsel—stir him to reflection or afford
materials of thought. “A word spoken in season, how good
is it! like apples of gold in pictures of silver.” Prov.
Sxve bd.

Ver. 30. Kal py) Avtreite TO Ivedpa 70 dytov tod Ocod—
“ And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.” The term wvedua,
and the epithet dyov, have been already explained under
i. 13, and solemnly and emphatically is the article repeated.
He is called the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit of God,
each term having a distinct and suggestive significance. This
sentence is plainly connected with the previous exhortations, |
and specially by «ai, with the preceding counsel. And the
connection appears to be this :—Obey those injunctions as to”
abstinence from falsehood, malice, dishonesty, and especially
corrupt speech, and grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, |
True, indeed, the Godhead is unruffled in its calm, yet there
are feelings in it so analogous to those excited in men, that
they are named after such human emotions, The Holy Spirit
represents Himself as susceptible of affront and of sorrow.
ITapofvvew is used in a similar passage in Isa, lxiii, 10

EPHESIANS IY. 30. 355

| by the Seventy, but it is not a perfect representation of the
original Hebrew—23Y. We regard it as wrong to dilute the
meaning of the apostle, explaining it either with Bengel—
_contristatur Spiritus Sanctus non in se sed in nobis ; or rashly
affirming with Baumgarten-Crusius, that the personality of
the Holy Spirit is only a form of representation, and no
proof of what Harless calls objective reality; or still further
declaring with Rieger, that the term Spirit may be referred
to—des Menschen neugeschaffenen Geist—*the renewed spirit
of man;” or, in fine, so attenuating the meaning with de
. Wette as to say, that by the Holy Spirit is to be understood
‘moral sentiment, as depicted from the Christian point of view.
It is the Holy Spirit of God within us (not in others, as
Thomas Aquinas imagines), that believers grieve—not the
Father, nor the Son, but the blessed Spirit, who, as the applier
of salvation, dwells in believers, and consecrates their very
bodies as His temple. Eph. ii. 22; 1 Cor. vi 19; Rom. viii.
26,27. According to our view, the verse is a summation
of the argument—the climax of appeal. If Christians shall
persist in falsehood and deviation from the truth—if they
shall indulge in fitful rage or cherish sullen and malignant
dislikes—if they shall be characterized by dishonesty, or
idle and corrupt language—then, though they may not grieve
-man, do they grieve the Holy Spirit of God, for all this per-
‘verse insubordination is in utter antagonism to the essence
and operations of Him who is the Spirit of truth, and inspires
the love of it; who assumed, as a fitting symbol, the form
-of a dove, and creates meekness and forbearance; and who
‘as the Spirit of holiness, leads to the appreciation of all
‘that is just in action, noble in sentiment, and healthful and
‘edifying in speech. What can be more grieving to the Holy
‘Ghost than our thwarting the very purpose for which He
‘dwells within us, and contravening all the promptings and
‘suggestions with which He warns and instructs us? Since it
‘is His special function to renew the heart, to train it to the
| abandonment of sin, ard to the cultivation of holiness—and
| since for this purpose He has infleshed Himself and dwells in
| us as a tender, watchful, and earnest yuardian, is He not
| grieved with the contumacy and rebellion so often manifested
‘against Him? Nay mvve—

356 EPHESIANS IV. 30.

ev © éadpayicOnte eis nugpay atrodkuTpwcews— in whom
ye were sealed for the day of redemption.” Eis is “ for ”—
reserved for, implying the idea of “until;” the genitive being
a designation of time by its characteristic event. Winer, § 30,
2,a. For the meaning of the verb éo¢payicO@nre, the explana-
tion already given under i. 14 may be consulted. It is a
grave error of Chandler and Le Clerc to refer this sealing to
the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; for surely these were not
possessed by all the members of the church, nor could we
limit the sin of grieving the Spirit to the abuse of the gift of
prophecy, which the second of these expositors supposes to
be specially intended in the preceding verse. In i. 14, the
apostle speaks of the redemption of the purchased posses-
sion, and that period is here named “the day of redemp-
tion.” The noun dazodvtpwats has already occupied us under
i. 14, and the comment needs not be repeated. This clause
is evidently an argument, or the motive why believers should
not grieve the Holy Spirit. If He seal you, and so confirm
your faith, and preserve you to eternal glory—if your hope of
glory, your preparation for it, and especially your security as
to its possession, be the work of God’s blessed Spirit, why
will you thus grieve Him? There is no formal mention
made of the possibility of apostasy, or of the departure of the
Spirit. Nor does it seem to be implied, as the verb “ sealed ”
intimates. They who are sealed are preserved—the seal is
not to be shivered or effaced. A security that may be broken
at any time, or the value of which depends on man’s own
fidelity and guardianship, is no security at all. Not only
does the Socinian Slichtingius hold that the seal may be
broken, but we find even the Calvinist Zanchius speaking —
of the possibility of so losing the seal as to lose salvation:
and in such an opinion some of the divines of the Reforma-—
tion, such an Aretius, join him. The Fathers held a similar
view. Theophylact warns—p» Avons THY odpayida. See
also the Shepherd of Hermas, ii. 10, where the phrase occurs
—pnrote évtevEntat T@ Oed Kal aroctH amo cov. Ambrosi-
aster says—Quia deserit nos, eo quod leserimus eum. Harless*
admits that the phrase may teach the possibility of the loss of
the seal; while Stier displays peculiar keenness against those ~
who held the opposite doctrine, or what he calls—pradesti

EPHESIANS IV. 31, 357

tionisches Missverstdndniss. Were the apostle speaking of

the striving of the Spirit, or of His ordinary influences, the

possibility of His departure might be thus admitted. Gen.

vi. 3; Isa. xiii, 10; Acts vii.51. Or if he had said—grieve

not the Holy Spirit, by whom men are sealed, or whose func-
tion it is to seal men, the hypothesis of Stier would not be

denied. But the inspired writer says—“ by whom ye were
sealed.” They had been sealed, set apart, and secured, for
_ perseverance is the crowning blessing and prerogative of the
saints ; not to say, with Meyer, that if the view of Harless
_ were correct—rrapofuvere would have been the more natural
| expression. The apostle appeals not to their fears, lest the
|

~~ y -

Spirit should leave them; but he appeals to their sense of
gratitude, and entreats them not to wound this tender, con-
tinuous, and resident Benefactor. 2 Cor. i. 21. It may be
. said to a prodigal son—grieve not your father lest he cast
- you off; or grieve not your mother lest you break her heart.
_ Which of the twain is the stronger appeal? and this is the
: question we put as our reply to Alford and Turner. In fine,
the patristic and popish phraseology, in which this seal is
applied to the imposition of hands, to baptism, or the sacra-
ment of confirmation, is wholly foreign from the sense and
_ purpose of the passage before us, though its clauses have been
often adduced in proof. Catechismus Roman. § 311; Suicer,
| sub voce ofppayss.
Ver. 31. Idea tixpia, cal Oupos, kai opyn, xal Kpavyn, cal
| Pracdnpia, apOntw ad’ tpav, civ macy Kaxia— Let all bit-
terness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking
be put away from you, with all malice;’—all feelings incon-
sistent with love—all emotions opposed to the benign influence
and presence of the Divine Spirit—were to be abandoned.
IT ixpia—“ bitterness ”—is a figurative term denoting that
fretted and irritable state of mind that keeps a man in per-
_ petual animosity—that inclines him to harsh and uncharitable
opinions of men and things—that makes him sour, crabbed,
and repulsive in his general demeanour—that brings a scowl
over his face, and infuses venom into the words of his tongue.
Rom. iii, 14; Jas. iiii, 14. Wetstein, under Rom. iii. 14,
“has adduced several examples of the similar use of expla
f om the classical writers, Aristotle justly says—oi 5é arixpob

358 EPHESIANS IV. 31.

Svaduddrvtot, Kal ToAdy xpovoy dpyifovTal, KaTéyovaL yap TOV
@vpov. Loesner has also brought some apposite instances
from Philo, Observat. ad N. T. p. 345. Ovpos is that mental
excitement to which such bitterness gives rise—the commo-
tion or tempest that heaves and infuriates within. Donaldson,
New Cratylus, § 476. ’Opyn (Deut. ix. 19) is resentment,
settled and dark hostility, and is therefore condemned. See
under iv. 26. ‘O @upos yevyntixes éote THs opyns—is the
remark of (Ecumenius. See Trench, Synon. § 37; Tittmann,
de Synon. p. 132; Donaldson, New Cratylus,§ 477. Kpavyn
—*clamour,” is the expression of this anger—hoarse reproach,
the high language of scorn and scolding, the yelling tones,
the loud and boisterous recrimination, and the fierce and
impetuous invective that mark a man in a towering rage. Ira
Juror brevis est. “ Let women,” adds Chrysostom, “ especially
attend to this, as they on every occasion cry out and brawl.
There is but one thing in which it is needful to cry aloud, and
that is in teaching and preaching.” Bracdynuia—signifies
what is hurtful to the reputation of others, and sometimes
is applied to the sin of impious speech toward God. It is
the result or one phase of the clamour implied in xpavyn, for
anger leads not only to vituperation, but to calumny and
scandal. In the intensity of passion, hot and hasty rebuke
easily and frequently passes into foulest slander. The wrathful
denouncer exhausts his rage by becoming a reviler. Col. ili.
8; 1 Tim. vi. 4. All these vicious emotions are to be put
away. Kaxia is a generic term, and seems to signify what
we sometimes call in common speech bad-heartedness, the
root of all those vices. 1 Pet. ii. 1. Let all these vices be
abandoned, with every form and aspect of that condition of
mind in which they have their origin, and of that residuum
which the indulgence of them leaves behind it. The word is
in contrast with the epithet, “tender-hearted,” in the follow-
ing verse. Now this verse contains not only a catalogue, but
a melancholy genealogy of bad passions—acerbity of temper
exciting passion—that passion heated into indignation—that
indignation throwing itself off in indecent brawling, and that
brawling darkening into libel and abuse—a malicious element
lying all the while at the basis of these enormities. And:
such unamiable feeling and language are not to be allowed

EPHESIANS IV. 32. 359

any apology or indulgence. The adjective raca belongs to
the five sins first mentioned, and waon to the last. Indeed, the
Coptic version formally prefixes to all the nouns the adjective
mes —“all.” They are to be put away in every kind
‘and degree—in germ as well as maturity—without reserve
and without compromise.!

(Ver. 32.) DiveoOe 8€ eis ddAndrous ypnotoi—* But become
ye kind to one another.” The &€ has been excluded by Lach-
mann, on the authority of B, but rightly retained by Tischen-
dorf. 4é—“ But ”—passing to the contrast in his exhortation,
he says—“ become ye kind to one another "—_ voneroi—full
of benign courtesy, distinguished by mutual attachment, the
bland and generous interchange of good deeds, and the earnest
desire to confer reciprocal obligations. Col. iii. 12. Rudeness

"Wetstein on Rom. iii. 14. We cannot but quote, from Jeremy Taylor, the
following paragraph, unequalled in its imagery and magnificence :—‘* Anger sets
the house on fire, and all the spirits are busy upon trouble, and intend propulsion,
defence, displeasure, or revenge ; it is a short madness, and an eternal enemy to
discourse, and sober counsels, and fair conversation ; it intends its own object
with all the earnestness of perception, or activity of design, anda quicker motion
of a too warm and distempered blood ; it is a fever in the heart, and a calenture
in the head, and a fire in the face, and a sword in the hand, and a fury all over;
and therefore can never suffer a man to be in a disposition to pray. . . . Anger
is a perfect alienation of the mind from prayer, and therefore is contrary to that
attention which presents our prayers in a right line to God. For so have | seen
a lark rising from his bed of grass, and soaring upwards, singing as he rises, and
hopes to get to heaven, and climb above the clouds ; but the poor bird was
beaten back with the loud sighings of an eastern wind, and his motion made
irregular and inconstant, descending more at every breath of the tempest, than
it could recover by the libration and frequent weighing of his wings ; till the
little creature was forced to sit down and pant, and stay till the storm was over ;
and then it made a prosperous flight, and did rise and sing, as if it had learned
music and motion from an angel, as he passed sometimes through the air about
his ministries here below. So is the prayer of a good man; when his affairs
have required business, and his business was matter of discipline, and his

discipline was to pass upon a shining person, or had a design of charity, his duty

met with infirmities of a man, and anger was its instrument, and the instrument

became stronger than the prime agent, and raised a tempest, and overruled the

‘man ; and then his prayer was broken, and his thoughts were troubled, and his

words went up towards a cloud, and his thoughts pulled them back again, and

made them without intention ; and the good man sighs for his infirmity, but

‘must be content to lose the prayer, and he must recover it when his anger is

Temoved, and his spirit is becalmed, made even as the brow of Jesus and smooth

like the heart of God ; and then it ascends to heaven upon the wings of the

ly dove, and dwells with God, till it returns, like the useful bee, loaden with

blessing and the dew of heaven.”—Works, The Return of Prayers, vol. v.

67, 70. London, 1822.

360 EPHESIANS IV. 32.

and censoriousness are opposed to this plain injunction. That
there should be any allusion in ypyords to the sacred name
Xpwcros, is wholly incredible.

Evorrayxvor—(1 Pet. iii. 8; Col. iii. 12)—* tender-hearted”
—the word being based upon the common and similar use
of DM in the Old Testament. The epithet is found, as in
Hippocrates, with a literal sense. See Kypke. So far from
being churlish or waspish, Christians are to be noted for their
tenderness of heart. They are to be full of deep and mellow
affection, in opposition to that wrath and anger which they
are summoned to abandon. A rich and genial sympathy
should ever characterize all their intercourse—

yvapifouevot éavtots—“ forgiving one another.” ‘Eavtois
is used for GAAnAos. This use of the reflexive for the re-
ciprocal pronoun has sometimes an emphatic significance—
forgiving one another, you forgive yourselves—and occurs in
Mark x. 26; John xii. 19; Col. iii, 13, 16; and also among
classical writers. Kiihner, § 628, 3; Jelf,§ 654, 3; Bernhardy,
p. 273; Matthie,§ 489, 6. May not the use of éavrois also
point, as Stier says, to that peculiar unity which subsists among
Christ’s disciples? The meaning of the participle, which is
contemporaneous with the previous verb, is plainly determined
by the following clause. It does not mean being gracious or
agreeable, as Bretschneider thinks, nor yet does it signify, as
the Vulgate reads—donantes, but condonantes. Luke vii. 42,
43; 2 Cor..11.10; Col. ii. 13, iii, 13. Instead of resentment
and retaliation, railing and vindictive objurgation, Christians
are to pardon offences—to forgive one another in reciprocal
generosity. Faults will be committed and offences must come,
but believers are to forgive them, are not to exaggerate them,
but to cover them up from view, by throwing over them the
mantle of universal charity. And the rule, measure, and
motive of this universal forgiveness are stated in the last
clause—

Kalas Kal 6 Oeos ev Xpior@ eyapicato tpiv— as also God
in Christ forgave you.” Some MSS., as B?, D, E, K, L, the
Syriac, and Theodoret read uty; others, as A, F, G, I, and
Chrysostom in his text, read tuiv. The latter appears the
better reading, while the other may have been suggested by
v. 2. Ka@as xai—“as also”—an example with an implied

EPHESIANS IV. 32. 361

comparison. Klotz,ad Devar. ii.635. But the presentation
| of the example contains an argument. It is an example which
| Christians are bound toimitate, They were to forgive because
_ God had forgiven them, and they were to forgive in resem-
blance of His procedure. In the exercise of Christian forgive-
ness, His authority was their rule, and His example their
model, They were to obey and also to imitate, nay, their
_ obedience consisted in imitation. “Ev Xpior@ is “in Christ”
as the element or sphere, and signifies not “on account of, or
* by means of Christ,” but 6 eds év Xpior@ is God revealed in
Christ, acting in Him, speaking in Him, and fulfilling His
_ gracious purposes by Him as the one Mediator. 2 Cor. v.19.
| For the pardon of human guilt is no summary act of paternal
regard, but sin was punished, government vindicated, and the
moral interests of the universe were guarded by the atonement
which Christ presented. The nature of that forgiveness which
God in Christ confers on sinners, has been already illustrated
-underi. 7. That pardon is full and free and irreversible—all
sin forgiven; forgiven, not because we deserve it ; forgiven
every day of our lives; and, when once forgiven, never again
to rise up and condemn us. Now, because God has pardoned
us, we should be ready to pardon others. His example at
once enjoins imitation, and furnishes the pattern. God is
presented, as Theophylact says—eis tmddevywa. And thus
the offences of others are to be pardoned by us fully, without
retaining a grudge ; and freely, without any exorbitant equi-
valent ; forgiven not only seven times, but seventy and seven
_ times ; and when pardoned, they are not to be raked out of
oblivion, and again made the theme of collision and quarrel,
According to the imagery of our Lord’s parable, our sins
toward God are weighty as talents, nay, weighty and nume-
Tous as ten thousand talents; while the offences of our fellows
toward ourselves are trivial as pence, nay, as trivial and as few
‘asa hundred pence. If the master forgive such an immense
amount to the servant so far beneath Him, will not the forgiven
srvant be prompted, by the generous example, to absolve
ais own fellow-servant and equal from his smaller debt?
att. xviii, 23-35.

CHAPTER V.

(Ver. 1.) TiveoOe ody piuntat tod Oeov—* Do ye then
become followers of God.” The collective ody connects this
verse with the preceding exhortation, and its yiverOe 5é—
indeed puyntjs is usually accompanied with yivouat. The
example of God’s forgiving generosity is set before them, and
they are solicited to copy it. God for Christ’s sake has for-
given you; “become ye then imitators of God,” and cherish a
forgiving spirit towards one another. God’s example has an
authoritative power. The imitation of God is here limited to
this peculiar duty, and cannot, as Stier thinks, have connection
with the long paragraph which precedes, especially as the
verb mepirateire, which is so commonly employed, need not
be taken as resumptive of wepurarjoas in iv. 1. The words
ptuntat ToD Oeod are peculiar, and occur only in this place,
though the terms, in an ethical sense, and with reference to
a human model, are to be found in 1 Cor. iv. 16, x1. 1;
1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14; Heb. vi. 12. Ye should forgive, as God
forgives, and thus be imitators of Him, or, as Theodoret says
—tnrooate thy ovyyéverav. And they are enjoined to study
and perfect this moral resemblance by the blessed thought
that, in doing so, they feel and act—

@s TéKva ayarnta—“as children eared: ” as children
who, in their adoption, have enjoyed so much of a father’s
affection. They cannot be imitators of God as Creator. They
may resemble Him as the God of Providence, in feeding and
clothing the indigent; but especially can they copy Him in
His highest character as Redeemer, when, like Him, they
pardon offenders, and so imitate His royal and lofty preroga-
tive. Disinterested love is a high element of perfection, as.
described by the great Teacher “Himself. Matt. v. 45-48) |
Tholuck, Bergpredigt, Matt. v. 45. This duty of imitation
on the part of God’s children is well expressed by Photius—_

EPHESIANS V, 2 363

“To institute an action against one who has injured us is

human ; not to take revenge on him is the part of a philoso-

pher: but to compensate him with benefit is Divine, and

shows men of earth to be followers of the Father who is in

heaven.”*

(Ver. 2.) Kai wepirareire €v ayarn— And walk in love.”

The same admonition under another and closer aspect is con-
_ tinued in this verse. The love in which we are to walk is
such a love in kind as Christ displayed in dying for us. The
apostle had just spoken of “God in Christ” forgiving men,
and now, and very naturally, that Christ in the plenitude and
glory of His love is also introduced—

xabas Kal o Xpioros Hydrnoev juas—“ as also, or even as,
Christ loved us.” Tischendorf, after A and B, reads dpas,
and on the authority of B reads also vue in the following
clause; but the ordinary reading is preferable, as the direct
form of address may have suggested the emendation. The
immeasurable fervour of Christ’s love is beyond description.
See under iii. 19. That love which is set before us was
noble, ardent, and self-sacrificing; eternal, boundless, and
unchanging as its possessor—more to Him than the possession
_ of visible equality with God, for He veiled the splendours of
| divinity; more to Him than heaven, for He left it; more to
Him than the conscious enjoyment of His Father's coun-
tenance, for on the cross He suffered the horrors of a spiritual
eclipse, and cried, “ Why hast Thou forsaken me?” more to
Him, in fine, than His life, for He freely surrendered it.
That love was embodied in Christ as He walked on earth,
and especially as He bled on the cross; for He loved us—
nab rapéSwxev éavtov irrép jyav— and gave Himself for
‘us”—in proof and manifestation of His love—«aé being
exegetical. The verb implies full surrender, and the prepo-
‘sition éép points out those over whom or in room of whom
‘such self-tradition is made. Usteri, Lehrb. p. 117; Meyer
on Rom. v. 6; Ellicott on Gal. iii. 13. John xv. 135; Rom.
y. 8; Gal. ii. 20. The general idea is, that Christ's love led

| | Te piv Vinny dwairsiy viv Fiimnnera, dvtgwariver, vi di wn dpinetas, Prdseoper, ve
| Bi wad shigyirias dusiBiobas Aovwiy Hn biiev nal pipenras cod iv cbgaveis Larges wove
nit awopaiver—Ep. 193. See also the Epistle to Diognetus, cap. 10; Justin

, Opera, vol. ii. p. 496; ed, Otto, Jenw, 1843.

364 EPHESIANS VY. 2.

to His self-surrender as a sacrifice. He was no passive
victim of circumstances, but in active and spontaneous
attachment He gave up Himself to death, and for such as we
are—His poor, guilty, and ungrateful murderers. The context
and not simply v7ép shows that this is the meaning. The
manner of His self-sacrifice is defined in the next words—
mpoopopav kat Ovciav—“an offering and a sacrifice ”—obla-
tionem et hostiam. Vulgate. The words are in the accusative,
and in apposition with éavrov, forming its predicate nouns.
Madvig, § 24. A similar combination of terms occurs in Heb.
x. 5, 8, while d@pa, a noun of kindred meaning, is used with
@voia in Heb. v. 1, viii. 3, ix. 9. Me@pov usually represents
in Leviticus and Numbers. the Hebrew {27?, and is not in sense
different from mpoogopd. Deyling, Observ. i. 352. The first
substantive, mpoodopd, represents only the Hebrew 172, once
in the Septuagint, though oftener in the Apocrypha. It may
mean a bloodless oblation, though sometimes in a wider sig-
nification it denotes an oblation of any kind, and even one of
slain victims. Acts xxi. 26; Heb. x. 10,18. Ovoia, as its
derivation imports, is the slaying of a victim—the shedding
of its blood, and the burning of its carcase, and frequently
represents M3t in the Septuagint; Ex. xxxiv. 15; Lev. ii.
and ili. passim, vii. 29; Deut. xii. 6, 27; 1 Sam. ii. 14;
Matt. ix. 13; Mark xii. 33; Luke i 24, xiii 1; Acts viL

£1,431 Oer x. 18> Heb: Vit-2 7, 3s. 20,20, x. be. ASE

sometimes in the Septuagint represents NON, sin-offering, and
often in representing 773 it means a victim. See Tromm.
Concord. We do not apprehend that the apostle, in the use
of these terms, meant to express any such precise distinction
as that now described. We cannot say with Harless, “ that
Jesus, in reference to Himself and His own free-will, was an

offering, but in reference to others was a sacrifice.” On the |
other hand, “the last term,” says Meyer, “is a nearer definition _

of the former.” We prefer the opinion, that both terms con-
vey, and are meant to convey, the full idea of a sacrifice. It
is a gift, and the gift is a victim; or the victim slain is laid
on the altar an offering to God. Not only is the animal slain,
but it is presented to God. Sacrifice is the offering of a victim,
The idea contained in rpooqopa covers the whole transaction,

while that contained in Ovcia is a distinct and a

— a

| EPHESIANS V. 2. 365

portion of the process. Jesus gave Himself as a sacrifice in
its completest sense—a holy victim, whose blood was poured
out in His presentation to God. In the meantime it may
_ be remarked, that the suffering involved in sacrifice, such
_ unparalleled suffering as Christ endured as our sacrifice, proves
the depth and iecoant of His affection, and brightens that
example of love which the apostle sets before the Ephesian
church.
T® Oc@ eis dopnv evwdias—“to God for the savour of a
sweet smell ”—the genitive being that of characterizing qua-
lity. Winer, § 30, 2; Scheuerlein, § 16, 3. Some, such as
_ Meyer and Holzhausen, join t@ Oe@ to the verb rapédwxer,
but the majority connect them with the following phrase :—
1. They may stand in close connection with the nouns mpoc-
gopav xai Ovolav, with which they may be joined as an ethical
dative. Harless says indeed, that eis @avatov is the proper
supplement after wapédwxe, but @voia here implies it. Eis
@avarov may be implied in such places as Rom. iv. 25, viii. 32,
but here we have the same preposition in the phrase els doprv.
The preposition eis occurring with the verb denotes the pur-
pose, as in Matt. xxiv. 9; Acts xiii, 2. Winer, § 49; Bern-
hardy, p. 218. In those portions of the Septuagint where
the phraseology occurs, xupiw follows evwéias, so that the
- connection cannot be mistaken. 2. Or the words t@ Oem may
_ occupy their present position because of their close connection
_ with éou7, and we may read—“ He gave Himself an offering
_ and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.” It is
_ hot easy to say which is preferable, T® Oe@ being peculiarly
placed in reference both to the beginning and the end of the
verse. The phrase is based on the peculiar sacrificial idiom
of the Old Testament—"im2"n, Gen. viii. 21; Lev. i 9, 13,
17, ii. 9, 12,iii. 5. It is used tropically in 2 Cor. ii. 14, and
is explained and expanded in Phil. iv. 18—“a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God.” The burning of spices or
‘incense, so fragrant to the Oriental senses, is figuratively
applied to God. Not that He has pleasure in suffering for its
| own sake. Nor can we say, with Olshausen, that the Divine
| pleasure arises wholly from the love and obedience which
| Besus exhibited in His sufferings and death. This idea of
| Olshausen is to some extent similar to that of several recent

ef ee ee eS) eee ee ee oe ee

366 EPHESIANS V. 2.

writers, who do not give its own prominence to the vicarious
suffering of our Lord, but, as we think, lay undue stress on
several minor concomitants.

Now the radical idea of sacrifice is violent and vicarious
suffering and death. But the theory referred to seems to
place the value of Christ’s sufferings not in their substitu-
tionary nature, but in the moral excellence of Him who
endured them. This is a onesided view. That Jehovah
rejoiced in the devoted and self-sacrificing spirit of His Son
—in His meekness, heroism, and love, is most surely believed
by us. And we maintain, that the sufferings of Christ gave
occasion for the exhibition of those qualities and graces, and
that without such sufferings as a dark setting, they could
never have been so brilliantly displayed. The sacrifice must
be voluntary, for forced suffering can have no merit, and an
unwilling death no expiatory virtue. But we cannot say
with Dr. Halley—*“that the sufferings, indirectly, as giving
occasion to these acts, feelings, and thoughts of the holy
Sufferer, procured our redemption.” Congregational Lecture—
The Sacraments, part ii. p. 271, Lond. 1852. The virtues of
the holy Sufferer are subordinate, although indispensable
elements in the work of atonement, which consisted in His
obedience unto the death. That death was an act of obedi-
ence beyond parallel; yet it was also, and in itself—not
simply, as Grotius held, a great penal example—but a propi-
tiatory oblation. The endurance of the law by our Surety is
as necessary to us as His perfect submission to its statutes,
The sufferings of the Son of God, viewed as a vicarious
endurance of the penalty we had incurred, were therefore the
direct means of our redemption. In insisting on the neces-
sity of Christ’s obedience, the equal necessity of His expiatory
death must not be overlooked. That Jesus did suffer and die —
in our room is the fact of atonement; and the mode in which |
He bore those sufferings is the proof of His holy obedience, |
which was made “perfect through suffering.” But if the
manifestation of Christ’s personal virtues, and not the satisfac- —
tion of law, is said to be the prime end of those sufferings, -
then do we reckon such an opinion subversive of the great
doctrine of our Lord’s propitiation, and in direct antagonism
to the theology taught us in the inspired oracles. “It pleased

|

EPHESIANS V. 2. 367

the Lord to bruise him ”—“ Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain”—“ He suffered once for sins,” etc. The uniform
_ testimony of the word of God is, that the sufferings of Jesus
were expiatory—that is, so borne in the room of guilty men,
. that they might not suffer themselves—and that this expia-
_ tory merit lies in the sufferings themselves, and is not merely
or mainly dependent on those personal virtues of love, faith,
and submission, which such anguish evoked and glorified.
True, indeed, the victim must be sinless—pure as the fire
from heaven by which it is consumed ; but its atoning virtue
is not to be referred to the bright display of innocence and
love in the agonies of immolation, as if all the purposes of
sacrifice had been to exhibit unoffending goodness, and bring
out affection in bold relief. No; in the sufferings of the
* Holy One,” God was glorified, the law magnified, the curse
_ borne away, and salvation secured to believers.
Nor do we deem it correct on the part of Abelard and Peter
Lombard in the olden time, or of Maurice recently,’ to regard
the love of Christ alone as the redeeming element of the
atonement, overlooking the merit of all that spontaneous and
‘indescribable anguish to which it conducted. Such a hypo-
thesis places the motive in the room of the act. It is true,
as Maurice remarks, that we usually turn the mind of sinners
_ to the love of Christ, and that this truth comforts and sustains
the heart of the afflicted and dying; but he forgets that this
ove evolved its ardour in suffering for human transgressors,
and derives all its charm from the thought that the agony
which it sustained was the endurance of a penalty which a
guilty world has righteously incurred. The love on which
inners lean is a love that not only did not shrink from
assuming their nature, but that feared not to die for them.
The justice of God in exacting a satisfaction is not our first
consolation, but the fact, that what justice deemed indispens-
able, love nobly presented. If love alone was needed to save,
hy should death have been endured? or would a love that
| fainted not ina mere martyrdom and tragedy be a stay for a
lconvicted spirit? No; it is atoning love that soothes and
lesses, and the objective or legal aspect of the work of
ist is not to be merged in any subjective or moral phases
1 Theological Essays, p. 128, Cambridge, 1853.

—— ee ss

.

=

368 EPHESIANS V. 2.

of it; for both are presented and illustrated in the inspired
pages. Even in the first ages of the church this cardinal
doctrine was damaged by the place assigned in it to the devil,
and the notion of a price or a ransom was carried often to
absurd extremes, as it has also been in some theories of Pro-
testant theology, in which absolute goodness and absolute jus-
tice appear to neutralize one another.’ But still, to warrant the
application of the term “ sacrifice” to the death of Christ, it
must have been something more than the natural, fitting, and
graceful conclusion of a self-denied life—it must have been a
violent and vicarious decease and a voluntary presentation.
Many questions as to the kind and amount of suffering, its
necessity, its merits as satisfactio vicaria, and its connection
with salvation, come not within our province.

Harless and Meyer have well shown the nullity of the
Socinian view first propounded by Slichting, and advocated
by Usteri (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 112) and Riickert, that the
language of this verse does not represent the death of Christ
as a sin-offering. But the Pauline theology always holds out
that death as a sacrifice. He died for our sins—é7ép—1 Cor.
xv. 3; died for us—dtmép—1 Thess. v. 10; gave Himself
for our sins—epi—Gal. i. 4; died for the ungodly—ozrép
aceBav—Rom. v. 6; died for all—tmép wavtwv—2 Cor. v.
14; and a brother is one on whose behalf Christ died—év dv
Xpicros aréPavev—1 Cor. viii. 11. His death is an offering
for sin—mpoogopa mept(—Heb. x. 18 ; one sacrifice for sin—
piav vrep auaptiav Ovoiav—Heb. x. 12; the blood of Him
who offered Himself —ro aiwa, ds éavtov rpoonveyxev—Heb. ix.
14; the offering of His body once for all—éva ts rpoopopas
Tov cwpatos eparvraf—Heb. x.10. His death makes expiation
—els T0 (\AdoxeoOar—Heb. ii. 17 ; there is propitiation in His
blood—iracrnprov—Rom. iii. 25; we are justified in His
blood—éixarwbévtes ev TO aiwat. avtod—Rom. v. 9; and we
are reconciled by His death—xarndXAdynwev—Rom. v. 10.
He gave Himself a ransom—avtiAvtpov—1 Tim. ii. 6; He
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us—yevopevos trép Huav catdpa—Gal. iii. 13; Christ our

1 Baur, Geschichte der Versdhnungslehre, p. 30. Compare, too, some exp:
sions of Gregory of Nyssa with those of Athanasius and iia and Grego |
the Great. : |

EPHESIANS Y, 2. 369

-passover was sacrificed for us—imép jyow érvOn—1 Cor. v. 7.
So too in Matt. xx. 28; 1 Pet. i.18,19. The view of Hof-
mann, which is not that commonly received as orthodox, is
defended at length by him against Ebrard and Philippi in his
Schrift. ii. 329. See Ebrard, Lehre von der stellvertretenden
_Genugthuung, Konigsberg, 1857, or a note in his Commen-
tary on 1 John i. 9, in which some important points in the
previous treatise are condensed; Thomasius, Christi Person
und Werk, § 57, dritter Theil; and Bodemeyer, Zur Lehre
von der Versihnung und Rechtfertiqgung, mit Beziehung auf
den Hofmann-Philippischen Streit iiber die Versihnungs-lehre,
Gottingen, 1859; Lechler, das Apost. Zeit. p. 77. The death
of Christ was a sacrifice which had in it all the elements of
acceptance, as the death of one who had assumed the sin-
ning nature, and was yet possessed of Divinity—who could
therefore place Himself in man’s room, and assume his legal
_liabilities—who voluntarily obeyed and suffered in our stead,
in unison with God’s will and in furtherance of His gracious
purposes. What love on Christ's part! And what an induce-
ment to obey the injunction—* walk in love”—in that love
the possession of which the apostle inculcates and commends
by the example of Christ! And, first, their love must be like
their Lord’s love, ardent in its nature and unconquerable in
its attachment; no cool and transient friendship which but
evaporates in words, and only fawns upon and fondles the
_ creatures of its capricious selection ; but a genuine, vehement,
_and universal emotion. Secondly, it must be a self-sacrificing
_ love, in imitation of Christ’s, that is, in its own place and on its
own limited scale, denying itself to secure benefits to others ;
stooping and suffering in order to convey spiritual blessing
_ to the objects of its affection. Matt. xx. 26-28. Such a love
_ is at once the proof of discipleship, and the test and fruit of a
spiritual change. John xiii, 35; 1 John iii. 14.
In a word, we can see no ground at all for adopting the
7 exegesis of Stier, that the last clause of the verse stands in
close connection with the first, as if the apostle had said—
. Walk in love, that ye may be an odour of a sweet smell to
God.” Such an exegesis is violent, though the idea is virtu-
‘ally implied, for Christian love in the act of self-devotion is

> i

370 EPHESIANS V. 3. __

(Ver. 3.) Ilopveta &é, nal aca axabapcia, i) treovetia—
“ But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness.” Again
the apostle recurs by 6¢, which is not without a distinct
adversative force, to vices prevalent in the heathen world.
ITopveia—* fornication,” a sin which had eaten deep into the
Gentile world (Acts xv. 20, 29)— «al dxafapoia — “and
uncleanness ”—7réoa—in every form and aspect of it. ITXeo-
ve&la is not insatiable lust, as many maintain, but “covetous-
ness.” See iv. 19. The word was the matter of a sharp
encounter between Heinsius (Hvercitat. Sac. 467) and Sal-
masius (De Fenere Trapezitico, 121), the latter inflicting on
the former a castigation of characteristic severity, because he
held that wAeoveE/a denoted inordinate concupiscence. The
apostle uses the noun in Col. iii. 5, and in all other passages
it denotes avaricious greed. Luke xii. 15; Rom.i. 29; 2 Cor.
ix. 5. And it is joined to these preceding words, as it springs
from the same selfishness, and is but a different form of develop-
ment from the same unholy root. It is a dreadful scourge
—seeva cupido, as the Latin satirist names it. More and
more yet, as the word denotes; more may be possessed, but
more is still desired, without limit or termination. Yet Cony-
beare affirms that aAcoveE/a in the meaning of covetousness
“yields no intelligible sense.” But, as de Wette and Meyer
remark, the disjunctive 7 shows it to belong to a different
class of vices from those just mentioned. It is greed, avarice,
unconquerable love of appropriation, morbid lust of acquisition,
carrying in itself a violation of almost every precept of the
decalogue. See Harris’ Mammon. As for each of those sins—

pndé ovopalécOw év byiv— let it not be named even among
you.” Mndé—“not even.” Mark ii. 2; 1 Cor. v. 11;
Herodotus, i. 138—oéeww ovn é€eott, TadtTa ovdé Réyeuy
éfeaTwv. Not only were these sins to be avoided in fact, but
to be shunned in their very name. Their absence should be
so universal, that there should be no occasion to refer to them,
or make any mention of them. Indelicate allusion to such
sins should not soil Christian lips. For the apostle assigns a
reason—

Kalas mpéres aylous—“as becometh saints.” Were the
apostle to say, Let despondency be banished, he might add,
as becometh believers, or, Let enmity be suppressed, he might

:

7
wT

EPHESIANS V. 4. 371

subjoin, as becometh brethren; but he pointedly says in this
place, “as becometh saints.” “Saints” are not a higher class
of Christians who possess a rare and transcendental morality
—all genuine believers are “saints.” See under i. 1. The
inconsistency is marked and degrading between the purity
and self-consecration of the Christian life and indulgence in
or the naming of those sensual and selfish gratifications. “Let
their memorial perish with them.”

(Ver. 4.) Kal aicyporns—* And filthiness "—immunditia,
Vulgate. Some MSS., such as A, D', E', F, G, read 4 aioyporns,
and there are other variations which need not be noted.
Tischendorf retains the Textus Receptus, on the authority
of B, D’, E’, K, L, and almost all mss. Some, such as
(Ecumenius, imitated by Olshausen, Riickert, Meier, and
Baumgarten-Crusius, regard, without foundation, alcyporns as
equivalent to atoyporoyia. Col. iii. 8. Alayporntos yémovcav
THv Wuynv eldev—Plato, Gorg. ; Op. vol. ii. p. 366, ed. Bekker.
‘The noun denotes indecency, obscenity, or wantonness ; what-
ever, not merely in speech but in anything, is opposed to
purity.

Kai pwporoyia— and foolish talking.” The MSS. just
quoted insert 4 before this noun too, but xa’ is found in the
majority, and in those already named. Not mere gossip or
tattle, but speech wretched in itself and offensive to Christian
decency and sobriety is condemned. The noun occurs only
here, but we have not only the Latin compound stultiloguium
in Plautus (Miles Gloriosus, ii. 3, 25, the scene of which
drama is laid at Ephesus), but also the Latin form moro-
logus in the same dramatist. Persa,i. 1,50. The Emperor
Hadrian, in his well-known address to his departing spirit,
ends the melancholy ode with these words—

. “Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos.”

The term may look back to iv. 29, and is, as Trench says, the
talk of fools, which is folly and sin together. Synon. § 34.
_ 4 ebtparedla —“or jesting”—the disjunctive being
mployed. This noun is a drag Aeyouevoy as well as the
receding. It denotes urbanity —urbanitas—and as its
lerivation implies, dexterity of turning a discourse—apa Td
tpémecOat Tov Aoyov; then wit or humour; and lastly

372 EPHESIANS VY. 4.

deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives
to wriggle out of its meaning or engagements. Josephus,
Antig. xii. 4, 3; Thucyd. ii. 41; Plato, Pol. viii. 563; Arist.
Ethic. Nicom. iv. 8; Pindar, Pythia, Carmen i. 176, iv. 186 ;

Cicero, Ep. ad Div. vii. 32, Opera, p. 716, ed. Nobbe, 1850.

It is defined in the Etymologicon Magnum—1 pawporoyia,

KougoTns, amaidevola — levity, or grossness. Chrysostom’s

amplified definition is—o vrovxiAos, 6 TavTodaTrés, 0 doTaKTOS,

0 eUKONOS, 0 TaVTAa yLvopevos— the man called edtpazreXos is

the man who is versatile, of all complexions, the restless one,

the fickle one, the man who is everything or anything.”

Jerome also says of it—wvel urbana verba, vel rustica, vel

turpria, vel faceta. It is here used evidently in a bad sense,

almost equivalent to Pwporoyos, from which Aristotle

distinguishes it, and denotes that ribaldry, studied artifice,

and polite equivoque, which are worse in many cases than

open foulness of tongue. The distinction which Jerome

makes between pwporoyia and evtpa7redia is indicated by the

Latin terms, stultiloguium and scurrilitas. Pleasantry of
every sort is not condemned by the apostle. He seems to.
refer to wit in connection with lewdness—double entendre. |
See Trench on the history of the word. Synon. § 34. The
vices here mentioned are severely reprobated by Clement in
the sixth chapter of the second book of his Iaéaywyos.
Allusions to such “jestings” are not unfrequent in the
classics. Even the author of the “Avs Amoris” pleads with
Augustus, that his writings are not so bad as others referred
to—

‘* Quid si scripsissem Mimos obsccena jocantes,
Qui vetiti semper crimen amoris habent,” etc.

Ta ovk avnxovta—“which are not becoming things”—
in opposition to the concluding clause in the previous verse,
Another reading—a@ ov« avixev—is supported by A, B, an
C, while Chrysostom and Theodoret, following the reading i
Rom. i. 28, read ta pr xaOjxovra—but wrongly; for he
the apostle refers to an objective reality. Winer, § 55,
Buttmann, Gram. des Neutest. Sprach. § 148, 7. Sui
‘defines avjxov by mpérov. The Vulgate confines t
connection of this clause to the term immediately precedi
—scurrilitas que ad rem non pertinet. All the three vi

EPHESIANS V. 4 373

—but certainly, from the contrast in the following clause, the
two previous ones—-may be included. Such sins of the
tongue are to be superseded by thanksgiving!—

«Ga pad2ov edyapiotla, “but rather giving of thanks.”
There is a meaning which may attach to ebyapotia, which is
plausible, but appears to be wholly contrary to Pauline usage.
It signifies, in the opinion of some, pleasant and grateful dis-
_ course, as opposed to that foolish and indecorous levity which
_ the apostle condemns. Jerome says—VForsitan igitur gratia-
_ rum actio in hoe loco non ista nominata juxta quam gratias
agimus Deo, sed juxta quam grati, sive gratiosi et salsi apud
_homines appellamur. So Clement of Alexandria — yaprev-
“Tistéoy Te ov yedkwtoTontéov. This opinion has been
followed by Calvin, Cajetan, Heinsius, Salmasius, Hammond,
Semler, Michaelis, Meier, and by Wahl, Wilke, and Bret-
schneider. However consonant to the context this interpreta-
tion may appear, it cannot be sustained by any analogies.
Such examples as yur?) ydpitos or yur ebydpiotos belong not
_to New Testament usage. We therefore prefer the ordinary
' Signification, “thanksgiving,” and it is contrary to sound
hermeneutical discipline on the part of Bullinger, Musculus,

_ Fergusson says, ‘‘ honest and sometimes piercing ironies were used by holy
| men in Scripture.” One of the best descriptions of wit ever written is that of
_ Barrow, in his sermon on this text. ‘‘It is,” he says, ‘‘indeed a thing so
versatile and multiform, appearing in so many shapes, so many postures, so
_ Many garbs, so variously apprehended by several eyes and judgments, that it
_ seemeth no less hard to settle a clear and certain notion thereof, than to make a
portrait of Proteus, or to define the figure of the fleeting air. Sometimes it
lieth in pat allusion to a known story, or in seasonable application of a trivial
saying, or in forging an apposite tale: sometimes it playeth in words and
_ phrases, taking advantage from the ambiguity of their sense, or the affinity of
their sound : sometimes it is wrapped in a dress of humorous expression : some-
‘times it lurketh under an odd similitude ; sometimes it is lodged in a sly
"question, in a smart answer, in a quirkish reason, in a shrewd intimation, in
cunningly diverting or cleverly retorting an objection : sometimes it is couched
‘in a bold scheme of speech, in a tart irony, in a lusty hyperbole, in a startling
“metaphor, in a plausible reconciling of contradictions, or in acute nonsense :
sometimes a scenical representation of persons or things, a counterfeit speech, a
“mimical look or gesture passeth for it: sometimes an affected simplicity, some-
times a presumptuous bluntness giveth it being : sometimes it riseth from
y hitting upon what is strange, sometimes from a crafty wresting obvious
Matter to the purpose : often it consisteth in one knows not what, and springeth
Up one can hardly tell how. Its ways are unaccountable and inexplicable, being
answerable to the numberless rovings of fancy and windings of language.”—
Works, vol. i. p. 131, Edin. 1841.

374 EPHESIANS V. 5.

and Zanchius, to take the term in both acceptations. The
verb usually supplied is ésrw—“but let there be rather
thanksgiving.” Examples of such brachylogy are numerous.
Kiihner, § 852, i; Jelf, § 895; Winer, § 66, 1, 2. But
why may not dvopafécOw still guide the construction ?
“Rather let thanksgiving be named”—let there be vocal
expression to your grateful emotions. Bengel, justified by
Stier, supplies avyxet, which is not a probable supplement.
For the apostolic idea of the duty of thanksgiving, the reader
may compare v. 20; Col. ii. 7, iv. 2; 1 Thess. v.18. The
Christian life is one of continuous reception, which should
prompt to continuous praise. Were this the ruling emotion,
an effectual check should be given to such sins of the tongue
as are here condemned.

(Ver. 5.) Todto yap tore ywaoxovtes, “ For this ye know—
being as you are aware.” Winer, § 45, 8. Jap states a
reason, and an awful and solemn one it is. For the éote of the
Textus Receptus, found in D*®, E, H, L, and the Syriac, tote
is now generally acknowledged to be the genuine reading, as
having the preponderance of authority, as A, B, D’, F, G,
the Vulgate (scitote intelligentes), Coptic, and several of the
Fathers. “Iote ywwoxovres is a peculiar construction, and
is not wholly identical with the Hebrew usage of connecting
two parts of the same Hebrew verb together, or with the
similar usage in Greek. Kiihner, 675, 3; Jelf, § 708, 3.
The instances adduced from the Septuagint, Gen. xv. 13— ©
ywooKkov yvoon, and Jer. xlii. 19!—»yvovtes yowoesOe, are
therefore not in point, as Yere is the second person plural of
oiéa. We take the phrase to be in the indicative—as is done
by Calvin, Harless, Meyer, and de Wette, for the appeal in the
participle is to a matter of fact—and not in the imperative, as
is found in the Vulgate, and is thought by Estius, Bengel,
Riickert, Matthies, and Stier. Wickliffe renders—‘“ Wite ye
this and vndirstonde” (see under verse 3). Ye know— .

6tt Tas Tépvos, ) axdOapTos, 7) TAEOvEKTNS, bs eoTW €ldwdo-
AaTpns— that every whoremonger or unclean person, or
covetous man who is an idolater.” Col. iii. 5. II eovéxrns
is explained under the preceding verse. See under iv. 19.
The differences of reading are these:—Griesbach, Lach-

1 In Jer. xlii. 19, Theodotion reads—iees yinwoxovess.

EPHESIANS V. 5. 375

‘mann, and Alford read 6 after B and Jerome who has quod.
Other MSS., such as F, G, have eiSwdoXartpeia, which read-
ing is found in the Vulgate, Cyprian, and Ambrosiaster,
‘The first reading, found in A, D, E, K, L, the Syriac, and
Coptic, seems to be the correct one—the others are merely
_emendations. Harless, Meier, von Gerlach, and Stier, suppose
' the relative to refer to the three antecedents. Harless can
_ adduce no reason for this opinion save his own view of the
meaning of wAeoveEia. As in Col. iii. 5, the apostle particu-
larizes covetousness as idolatry. Wetstein and Schoettgen
_ adduce rabbinical citations in proof that some sins were named
by the Jews idolatry, but to little purpose in the present
instance. The covetous man makes a god of his possessions,
and offers to them the entire homage of his heart. That world
of which the love and worship fill his nature, is his god, for
whose sake he rises up early and sits up late. The phrase is
not to be diluted into this—“ who is as bad as an heathen,” as
in the loose paraphrase of Barlee—but it means, that the
-covetous man deifying the world rejects the true Jehoveh.,
Job viii. 13; Matt. vi. 24. Every one of them—

| ove Exet KAnpovoutav— has no inheritance,” and shall or
can have none; the present stating a fact, or law unalterably
‘determined. Winer, § 40,2. Ids . . . ovx. Winer, § 26;
'see under iv, 29—and for «Anpovoyia, see under i. 11, ili. 6.
And the very name of the inheritance vindicates this exclu-
sion; for it is—

év Th Bacidelia tod Xpictod Kai Ocop—“ in the kingdom of
Christ and God.” Phil. iii. 19. F and G read eds rv Sactdeiav
tov Qcod nal Xpictod—an evident emendation. The geni-
tive Xpicrod has its analogy in the expressions used Matt.
xvi. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 1,18. Baowrela and éxxdrAno/a have been
‘sometimes distinguished, as if the first referred to the church
“in heaven, and the other to the church on earth, while others
Teverse this opinion. Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbeg. 352; Koppe,
Excursus I. ad Thessalon. But such a distinction cannot be
sustained. acire‘a is used with perfect propriety here;
| éxxAncia is the church called and collected together, into
“which one of these bad characters may intrude himself; but
Bacireia is the kingdom under the special jurisdiction of its
ing, and no one can or dare enter without His sanction,

376 EPHESIANS V. 5.

for it is, as Origen calls it, modus edvopovpévn. That king-
dom which begins here, but is fully developed in the heavens,
is that of Christ and God, the second noun wanting the article.
Winer, § 19, 4. We do not apprehend that the apostle means
to identify Christ and God, though the latter noun wants the
article. Though Christ is DoReeased of Divinity, yet He is
distinct from God. Jerome, indeed, says—ipsum Deum et
Christum intelligamus . . . ubt autem Deus est, tam Pater quam
Filius intelligi potest. Such is the general view of Beza, Zan-
chius, Glassius, Bengel, Riickert, Harless, Hodge, and Middle-
ton. Others, such as Meyer, Stier, Olshausen, and Ellicott,
suppose the apostle to mean that the kingdom of Christ is
also the kingdom God—“in the kingdom which is Christ’s
and God’s.” ©ecds often wants the article, and the use of it
here would have seemed to deny the real Divinity of Christ.
Christ is called God in other places of Paul’s writings; but
the idea here is, that the inheritance is common to Christ and
God. The identity of the kingdom is the principal thought,
and the apostle does not formally say—xai +H Tov Oeod, as
such phraseology might imply that there were two kingdoms ;

nor, as Stier remarks, does he even say—rtov @eod, as he wishes _

to show the close connection, or place both nouns in a single

conception. Bishop Middleton’s canon does not therefore —

apply, whatever may be thought of its application to such
passages as Tit. 11. 13, 2 Pet. i. 1, Jude 4, in all of which
the pronoun 2)pav is inserted, while in two of them cawrtnp is
an attributive, and in one of them decmotns has a similar
meaning. Q@eov appears to be added, not merely to exhibit

the authority by which the exclusion of selfish and covetous

men is warranted, but principally to show the righteous doom
of the idolater who has chosen a different deity. It is base-
less to say, with Grotius, Vatablus, Gerhardt, Moldenhauer,

and Baumgarten, that Christ’s kingdom exists on earth and ©

God’s in heaven. The kingdom is named Christ’s inasmuch
as He secures it, prepares it, holds it for us, and at length
conveys us to it; and it is God’s as it is His originally, and
would have remained His though Christ had never come;

for He is in Christ, and Christ’s mediation is only the work-

ing out of His gracious purposes—God having committed the
administration of this kingdom into His hands. Into Christ’s

ee ae

oe

EPHESIANS V. 6. 377

kingdom the fornicator and sensualist cannot come ; for, un-
sanctified and unprepared, they are not susceptible of its
Spiritual enjoyments, and are filled with antipathy to its
unfleshly occupations; and specially into God’s kingdom “the
—covetous man, who is an idolater,” cannot come, for that God
‘is not his god, and disowning the God of the kingdom, he is
self-excluded. As his treasure is not there, so neither there
could his heart find satisfaction and repose.

(Ver. 6.) Mnéels ipas arratatw xevois X6yous—* Let no one
deceive you with vain words.” Whatever apologies were made
for such sensual indulgences were vain words, or sophistry
-—words without truth, pernicious in their tendency, and
tending to mislead. See examples from Kypke, in loc.; Septua-
gint—Ex. v.9; Hos. xii. 1. The Gothic reads—uslusto,
¢oncupiscat. It is a refinement on the part of Olshausen to
-Tefer such opinions to antinomian teachers, and on that of
Meier to confine them to heathen philosophers. Harless
admits that the precise class of persons referred to by the
apostle cannot now be defined; but we agree with Meyer
in the idea, that they appear to be their heathen neighbours ;
for they were not to associate with them (ver. 7), and they
were to remember that their present profession placed them
in a state of perfect separation from old habits and confede-
rates (ver. 8). Such vices have not wanted apologists in
every age. The language of Bullinger, quoted also by Har-
less, has a peculiar power and terseness—Erant apud Ephesios
homines corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui hee salu-
Maria Dei precepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt: humanum
esse quod faciant amatores, utile quod feeneratores, facetum quod
joculatores, et rccirco Deum non usque adeo graviter anim-
advertere in istiusmodi lapsus.' They were to be on their
sgoart—

} ‘Whitby says too—‘‘ That the Ephesians stood in need of these instructions
we learn from Democritus Ephesius, who, speaking of the temple of the Ephesian
Diana, hath much wsgi ris xAdns wiror—‘of the softness and luxury of the
phesians ;’ and from Euacles in his book de Ephesiacis, who saith—ir 'Epiry
Mapa Rgteucta: ivaign 'AQesdirg—‘In Ephesus they built temples to Venus, the
mistress of the whores ;’ and from Strabo, who informs us that ‘in their ancient
| temples there were old images, but in their new, essed: Ieve—vile works were
e.’ (Lib. xiv. p. 640.) Among the heathens, simple fornication was held

thing indifferent ; the laws allowed and provided for it in many nations ;
whence the grave Epictetus counsels his scholars, ‘only to whore—#s rip jer

,
a,
E:

378 EPHESIANS V. 6.

dua Tadta yap Epyxetar % opyn Tod Ocod eri Tovs viods THs
atrevOevas—* for because of these things cometh the wrath of
God on the sons of disobedience.” The phrase da tadra,
emphatic in position, refers not to the “ vain words,” but more
naturally to the vices specified—‘“on account of these sins.”
Col. ili. 6. The Greek commentators, followed by Stier,
combine both opinions, but without any necessity. The noun
stands between two warnings against certain classes of sins and
sinners, and naturally refers to them by tadta. ’Opyn has
been illustrated, and so has viol amrevOe/as, under ii. 2, 3.
Suicer, swb voce. Many, such as Meyer, restrict the mani-
festation of the Divine anger to the other world. His argu-
ment is, that dpy7 Ocod is in contrast with Bacirela Ocod.
Granted, but we find the verb éye: in the present tense, as
indicating a present exclusion—an exclusion which, though
specially to be felt in the future, was yet ordained when the
apostle wrote. So this anger, though it is to be signally
poured out at the Second Coming, is descending at this very
time—épyeras. It is-thus, on the other hand, too narrow a
view of Calvin, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to confine
this opy7 to the present life. It begins here—the dark cloud
pours out a few drops, but does not discharge all its terrible
contents. Such sins especially incur it, and such sinners

?ors—according to law ;’ and in all places they connived at it. ‘He that blames
young men for their meretricious amours,’ saith Cicero, ‘does what is repugnant
to the customs and concessions of our ancestors, for when was not this done ?
when was it not permitted?’ This was suitable both to the principles and
practices of many of their grave philosophers, especially of the Stoics, who
held it ‘lawful for others to use whores, and for them to get their living by

such practices.’ Hence even in the church of Corinth some had taught this _

doctrine.”

‘*Prenons garde surtout a l'avarice. Elle ne s’annonce pas sous des dehors

aussi dégotitants que l’impudicité et la fornication ; on la déguise sous de beaux
noms, tels que ceux d’économie sévére, d’esprit d’ordre, de prévoyance ou de
sagesse, et, par ce moyen, elle établit plus facilement son empire sur le cceur
des hommes. Mais considérons attentivement la qualification que lui donne ici
saint Paul. I] déclare qu'elle est une idoldtrie. Qu’importe, en effet, qu’on
n’adore pas des idoles d’or et d’argent, comme les paiens, si l’on adore l’or et
Vargent eux-mémes, si ce sont eux que l’on recherche pardessus tout, si l’on met
son bonheur & les posséder et si c’est en eux que l’on esptre? Heélas! la grande
idole du siécle est encore la statue d’or, comme du temps de Nébucadnézar ;

c’est vers sa figure éblouissante que se tournent les regards et les cceurs des

peuples, et c’est d’elle que l’on attend la joie et la délivrance.”—Gauthey,
Méditations sur VEpitre de S, Paul aux Ephésiens, p. 124. Paris, 1852.

See

EPHESIANS Y. 7, 8 379

receive in themselves “that recompense of their error which
is meet.” Rom. i. 27. The wrath of God is also poured out
on impenitent offenders in the other world. Rev. xxi. 8.
(Ver. 7.) Mn odv yivecOe cuvpéroyor abrav—* Become not
then partakers with them.” The spelling cvvpéroyor has the
authority of A, B', D', F, G; see also under iii. 6. The
‘Meaning is not, as Koppe paraphrases, “Take care lest their
fate befall you,” but, “become not partakers with them in their
sins;” ver. 11. Do not through any temptation fall into
their wicked courses. Odv is collective: because they are
_ addicted to those sins on which Divine judgment now falls,
and continued indulgence in which bars a man out of heaven
—become not ye their associates.
(Ver. 8.) "He yap more oxotos—* For ye were once dark-
ness.” As Chrysostom says, he reminds them tis mporépas
xaxias. Idp introduces a special reason for an entire separa-
tion between the Church and the Gentile world. Their past
and present state were in perfect contrast—ire wore oxdtos—
“ye were once darkness—#re—emphatic;” and deeds of
darkness were in harmony with such a state. xvtos is the
_abstract—darkness itself—employed to intensify the idea
expressed. See iv. 18. Darkness is the emblem and region
of ignorance and depravity, and in such a miserable condition
they were “once.” But that state was over—“ the dayspring
from on high” had visited them—
viv 8é das év Kupiw—“ but now ye are light in the Lord.”
No pév precedes, as the first clause is of an absolute nature.
Klotz, ad Devarius, vol. ii. p. 356. 4é is adversative, “ now”
being opposed to “once.” Chrysostom says, évvoraavtes Te ire
“Gore wpeis Kat te yeyovate vov. Pas, an abstract noun also,
is the image of knowledge and purity. See under i. 18.
Their condition being so thoroughly changed, their conduct
‘was to be in harmony with such a transformation. ‘Ev Kupip
“in fellowship with the Lord;” and light can be enjoyed
in no other element. The phrase is never to be diluted as
is done by Fritzsche in his allusion to similar phrases. Com-
“ment. ad Roman. viii. 4; 1 John i. 5, 6, 7. For Kupios as
‘applied to Christ, see i 2, 3. Such being the case, there
follows the imperative injunction—
| ds réxva dots mepimateire—* walk as children of light.”

380 EPHESIANS V. 9.

There needs no formal ody to introduce the inference, it makes
itself so apparent, and is all the more forcible from the want
of the particle. 2 Cor. vi. 14,16. TYvids is often used in a
similar connection. See téxvoy under ii. 3. The genitive is
one of source, and neither noun has the article. Middleton,
Gr. Art. p. 49. Luke x. 6, xvi. 8; John xii. 36; 1 Thess. iv. 5.
Negatively they were not to be partakers; but neutrality is
not sufficient—positively they were to walk as children of the
light. “As children of light,” they were to show by their
conduct that they loved it, enjoyed it, and reflected its lustre.
Their course of conduct ought to prove that they hated the
previous darkness, that they were content with no ambiguous
twilight, but lived and acted in the full splendour of the Sun
of Righteousness, hating the secret and unfruitful deeds of
darkness referred to in the following context. ITepurarteire,

under i. 2. First, the apostle has referred to love as an |
element of Christian walk, vers. 1 and 2; and now he refers —
to light as an element of the same walk; different aspects of —
the same spiritual purity; love, and not angry and vengeful |

passions ; light, and not dark and unnameable deeds.

(Ver. 9.) This verse is a parenthesis, illustrative and con-
firmatory of the previous clause.

‘O yap Kxaprros tod dwros—“For the fruit of the light.”
Instead of d@wros the Textus Receptus has IIvedpatos. For
getcs we have the authority of A, B, D, E’, F, G, and the

Vulgate ; while the Stephanic text is found in D’, E?, K, L, |

the majority of mss., in the Syriac too, and in two of the
Greek commentators. Internal evidence here can have but
little weight. One may say that dwros was inserted in room
of ITvevparos, to give correspondence with the das of the
preceding verse; or one may say, on the other hand, that
ITvevparos supplanted dwrds from a reminiscence of Gal. v. 22.
The particle ydp is used here, as often, to introduce a paren-
thetic confirmation. The verse not only explains what is
meant by walking as children of light, but really holds out an
inducement to the duty. “The fruit is ”—

év aon ayabwovvn— in all goodness.” We cannot say
with so many expositors, that éo7e being supplied, the mean
ing is—the fruit of the Spirit is in, that is—ponitur—consis
in, all goodness, etc. In that case, the simple nominativ

30,

EPHESIANS Y. 10. 381

might have been employed. We understand the apostle to
+ mean, that the fruit is always associated with goodness as
' its element or sphere. Winer, § 48 (3) a. These qualities
_ uniformly characterize its fruits. No one will assent to the
unscholarly remark of Kiittner, that the three following nouns
are merely synonymous. ‘Aya@waovvn does not signify bene-
ficence, properly so called, but that moral excellence which
springs from religious principle (Gal. v. 22; Rom. xv. 14),
and leads to kindness, generosity, or goodness, It here may
stand opposed to the dark and malignant passions which the
apostle has been A Sem cae

kal Sixatoovvy— and righteousness.” This is integrity
or moral rectitude (Rom. vi. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 11), and is in
contrast not only with the theft and covetousness already
- condemned, but with all defective sense of obligation, for it
rules itself by the Divine law, and in every relation of life
strives to be as it ought to be—and is opposed to déxiéa.
_ For the spelling of this and the preceding noun, see Etymol.
~ Mag. sub voce Sixaws. See under iv. 24.
kai adn Peta — “and truth.” Truth stands opposed to

insincerity and dissimulation—evdos. These three ethical
_ terms characterize Christian duty. We cannot agree with
| Baumgarten-Crusius, who thus distinguishes the three nouns:
the first as alluding to what is internal, the second as pertain-
_ ing to human relations, and the third as having reference to
God. For the good, the right, and the true, distinguish that
_ fruit which is produced out of, or belongs to, the condition
which is called “light in the Lord,” and are always distinctive
- elements of the virtues which adorn Christianity.
(Ver. 10.) Aoxipafovtes ti eotiv evapectov Te Kuplp—
_ “Proving what is well-pleasing to the Lord.” Rom. xii. 2;
Phil. i. 10; 1 Thess. v. 21. The participle agrees with the
_ previous verb mepimateire, as a predicate of mode, and so
- used in its ordinary sense—trying—proving. Phil. i 10.
| As they walked, they were to be examining or distinguishing
| what is pleasing to the Lord. Evdpeorov—" well-pleasing ”
| —what the Lord has enjoined and therefore approves. The
| ‘obedience of Christians is not prompted by traditionary or
e ‘unthinking acquiescence, but is founded on clear and dis-

| criminative perception of the law and the will of Christ. And

382 EPHESIANS VY, 11.

that obedience is accepted not because it pleases them to offer
it, but because the Lord hath exacted it. The believer is not
to prove and discover what suits himself, but what pleases his
Divine Master. The one point of his ethical investigation is,
Is it pleasing to the Lord, or in harmony with His law and
example? This faculty belongs, as Theophylact says, to the
perfect—ror Terelwv éeotl THY Kpivew Suvapevwr.

(Ver. 11.) Kai pa cuveowwveire tots épyows Tots axaprross
Tov oxotous—< And have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness.” The spelling cuveowwveire is found in
A, B', D', F, G, L, and the reason for preferring it is given by
Tischendorf, with many examples, in his Prolegomena, page
xlvii. Kai connects this clause with mepimareire. Phil. iv.
14; Rev. xviii, 4. “Axapzos is plainly in contrast with
kapvos in ver. 9. These épya have no good fruits—their
only fruit, as Theophylact says, is death and shame. See the
contrast between pya and xapzés in Gal. v. 19, 22. Yxoros
has been explained under the 8th verse. This admonition is
much the same as that contained in the 7th verse. Rom. vi.
21, vui. 12; Gal. vi. 8. A line of broad demarcation was to
separate the church from the world; and not only was there
to be no participation and no connivance, but there was in
addition to be rebuke—

HarXrov 6€ Kal édéyyete. Mardrov && xai—< Yea, much
more ”’—or better, “ but rather even”—a formula which gives —
special intensity to the antithesis. Fritzsche, ad Rom. viii.
34; Hartung, 1. 134; Gal. iv. 9. It was a duty to have
nothing to do with the deeds of darkness; but it was a far
higher obligation to reprimand them. There was to be not —
simply negative separation, but positive rebuke—not by the |
contrast of their own purity, but by formal and solemn —
reproof. 1 Cor. xiv. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 2; Xen. Symp. viii. 43. |

(Ver. 12.) Ta yap xpudi yivoueva ir’ adbtav aicypov éorw
kai déyeww— for the things in secret done by them it is
shameful even to speak of.” Such a use of xaé discursive is
explained in Hartung, vol. i. 136, and more fully by Klotz,
ad Devarius, vol. ii. 633, ete. The adverb xpudA occurs only
here, and according to some should be written xpud7, with
iota subscribed. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. sub voce; Passow, sub
voce. Deut. xxviii. 57; Wisdom xviii. 9. The connection of

|

EPHESIANS Y, 12. 383

this verse with the preceding has led to no little dispute :—
1. Baumgarten-Crusius regards it as a hyperbole of indigna-
tion, and easily evades the difficulty. 2. Koppe and Riickert
give ydp the sense of “although,” as if the apostle meant to
say—Rebuke these sins, even though you should blush to
mention them. But yap cannot bear such a meaning. 3.
Von Gerlach fills in such a supplement as this—lIt is a shame
; even to speak of their secret sins, yet that should not keep us
from exposing and rebuking them. 4. On the other hand,
_ Bengel, Baumgarten, and Matthies, preceded, it would seem,
_ by cumenius, take the clause as giving a reason why the
_ deeds of darkness are not specified like the fruit of the light:
a Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness ;
I pause not to name them—it is a shame to mention them.”
But such sentimental qualms did not trouble the apostle, as
may be seen from many portions of his writings. Rom. i.
624-32; 1 Cor. vi. 9,10; Gal. v. 19-21; 1 Tim. i. 9, 10.
This opinion also identifies “deeds of darkness” with “the
things done of them in secret.” Now such an opinion cannot
‘be sustained, as it changes the meaning of oxdros from a
moral into a material sense. It is used in a moral sense in
ver. 8, and we know that many of the sins of this darkness
“were not committed in secret, but were open and public vices.
| 5. The opinions of Meier and Holzhausen are somewhat allied.
Meier’s notion is, that Aéyecy means to speak in a loose and
‘indecorous way, and he supposes the apostle to say, “ Rebuke
these sins openly, for it is a shame to make mention of them
in any other way than that of reproof;” or as Alford says—
“Your connection with them must only be that which the act
of érey£is necessitates.” 6. Holzhausen imagines that in the
phrase td xpudi yevopeva there is reference to the heathen
mysteries, and that the apostle warns Christians not to unveil
even in speech their hideous sensualities. But both interpre-
‘tations give an emphatic and unwonted meaning to the clause.
| Nor is there the remotest proof that the so-called mysteries
l are referred to. 7. Stier's idea, which is that of Photius,

Theophylact, and Erasmus, is, that éAéyxyew cannot mean
-yerbal reproof, for this verse would forbid it—it being a
| shame to speak of those secret sins—but that it signifies
‘reproof conveyed in the form of a consistent life of light.

384 EPHESIANS Y. 13.

Matt. v.16; Phil. i115. “The only rebuke you can give
must be in the holy contrast of your own conduct, for to
speak of their secret vices is a shame.” Such is virtually
also the exegesis of Bloomfield and Peile. But that éAéyyw
signifies other than verbal rebuke, cannot be proved. Where

the verb may be rendered “ convince”—as in 1 Cor. xiv. 24, ©
Jas. ii. 9 —Janguage is supposed to be the medium of
conviction. The word, in John iii. 20, has the sense of
—“ exposed,” but such a sense would not well suit the
exegesis of Stier. This exposition thus requires more sup-_
plementary ideas than sound interpretation will warrant. 8.
Anselm, Piscator, Zanchius, Flatt, and Harless take the verse.
not in connection with édéyyere, but with cvyKoweveire, that
is—* Have no fellowship with such deeds, for it is a shame.
even to speak of them, surely much more to do them.” This

opinion identifies too strongly épya oxcrous with ta Kpudh
yivoueva—the latter being a special class of the former.
Lastly, Musculus, de Wette, Meyer, and Olshausen, connect
the verse immediately with padrov dé xal édréyyere—the

meaning being, “ By all means reprove them, and there is the |

more need of it, for it is a shame even to speak of their secret
sins.” This connection is on the whole the simplest, and
follows, we think, most naturally the order of thought and
earnest admonition. That these “things done in secret” have
any reference to the foul orgies of the heathen mysteries, is a
position that cannot be proved, though it has been advanced
by Grotius, Elsner, Wolf, Michaelis, Holzhausen, Macknight,
and Whitby. But there were in heathendom forms of sins so
base and bestial, that they shunned the light and courted
secrecy.

(Ver. 13.) Ta 8€ ravta édeyyoueva, bd Tod pwtds have-

podrat— But all those things being reproved, are by the)

light made manifest.” This verse shows why Christians

should engage in the work of reproof—it is so salutary: for}

it exhibits such vices in all their odious debasement, and
proves its own purity and lustre in the very exposure. Many
and varied have been the interpretations of this statemen
»Olshausen remarks, that the words have gnomenartige Ki

j

We take ra 5€ wavra as referring to the Ta xpud7 yivopev
and not, as Riickert does—in a general sense, or all thin

EPHESIANS Y. 13. 385

‘generally. Jerome thus understands it—haud dubie quin ea
que occulte fiunt. Aé has its adversative foree—they are done
‘in secret, but they may and ought to be exposed. The apostle
‘bids them reprove those sins, and he here states the result.
Reprove them, and the effect is, “all these sins being so reproved,
‘are made manifest by the light.” Storr in his Dissertationes
Exegetice, and Kuinoel—in a paper on this verse printed in the
third volume of the Commentationes Theologica of Velthusen,
Kuinoel, and Ruperti—needlessly argue that the neuter here
stands for the masculine. Kuinoel’s view is, “all who are
reproved and amended ought to be reproved and amended by
‘man who is a genuine and consistent Christian. He who
engages in this work of instruction is light—is a son of the
light—is a true Christian.” Such a violent interpretation
cannot be received.

But with which of the terms should to tod dawrcs be
associated? 1. De Wette, Crocius, Bloomfield, and Peile, join
them to the participle éheyyoueva—all “these reproved by
the light.” Our objection to this connection is, that das
agrees more naturally with ¢davepovrtac—the idea being homo-
geneous, for light is the agent which reveals. De Wette’s
objection, that rebuke is not uniformly followed by such
manifestation, proceeds on the assumption that rebuke is all
but identical with conversion. 2. On the other hand, Stephens
and Mill place a comma after éXeyyoueva, and the connection
of das with the verb is advocated by Bengel, Meier, Harless,
Olshausen, Meyer, and Stier. All those sins done in secret,
if they are reproved, are brought into open view by the light.
635 is used, as in a previous verse, to denote the gospel as a
‘source of light. When such sins are reproved, they are exposed,
they are unveiled in their hideousness by the light let in upon
‘them. Being deeds of darkness, they need the light of
Christianity to make them manifest, for other boasted lights
‘only flickered and failed to reveal them. Philosophy was only
“ darkness visible” around them.
mav yap To pavepotpevor pas cor. Iav 7d. Winer, §1 8, 4.
he meaning depends greatly on this—whether ¢avepovpevov
‘be taken in a middle or passive sense. Many prefer the
‘passive sense, which is certainly the prevailing one in the
‘New Testament, and occurs in the previous clause. Tho
2B

386 EPHESIANS V. 13,

exposition of Olshausen, Stier, Ellicott, and Alford is—“ what-
ever is made manifest is light ”—“ all things illuminated by
the light are themselves light.” Well may Olshausen add—
“this idea has somewhat strange in it,” for he is compelled
to admit “that light does not always exercise this transform-
ing influence, for the devil and all the wicked are reproved by
the light, without becoming themselves light.” Alford calls
this objection “ null,” as being a misapprehension of das éore,
but ¢as in his exegesis changes its meaning from the previous
verse. This opinion of Olshausen is virtually that of the
Greek patristic expositors, who are followed by Peter Lom-
bard. Theophylact says—ézedav dé davepwOh, yivetar has.
Harless renders, “what has been revealed is no longer a
hidden work of darkness: it is light.” The view of Réell,
Robinson, and Wilke is not dissimilar. Thus also Ellicott—
“becomes light, as of the nature of light.” A dark object
suddenly illumined may indeed be said to be all light, because
it is surrounded with light, and this is the notion of Bret-
schneider. But if this be the view, it seems to make the apostle
use a tautology, “whatever is revealed, is enlightened ;”
unless you understand the apostle to say, that by such a pro-
cess they themselves who were once darkness become light.
De Wette’s explanation of the same rendering is—without.
das there is no davepovpevor, and where there is pavepovpevov
there is light. But the apostle does not utter such a truism
—where everything is manifested there is light. Piscator’s.
hypothesis is equally baseless—*“ whatever is manifested is
light, that is, is manifested by the light.” The passive mean- |
ing may be adopted, with the proviso that the apostle does not.
say whether the light be for conversion or condemnation.
But while this view may thus be grammatically defended, still
we feel as if the context led us to take the last clause as a
reason of the statement contained in the first. Thus, some
prefer, with Beza, Calvin, Vatablus, Grotius, Rollock, Zanchius,
Morus, Wahl, Turner, and the Peschito, to give the participle
a reflexive or medial signification. Meyer affirms that gave-
povmas is always passive, but the passive may have a medial
signification, as it seems to have sometimes in the New Testa-
ment. Mark xvi. 12; Johni. 31, ix. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11
Jelf, § 367, 2. Olshausen takes up the exegesis of Groti

EPHESIANS Y. 14, 387

hich is also that of Bodius and Dickson—* for the light is
the element that makes all clear,” and then argues grammati-
cally against such a rendering. But according to the accurate
position of subject and predicate, the meaning is—“ whatever
‘makes manifest or renders apparent, is light.” Such manifes-
tion is the nature and function of light. These clandestine
‘sins, when reproved, are disclosed by the light so cast upon
‘them, for it belongs to light to make such disclosures. The
apostle urges his readers to reprove such sins, which, though
‘done in secret, will and must be exposed; yea, all of them
being reproved, are shone upon by the light—that light which
radiates from Christianity. And this power of unveiling in
istianity is properly called “light,” for whatever causes
such things to disclose themselves is of the essence of light.
‘Such is a natural and simple view of the verse. See Liicke—
Commentar, John iii. 21, vol. i p. 550, 3rd ed.
And that this rebuke is a duty, the discharge of which is
attended with the most salutary results, is now shown by a
reference to the ancient inspired oracles.
Ver. 14. 410 Néryee—“ Wherefore He saith.” See under iv. 8;
6:0, ii. 11. It would be quite contrary to Pauline usage to
suppose that this formula introduced any citation but one from
the Old Testament. But the quotation is not found literally
fin any portion of the Hebrew oracles. Grotius and Elsner
propose to make das the nominative to Aeyec—“ wherefore a
man of light—one of these reprovers says ;” an opinion not
remote from Seiler’s version —die Erleuchteten sollen
sprechen—those who are light themselves should speak to the
shildren of darkness in the following terms—* Awake, thou
‘that sleepest, and arise from the dead.” An early opinion,
I reported by Theodoret as belonging to tuwés Tay épunvevTow,
las been adopted by Heumann, Paeile, ii. p. 396 ; Michaelis ;
| Dopke, Hermeneutik, p. 275, Leipzig, 1829; Storr, Stolz,
Flatt, and Bleek, Stud. und Krit. 1853, p. 331. It is that
he quotation is taken from one of the hymns of the early
Shristian church. Michaelis regards it, indeed, as an excerpt
rom some baptismal formula, Of such a supposition there is
no proof; and the reference to 1 Cor. xiv. 26 is certainly no
rgument in its favour. In a similar spirit Barnes says—
I see no evidence that Paul meant to make a quotation at

388 EPHESIANS V. 14.

all.” The idea of Stier is, that the apostle quotes some
Geisteswort—some saying given to the church by its inspired
prophets, and based upon Isa. lx., and therefore warranting
the 6:6 Aéyet, as truly as any clause of canonical writ. But
the language of the apostle gives no hint of such a source of
quotation, nor have we any parallel example. Others have
recourse to the hypothesis that Paul has quoted from some
apocryphal composition. Such an opinion has been men-
tioned by Jerome as a simplex responsio, while he adds the
saving clause—non quod apocrypha comprobaret; by Epi-
phanius, Contra Hereses, p. 42, who refers to the prophecy
of Elias; by Euthalius, and George Syncellus (Chronolog.
p. 21), who appeal to the apocryphal treatise named Jere-
miah ; while Codex G gives the citation to the book of Enoch,
and Morus holds generally by the hypothesis, which is also
espoused by Schrader, that the clause is borrowed from some
lost Jewish oracle. Rhenferd contends that reference is made
here, as in Acts xx. 35, to one of Christ’s unwritten sayings.
Nor is the difficulty removed by adopting the clumsy theory |
to which Jerome has also alluded, and which Bugenhagen and
Calixtus have adopted, that the nominative to Aéyes is a sub-
jective influence—the Spirit, or Christ within Paul himself,
an imitation of the older idiom—*“ thus saith the Lord.” Nor
is the solution proposed by Bornemann at all more tenable,
viz. that Xéyee is impersonal, and that the clause may be
rendered—* wherefore it may be said ”—or “one may say.”
Scholia in Lucam, p. 48. But the active form is not used
impersonally, though the passive is, and ¢na/ is the common
term. Pape, and Passow, sub vocibus; Bernhardy, p. 419.
Riickert confesses that the subject lies in impenetrable dark-|
ness; but the most extraordinary of all the solutions is the
explanation of Meyer, and by those who believe in a plenary
inspiration it will be rebuked—not refuted. His words a
— “The 80 Aéyes shows that Paul intended to quote from
canonical writing, but as the citation is not from any canoni
cal book, he adduced, through lapse of memory, an apocryph
passage, which he, citing from memory, took to be canoni
But out of what apocryphal writing the quotation is taken
know not.”

Assuming that the quotation is made from the Old Tes

EPHESIANS Y. 14, 389

‘ment, as the uniform use of 8d Aéyet implies, the question
still remains—what place is cited? Various verses and clauses
have been fixed upon by critics, the majority of whom, from
omas Aquinas down to Olshausen, refer to Isa. lx. 1, though
some, such as Beza, Meier, and others, prefer Isa. xxvi. 19.
Isa. ix. 2 is combined, by Baumgarten, Holzhausen, and
‘Kilausen, with lx. 1 (Hermeneutik, p. 416, Leipzig, 1841).
Other combinations have been proposed. The matter is
involved in difficulty, and none of these places is wholly
similar to the verse before us. Harless and Olshausen make it
plausible that the reference is to Isa, Ix. 1— Ik KIND MIN xP
mm Tey niny Wa3w—* Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and
‘the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.” The imperative
is there used with the verb “arise ;” and if we turn back to
ix. 10, the figure of darkness is employed by the prophet,
as well as in the 2nd ver. of chap. lx. The words of the
apostle may, therefore, be viewed as the quintessence of
the prophet’s exclamation—“ Arise.” That idea suggested
to the apostle’s mind the previous condition of those to whom
this trumpet-note was addressed, and he describes it thus—
“ Awake, thou that sleepest ;” and as that species of slumber
was a lethargy of death, he adds—*arise from the dead.”
* Arise, be light,” says the prophet, “for thy light is come,
and the glory of Jehovah has risen upon thee ;”’—but the
apostle resolves the prophecy into a more prosaic description
of its fulfilment—“and Christ shall give thee light.” The
use of the name Christ shows us, as Alford insists, that the
postle meant to make no direct or verbal quotation. But
he entire subject of New Testament quotation is not without
ts difficulties. Gouge, New Testament Quotations, London,
1855; Davidson, Hermeneutics, p. 334. We find that
imilar examples of quotation, according to spirit, are found
in the New Testament, as in Jas. iv. 5; 2 Cor. vi. 16, 17;
fatt. ii, 23. The prophecy is primarily addressed to Zion,
s the symbol of the church. Nor do we apprehend that the
upplication is different in the quotation before us, as the
words are addressed still to the church—as one that had been
eep and dead, but the Divine appeal had startled it. It

1 See the respective commentaries of Vitringa, Gesenius, Henderson, Hitzig,
and Alexander on the passage.

390 EPHESIANS V. 14.

had realized the blessed change of awakening and resurrection,
and had also rejoiced in the light poured upon it by Christ.
Nay, though it was “some time darkness, it was now light in
the Lord;” and its light was not to be hidden—it was to
break in upon the dark and secret places around it, that they
too might be illuminated. In the formation and extension of
any church the prophecy is always realized in spirit; for it
shows of whom a church is composed, what was the first con-
dition of its members, by what means they have been trans-
formed, and what is one primary duty of their organization.

éyetpe 0 Kabevowy— awake, thou that sleepest.” For the
case, see Winer, § 29,2. Lachmann reads éyecpas after the
Textus Receptus, but the majority of critics adopt the spelling
éyepe. It is used not as the active for the middle, but, as
Fritzsche suggests, it was the form apparently employed in
common speech. Comm. ad Mare, ii. 9. That sleep was pro-
found, but there had been a summons to awake. To awake
is man’s duty, for he is commanded to obey, and he does obey
under the influence of the Divine Spirit.

kal avacta é€k Tov vexpav—“and arise from the dead.”
The meaning of véxpos so used may be seen under ii. 1.

Bornemann, in Luc. p. 97. “Avdora is a later form for

avao7n&. Winer, § 14,1, . The command is similar to
that given by our Lord to the man with the withered hand—
“Stretch it forth.” The man might have objected and said
“Could I obey thee in this, I would not have troubled thee.
Why mock me with my infirmity, and bid me do the very
thing I cannot?” But the man did not so perplex himself;
and Christ, in exciting the desire to obey, imparted the power
to obey. See under ii. 2, v. 6.

%

kal émupavoe, cor 6 Xpiotos—“ and Christ shall enlighte
thee.” The various spellings of the verb, and the change o
¢ into wW, have arisen from inadvertence. On the differen
forms of this verb, see Fritzsche on Mark ii. 11; Winer, § 15
This variation is as old as the days of Chrysostom, for h
notices it, and decides for the common reading. The ver
itself occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though it i
once found in the “ Acts of Thomas ”—érégfavoe ydp pow
§ 34. This light Christ flashes upon the dead, and startl
them into life. And the apostle continues—

Le eer EO nO —aes=~ Ee

EPHESIANS V. 15. 391

(Ver. 15.) Brérrere, obv, dxptBas wepirartetre. “Take heed
then how ye walk correctly.” Calvin has been felicitous in
his view of the connection—si aliorum discutere tenebras fideles
debent fulgore suo: quanto{minus cecutire ipsi debent in proprio
vite instituto? In this view ovr is closely joined to the verse
immediately preceding, and such is the view of Harless. De
Wette and Alford, however, connect it with ver. 8—a connec-
tion which reduces unwarrantably all the preceding verses to
a parenthesis; while Meyer quite arbitrarily joins it to the
last clause of the 11th verse. The truth is, that the whole
train of thought from the 8th verse to the 14th is so similar,
that the apostle follows it all up with the injunction before
us. Ody is retrospective, indeed (Klotz, ad Devarius, ii. 718),
but the last verse is present specially to the apostle’s mind.
_ The indicative, and not the subjunctive, is used, the meaning
being, how you walk, not how you should walk. Winer, §
41, 6,1, b; or videte igitur . . . quomodo illud efficiatis ut
provide vivatis. Fritzschiorum, Opuscula, pp. 208, 209, note.
The necessity of personal holiness in themselves, and the
special duty of reproof and enlightenment which lay on them
toward their unbelieving fellows, taught them this accuracy of
walk. IIs is different in aspect from fa as in 1 Cor. xvi.
10, and it stands after Bremérw in 1 Cor. iii. 10. The verb
_is followed by azo in Mark viii. 15, and by a simple accusa-
tive in Phil. iii. 2; Col. iv. 17. Such passages show that it
would be finical to suppose that this verb of vision was used
from its connection with the term light in the former verse.
To dxpi8as, which qualifies not Adérere but mepitareite,
some give the meaning of “accurately,” or as Bengel renders
it—piinktlich, a rendering in which Harless and Stier acquiesce ;
while others follow Luther, who translates vorsichtig, of which
_ the “circumspectly ” of our version is an imitation. Col. iv. 5
adds — pos tovs é&w, a phrase which Olshausen supposes
should be understood here. 1 Thess. iv. 1. The first mean-
jing is more in accordance with the prevailing usage of the
word in all other places of the New Testament. Matt. ii. 8;
‘Luke i. 3; Acts xviii. 25; 1 Thess. v. 2. Still the second
meaning is virtually involved in the first, for this accuracy or
" perfection of walk has a special reference to observers. They
were to see to it that they were walking—

i ots ee es,

——S—_—.
4

-™
sy

se

392 EPHESIANS V, 16.

Lt) @s adcopol, GAN ws codol— not as unwise, but as wise
men ;” first a negative, and secondly a positive aspect. Kypke,
p. 350; Winer, § 65, 5. The subjective yj connects the
clause with zrepurareite. If the Ephesian Christians walked
without taking heed to their ways, then they walked as
fools do, who stumble and fall or miss the path. Wisdom,
not in theory, but in practice—wisdom, and not mere intel-
ligence — was to characterize them; that wisdom which
preserves in rectitude, guides amidst temptations, and affords
a lesson of consistency to surrounding spectators. And if |
there be any allusion to verse 11, then the inferential
meaning is—it would be the height of folly to rebuke that
sin which the reprover is openly committing; to condemn
profane swearing, and barb the reprimand with an oath; or
exemplify the vices of wrath and clamour in anathematizing

such as may be guilty of them. It is strange infatuation to be —

obliged, in pointing others to heaven, to point over one’s

shoulder. And one peculiar proof and specimen of wisdom is _

now given—

(Ver. 16.) "E€ayopafopevor tov xatpov-— Redeeming the
time.” Col. iv. 5. The participle has been variously under-
stood. The translation of Luther—“suit yourselves to the
time,” is plainly without foundation—schicket euch in die Zeit.
The paraphrase of Ambrosiaster is similar—scire quemad-
modum unicunque respondeat. The verb denotes to buy out of |
—é€x; and the middle voice intimates that the purchase is for ‘
oneself—for one’s own personal benefit. Kacpos, probably
allied to xeipw, is not ypovos, simply time, but opportunity."
Tittmann, De Synon. p. 39; Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 320 ;
see, however, Benfey, Wurzellex. vol. ii. p. 288. This oppor-
tunity is supposed to be in some other’s possession, and you
buy it. You make it your own by purchase, by giving in

exchange those pleasures or that indolence, the indulgence of
which would have made you forego such a bargain. The

1 ** Mitylena oriundus Pittacus sum Lesbius,
Viyywoxs xougdy qui dixi sententiam.
Sed iste xa:eés, tempus ut noris, monet :
Et esse xaieov, tempestivum quod vocant.
Romana sic est vox, VENITO IN TEMPORE.”
—Ausonius, Opera, p. 145, Biponti, 1785.

EPHESIANS VY. 16. 393

meaning is, then—making the most of every opportunity.
Such is at least a signification that neither the words them-
selves nor the context disprove. We are not on the one hand
to say with Meyer, that é« is merely intensive, for it points
_ to that out of which, or out of whose power, the purchase is
_ to be made; still, we are not anxiously, on the other hand, to
find out and specify from whom or what the time is to be
redeemed, and to call it “ bad men,” with Jerome and Bengel,
or “the devil,” with Calvin. Such is too hard a pressure upon
the figure. Neither are we curiously to ask, what is the price
given in exchange? Such is the gratuitous minuteness of
_ Chrysostom, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius, who refer us to
“opponents bribed off,’ and of Augustine, Calvin, FEstius,
Zanchius, Riickert, and Stier, who understand by the alleged
price the offering of all earthly hindrance and pleasure. Beza’s
better illustration is that of a merchant whose foresight enables
him to use all things for his own purposes; and Olshausen
remarks that such a lesson is taught in the parable recorded
in Luke xvi. 1-16. The exegesis of Harless is by far too
restricted, for he confines the phrase to this meaning—“ to
know the right point of time when the light of reproof should
_ be let in on the darkness of sin.” Still farther removed from
the right conception is the interpretation of Grotius, as if the
command were one addressed to Christians, to avoid danger
and so prolong their life; or that of Wilke, Macknight, and
Bretschneider, which is—*seize every opportunity to shun
danger.” It is thought by some that the phrase is founded
‘on the Greek version of Dan. ii. 8, where Nebuchadnezzar
‘said to the Magi of Babylon— 123! RAIN NIW 4, rendered
—in xatpcv wpeis eEayopatere. Even though we were
‘obliged to agree with Dathe, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Maurer,
and Hitzig, that the phrase meant there, to buy up or to
prolong the time, or seek delay, yet here the article pre-
fixed by the apostle gives the noun a definite speciality.
" Sese (id quod dificillimum fuerit) tempus ipsum emisse Judit
‘gui. Cicero in Verrem, iii. p. 240; Opera, ed. Nobbe, Lipsie,
“1850. The “unwise” allow the propitious moment to pass,
‘and it cannot be recalled. They may eulogize it, but they
have missed it. The “wise,” on the other hand, who walk
‘correctly, recognize it, appreciate it, take hold of it, make it

LSS ea SS ee ee eee

394 EPHESIANS V. 17.

at whatever sacrifice their own, and thriftily turn it to the best
advantage. They redeem it, as Severianus says—doote xata-
xpnoacbat avtT@ mpos evoéBevav. The apostle adds a weighty
reason—

6TL at Hepat trovnpal eiowv—* because the days are evil.”
The apostle, as Olshausen remarks, does not adduce the few-
ness of the days to inculcate in general the diligent use of
time, but he insists on the evil of the days for the purpose of
urging Christians to seize on every opportunity to counteract
that evil. Beza, Grotius, Riickert, Robinson, Wilke, and
Wahl, take the adjective in the sense of —“ sorrowful,
calamitous, or dangerous.” But we prefer the ordinary
meaning—“ evil,” morally evil, and it furnishes a strong
argument. Their days were evil. All days have indeed
been evil, for sin abounds in the world. But the days of
that period were characterized by many enormities, and
the refining power of Christianity was only partially and
unequally felt. If these days so evil afforded any oppor-
tunities of doing good, it was all the more incumbent on
Christians to win them and seize them. The very abundance ©
of the evil was a powerful argument to redeem the time, and |
the apostle writing that letter in a prison was a living |
example of his own counsel. It is wholly foreign to the ©
context, on the part of Holzhausen, to refer these evil days to |
the period of the mystery of iniquity. 2 Thess.i1.4; 1 Tim. |
iv. 1. The Greek fathers are careful to remark that the |
apostle calls the days evil, not in themselves—rt7v ovclav—_
as they are creatures of God; but on account of the events
with which they are connected.

(Ver. 17.) Aid todto pH ylvecOe adpoves —“On this —
account become not senseless.” On this account—not because |
the days are evil—ézreid) 1) trovnpia avOcei—as is supposed
by (écumenius, Menochius, Zanchius, Estius, Riickert, and
de Wette; but because we are summoned to walk wisely,
redeeming the time, the days being evil, therefore we are to
possess a high amount of Christian intelligence. The epithet
appwv characterizes a man who does not use his rational
powers. Ast, Lex. Plat. sub voce. It differs from acodos,
which has reference more to folly in action and daily work;
whereas it, as this verse intimates, signifies a non-comprehen

EPHESIANS Y. 18 395

_ sion of the principles on which that walk is to be regulated.
Tittmann, De Synon. 143.

GdrXa aumévtes tl tO OéXnua Tod Kupiov—* but under-

standing what the will of the Lord is.” The participle is
_ variously read. A and B read in the imperative, ovvéete,
which Jerome follows, a reading also approved by Lachmann
and Riickert, though it is probably an emendation conforming
to the other imperatives; while cuvmdvtes is the reading of
D', F, G, and is preferred by Harless, Alford, and Meyer ;
while D*, E, K, L, and almost all mss. read as the Textus
Receptus — ovmévtes. We have no objection to the com-
mon reading, which is retained by Tischendorf. The par-
ticiple signifies knowing intelligently, and means more than
ywookev. Luke xii. 47. That will which it is their duty
to understand is the authoritative expression of the mind of
Christ, who embodied in His own example the purity and
benignity of all His precepts. Codex B adds jyov, and
Codex A has @cod—both evidently without authority. The
Ephesian Christians, in order to enable themselves to redeem
the time, were not to be thoughtless, but to possess a perfect
understanding of the Master’s will. They would then form
just conceptions of daily duty, and would not lose time
through the perplexity of conflicting obligations. For @éAnua
_ see under i. 5, 9, 11, and for Kupuos, under i. 2, 3.
. (Ver. 18.) Kal pi) peOvoxecOe olve— And be not made
drunk with wine.” Prov. xx. 1, xxiii. 20; 1 Thess. v. 7.
Again, there is first the negative, and then the positive
injunction. By «a/ transition is made from a general counsel
to a particular instance, and the injunction thus becomes
climactic. The dative olvw is like the Latin ablative of
instrument. Winer, § 31, 7. There is no proof in the
context for the opinion held, and reckoned possible by de
: Wette, Koppe, and Holzhausen, that the apostle alludes, as in
1 Cor. xi., to any abuse of the old love-feasts, or of the Lord's
a

ll ait ae Bee te ee ee Se

i ee at

—_— =—

Supper. Olvos (with the digamma—vinum, Wein), as the
common drink of the times, is specified by the apostle as the
t means of intoxication. And he adds— :
& & éotly dowrla—* in which is dissoluteness,” or profli-
; gacy—Lururia; Vulgate. Tittmann, De Synon. p. 152;
Trench, Synon. § 16. Prov. xxviii. 7; Titi 6; 1 Pet. iv. 4.

y

pata

—_
:

396 EPHESIANS VY. 18.

The antecedent to @ is not otvos, but the entire previous
clause. The Syriac borrows simply—jZaac| The term
0 0

dow7os, from a privative and cow, is the picture of a sad and
very common result. It is sometimes used by the classics to
signify one who is, as we say, “past redemption ”—7rapa To
cowl (Etymolog. Mag.); oftener one qui servare nequit. The
adverb dowtws is used of the conduct of the prodigal son in
the far country in Luke xv. 13. See Tit. i. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 4;
Sept. Prov. xxviii. 7; 2 Macc.iv. 6. Aristotle, in his Ethics, iv.,
virtually defines the term thus—td $6elpew tv ovotay,—
or again, dowtia éotw wrepBody) Tepl ypnwata—or again,
Tovs axpateis Kat eis axodaciav Satravnpols dowTovs KadOU-
bev. Cicero (De Finibus) says— nolim mihi fingere asotus,
ut soletis, qui in mensam vomant, p. 1006, Opera, ed. Nobbe.
Theophylact, alluding to the etymology, says—ovt owfeu adr’
aTOhAVGW OV TO THEA oVOV adda Kal THY Wuxnv; and the
drunkard’s progress, described by Clement in the first chapter
of the second book of his Padagogue, is a series of tableaux
without veil or reserve. Referring to the origin which he
assigns to the term, he also says—Aawtous te avTovs ot
Kadécavtes €D por SoKxodow aivittecOar TO TéEdOS aUTaY,
dawatous avtovs, Kata ExOrupiy TOD a aToLYEloU VEvONKOTES.
There is in the vice of intemperance that kind of dissolute-
ness which brooks no restraint, which defies all efforts to
reform it, and which sinks lower and lower into hopeless and
helpless ruin. It is erroneous, therefore, on the part of
Schoettgen,’ to restrict the term to lasciviousness, though
intemperance be, as Varro called it, Veneris suscitabulum ; as
Jerome too, venter mero aestuans facile despumat in libidinem.
The connection between the two vices is notorious; but

' Bammidbar rabba, sect. 10, fol. 206, 3. my wr y ww ppd b>.
Ubicunque est vinum, nimirum quod abundanter bibitur, ibi est immunditia,
scortatio, et adulterium.

Ibidem, fol. 208, 3. Si homo unum poculum bibit, nempe nya, quarta
pars rationis ab ipso recedit. Si duos bibit, due partes rationis abeunt. Si
tres, totidem partes rationis abeunt, et cor ipsius conturbatum est, et statim
ejusmodi verba loquitur, que nulli rei quadrant. Si vero quatuor bibit, tune
omnis ratio abscedit, et renes ejus (in quibus ex mente Judeorum etiam pars
quedam rationis residet) perturbantur, et cor diripitur, et lingua officium non

facit, vult quidem aliquid proferre, sed non potest.
Post pauca ibid. [7 JO NW Do psx. Non egreditur bonum quid e vino,

EPHESIANS V. 18. 397

libidinous indulgence is only one element of the dcwria.
This tremendous sin of intemperance is all the more to be
shunned as its hold is so great on its victims, for with
periodical remorse there is periodical inebriety ; the fatal cup
is again coveted and drained; while character, fortune, and
life are risked and lost in the gratification of an appetite of
all others the most brutal in form and brutifying in result.
There are few vices out of which there is less hope of
-recovery—its haunts are so numerous and its hold is so
tremendous. As Ephesus was a commercial town and busy
seaport, its wealth led to excessive luxury, and Bacchus was
the rival of Diana. The women of Ephesus, as the priestesses
of Bacchus, danced round Mark Antony’s chariot on his
entrance into the city. Drunkenness was indeed an epidemic
in those times and lands. Alexander the Great, who died a
_ sacrifice to Bacchus and not to Mars, offered a prize to him
| who could drink most wine, and thirty of the rivals died in
_ the act of competition. Plato boasts of the immense quan-
_ tities of liquor which Socrates could swill uninjured; and the
philosopher Xenocrates got a golden crown from Dionysius
| for swallowing a gallon at a draught. Cato often lost his
_ senses over his choice Falernian. The “excess” or dissolute-
ness attendant on drunkenness and the other vices referred to
in the previous context, is also illustrated by many passages
in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, the Latin version of an older
Greek drama. The “ braggart captain,” a citizen of Ephesus,
is described in the prologue by his own servant as “a vain,
impudent, foul fellow, brimful of lying and lasciviousness.”'
Another character of the piece thus boasts—“ Either the
merry banterer likewise, or the agreeable boon companion will
I be; no interrupter of another am I at a feast. I bear in
mind how properly to keep myself from proving disagreeable
to my fellow-guest,” etc... . “In fine, at Ephesus was I
born, not among the Apulians, not at Animula ”*—(there being
in this last term a difference of reading).
44 Hoc oppidum Ephesu’st : inde Miles meus herus,
i Qui hinc ad forum abiit, gloriosus, impudens,
Stercoreus, plenus perjurii atque adulterii."”—Act ii. Se. 1.
2 «Et ego amoris aliquantulum habeo, humorisque meo etiam in corpore :

Neque dum exarui ex ameenis rebus et voluptariis,
Vel cavillator facetus, vel conviva commodus

"I

398 EPHESIANS V. 19,

ara TAnpodabe év IIveyuati—“ but be filled with the
Spirit.” The terms ofvos and wvedya are not contrasted simply,
as is pleaded by Harless, but the two clauses are in antithesis.
The verb is in the passive voice, and is followed by the
instrumental €év—an unusual construction. It has after it some-
times the genitive and sometimes the dative or accusative,
with different meanings. Winer,§ 31,7. Ev, therefore, may
denote the element, as frequently, and not the instrument; the
Spirit, as Matthies says, being represented not merely als
Mittel und Inhalt. Col.ii. 10, iv. 12. Not only were they to
possess the Spirit, but they were to be filled in the Spirit, as
vessels filled to overflowing with the Holy Ghost. Men are
intoxicated with wine, and they attempt to “fill” themselves
with it; but they cannot. The exhilaration which they covet
can only be felt periodically, and again and again must they
drain the wine cup to relieve themselves of despondency. But
Christians are “ filled” in or with the Spirit, whose influences
are not only powerful, but replete with satisfaction to the
heart of man. Ps. xxxvi.8; Actsii.15,16. It is a sensation
of want—a desire to fly from himself, a craving after something
which is felt to be out of reach, eager and restless thirst to enjoy,
if at all possible, some happiness and enlargement of heart—
that usually leads to intemperance. But the Spirit fills
Christians, and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and
peace ; genuine elevation and mental freedom ; superiority to all
depressing influences ; and refined and permanent enjoyment.
Of course, if they are so filled with the Spirit, they feel no
appetite for debasing and material stimulants.

(Ver. 19.) Aadodvres éavtots—* Speaking to one another.”
Under the relaxing influence of wine the tongue is loosened,
and the unrestrained conversation too often passes into that

Item ero: neque ego unquam oblocutor sum alteri in convivio,

Incommoditate abstinere me apud convivas commode

Commemini, et mez orationis justam partem persequi ;

Et meam partem itidem tacere, cum aliena est oratio.

Neque ego unquam alienum scortum subigito in convivio, |

Neque preripio pulpamentum, neque prevorto poculum,

Neque per vinum unquam ex me exoritur dissidium in convivio.

Si quis ibi est odiosus, abeo domum, segrego,

Venerem, amorem, amcenitatemque accubans exerceo.

Minime sputator, screator sum, itidem minime muccidus.
Post Ephesi sum natus ; non in Apulis, non sum in Umbria.”—Act iii. Sc. 1,

EPHESIANS Y. 19, 399

species of language, the infamy of which the apostle has
already exposed. The participle is connected in syntax with
_ wdnpovae, for this “ speaking ” is the result of spiritual fulness.
‘Eavrois is for a\ddors, as in iv. 32, and cannot signify, as
Morus and Michaelis would render it—* with yourselves,”
or “within you,” but “among yourselves,” or “in concert.”
The verb Aandefy has the general signification of “using the
- voice,” and is specifically different from elweivy and déyeev, for
-it is used of the sounds of animals and musical instruments,
See the Lexicons, and Tittmann, De Synon. pp. 79, 80. Each
was not to repeat a psalm to his neighbour, for in such a case
confusion and jargon would be the result; but the meaning of
the clause seems to be this—“ Giving expression among your-
selves, or in concert, to your joyous emotions in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs.” Aandovvtes éavrois, different
from éyovtes mpos éavrovs, may, perhaps, signify “in
responsive chorus,” or dicere secum invicem, as Pliny’s letter
describes it. We know that ancient sacred song was of this
antiphonal nature; nay, Nicephorus Callistus in his History,
xiii. 8, says, that such a practice was handed down from the
-apostles—riy tav dvtipavev cuviPeav avwbev droctohwy 7
éxxdnoia tapédaBe. Theodoret traces the same custom to
‘the church at Antioch (Hist. Eccles. ii. 24), while Socrates
| ascribes the origin of it to Ignatius. Hvst. vi. 8. Augustine,
however, carries such responsoria no higher than the episcopate
‘of Ambrose at Milan. But indeed many of the psalms were
composed so as to be sung by a chorus and semichorus, as is
| plainly marked in the 2nd and in the 24th.

The apostle refers certainly to social intercourse, and in all
"probability also, and at the same time, to meetings for Divine
‘service. The heathen festivals were noted for intemperate
‘revelry and song, but the Christian congregation was to set
an example of hallowed exhilaration and rapture. The pages
of Clement of Alexandria throw some light on such ancient
1 practices. Padagog. lib. ii. cap. 4. We cannot say, with Le
| Clerc and Riickert, that the three following terms are synony-
“mous repetitions, and that the apostle does not characterize
different kinds of sacred poetry :—

- parpois—“in psalms”—the dative being what Winer
calls “the simple dative of direction,” § 31, 4. This term,

400 EPHESIANS V. 19.

from wWaddAecv—to strike the lyre, is, according to its deriva-
tion, a sacred song chanted to the accompaniment of instru-
mental music. So Basil rightly defines it—o wards, Aoyos
€otl povotkos, Stay evpvOuws Kata Tors AppoviKods AOyous
mpos TO Spyavoy Kpovntar. On Ps. xxix. The definition of
Gregory of Nyssa is similar—arpos éorw % Sid Tod dpydvou
Tov povatkod merwdia. This specific idea was lost in course
of time, and the word retained only the general sense of a
sacred poetical composition, and corresponds to the Hebrew
nin, It denotes sometimes the Book of Psalms (Luke xx.
42; Acts i. 20, xiii. 33); and in one place it signifies the im-
provised effusion of one who possessed some of the charismata,
or gifts of the early church. 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

kal vuvous—“and hymns.” These are also sacred poetical
compositions, the primary purpose of which is to praise, as
may be seen in those instances in which the verb occurs,
Acts xvi. 25; Heb. 11, 12. The term corresponds to the
Hebrew words WY and nan, Deyling, Observat. Sacr. vol. iii.
430; Le Moyne, Note in Varia Sacra, p. 970. The hymn
was more elaborate and solemn in its structure than the ode.
The idea of Grotius appears to be quite baseless, that hymns
were extemporales Det laudes. The idea of improvisation is
not necessarily implied in the word, but belongs rather to the
following term. The hymn is thus defined by Phavorinus—
ipvos, » mpos Oeov Gdn; and by Gregory of Nyssa—dpvos, %
T® Oc@ cipnuia. The same meaning of the term is found in
Arrian—tpvor pév és todvs Beovs Trovodytat, etc.—< hymns
are composed for the gods, but eulogies for men ”—€zrawvor 88 és
avOpwrous. Hxped. Alex, 4. Augustine on Ps. lxxxii. says—
st sit laus, et nist sit Dei, non est hymnus ; si sit laus, et Dei laus,
et non cantetur, non est hymnus. Oportet ergo, ut si sit hymnus,
habeat hac tria, et laudem, et Dei, et canticum. The Coptic i
version translates the noun by— 2, ANC9R OF —“doxologies.” |

kal @oais mvevpatikais—“ and spiritual songs.” IIvevpa- |
tixais is put within brackets by Lachmann and Alford, on the
authority of B and a few authorities. The ode is a general
term, and denotes the natural outburst of an excited bosom—
the language of the sudden impulses of an Oriental tempera-
ment. Such odes as were allowed to Christians are termed
“ spiritual,” that is, prompted by the Spirit which filled the

EPHESIANS V. 19. 401

_ But the psalms and hymns are already marked out as conse-
_ crated, and needed no such additional epithet. For the pre-
vailing meaning of the adjective, see underi. 3. Odes of this
nature are found in Scripture, as that of Hannah at her boy’s
_ consecration, that of the Virgin at the Annunciation, and that
_ of Zechariah on the birth of his son. It is plain that the
_ hymn and the ode might pass into one another, but we cannot
_ agree with Harless, in regarding the “songs” as simply a more
_ general designation ; or with Meyer, in supposing, whatever
the general meaning and the usage elsewhere, that here and
in such a connection they are the genus of which psalms and
hymns are the species, and that the clause is one of the apostle’s
common cumulations. As a considerable portion of the church
at Ephesus was composed of Jews, these psalms in the idiom
of a Jew might be the Psalms of the Old Testament, and not
merely sacred poems thus named by them, as is the opinion
of Harless ; and the hymns might be compositions of praise
Specially adapted to the Gentile mind, though not inapposite
“to the Jew. The imagery, allusions, and typical references of
‘the Psalms could not be fully appreciated by the Gentile sec-
tions of the churches. And these “spiritual odes,” perhaps
of a more glowing and individual nature, taking the shape
both of psalms and hymns, might be recited or chanted in
their assemblies or churches, as the Spirit gave utterance.
Acts x. 46. Tertullian says in his Apology—ut quisquis de
seripturis Sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur
medium Deo canere. Many hymns which were originally
grivate and personal, have thus become’ incorporated with the
salmody of our churches. Stier, who does not coincide with
all we have said on this subject, yet gives this definition
“biblical, ecclesiastical, and private poems ;” and his idea is
better than that of Baumgarten-Crusius, who understands
the terms as denoting “songs of thanks, of praise, and lyrics.”
erome says—Hymni sunt qui fortitudinem et mayestatem prar-
icant Dei, et ejusdem semper vel beneficia vel facta mirantur,
omnes psalmi continent, quibus Alleluja vel prorpositum,
subjectum est, Psalmi autem proprie ad ethicum locum per-
vent, ut per organum corporis, quid faciendum et quid vilandum
noverimus. Qui vero de superioribus disputat et concentum
ndi omniumque creaturarum ordinem atque concordiam sub-
2c

402 EPHESIANS Y. 19.

tilis disputator edisserit, iste spirituale canticum canit, The
service of song enjoyed peculiar prominence in the ancient
church. The Fathers often eulogize the Psalms of David. An
exuberant encomium of Basil’s may be found in his commentary
on the first Psalm. Hooker has some beautiful remarks on
the same theme in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical Polity,
and the tender and exquisite preface of Bishop Horne must
be fresh in the memory of every reader. Eusebius testifies,
that besides the Psalms, other compositions were sung in the
churches. They were to be—

ddovres Kal WaddovtTes ev TH Kapdia vuav—* singing and
making melody in your heart.” Some MSS., such as A, D,
E, F, G, read xapdias, but they are counterbalanced by
Codices B, K, L, the Syriac version, and the Greek fathers.
The previous AaAovvtes is defined by adovres as being co-ordi-
nate with it. The second participle may denote an additional
exercise. Their speech was to be song, or they were to be

singing as well as speaking. Wanddev, originally “to strike

the lyre,” came to signify “to strike up a tune,” and it denotes
the prime accompaniment of these songs, to wit, the symphony
of the soul. This is indeed secret and inaudible melody, but
it is indispensable to the acceptance of the service—

‘* Non vox, sed votum, non chordula musica, sed cor ;
Non clamans, sed amans, cantat in aure Dei.”

Riickert, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, and Meyer
understand the apostle to inculcate a species of silent warbling

totally distinct from the common practice of song, and whic

was to be felt as the result of this fulness of the Spirit. Bu
it seems to be to the open and audible expression of Christia
feeling that the apostle refers in the phrase AaXodvtes—«
adovtes ; while coupled with this, he adds with emphasis
“playing in your hearts.” The words, indeed, denote sec
melody, but may not the secret and inner melody form a
accompaniment to the uttered song? The phrase, as Harl
says, does not mean heartily, or é« xapd/as would have b
employed. Compare Rom. i. 9—é€v T@ mvevparl pov. Th
doret comes nearer our view when he says—“ He sings wi
his heart who not only moves his tongue, but also excites
mind to the understanding of the sentiments repeated,”

EPHESIANS V. 19. 403

Ga Kai Tov voov eis THY TdY eyouéver Katavinow beyelpwy.
Now this silent playing in the heart will be that sincere and
genuine emotion, which ought to accompany sacred song.
The heart pulsates in unison with the melody. Mere music
is but an empty sound ; for compass of voice, graceful execution,
and thrilling notes are a vain offering in themselves. The
Fathers complained sometimes that the mere melody of the
church service took away attention from the spirit and meaning
of the exercise. Thus Jerome says justly on this passage—
“Let young men hear this: let those hear it who have the
office of singing in the church, that they sing not with their
voice, but with their heart, to the Lord; not like tragedians
physically preparing their throat and mouth, that they may
sing after the fashion of the theatre in the church. He that
has but an ill voice, if he has good works, is a sweet singer
before God.”? . . . “Let the servant of Christ so order
his singing, that the words which are read may please more
than the voice of the singer; that the spirit which was in Saul
may be cast out of them who are possessed with it, and not
find admittance in those who have turned the house of God
into a stage and theatre of the people.”* Cowper, with a
delicate stroke of satire, says of some in his day—

‘Ten thousand sit
Patiently present at a sacred song
Mra ee ee Content to hear
(O wonderful effect of music’s powers !)
Messiah’s eulogies, for Handel's sake.”

7@ Kupio—* to the Lord,” or as Pliny reported—Christo
quasi Deo. To Him who loved the church, and died for it—
to Him, the Lord of all, who sends down that Spirit which
fills the heart and prompts it to melody—such praise is to be

1 “ Audiant hee adolescentuli : audiant hi quibus psallendi in ecclesia officium
Deo non voce, sed corde cantandum: nec in tragedorum modum guttar et
, fauces dulci medicamine colliniendas, ut in ecclesia theatrales moduli audiantur
cantica, sed in timore, in opere, in scientia Scripturarum, Quamvis sit
“@liquis, ut solent illi appellare saxspwres, si bona opera habuerit, dulcis apud
| Deum cantus est.”

2 ‘Sic cantet servus Christi, ut non vox canentis, sed verba pleceant que
zuntur : ut spiritus malus, qui erat in Saule, ejiciatur ab bis, qui similiter
possidentur, et non introducatur in ¢os, qui de domo scenam fevere

ab eo
NOD ”

—— +

404 EPHESIANS V. 20.

rendered. And the early church, in obedience to the apostle’s
mandate, acknowledged His Divinity, and sang praise to Him
as its God. The hymnology of the primitive church leaves
not a doubt of its belief in Christ’s supreme Divinity. Pye
Smith’s Scripture Testimony, vol. ii. p. 460, ed. 1859;
August., Christl. Archdol. vol. ii. p. 113; Bingham, Antiquities,
vol. iv. p. 380. One of these very old and venerable relics,
the Morning Hymn preserved in the Liturgy of the Church
of England, is subjoined as a specimen, not only in its spirit
and theology, but in its antiphonal structure—

‘Glory be to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men. We
praise Thee, we bless Thee, we worship Thee, we glorify Thee, we give thanks
to Thee for Thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father
Almighty.

“*O Lord, the only-begotten Son Jesu Christ ; O Lord God, Lamb of God,
Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that
takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the
right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.

‘* For Thou only art holy ; Thou only art the Lord ; Thou only, O Christ, with |
the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.”

(Ver. 20.) Evyapicrodrtes ravrote trép tTavtav— Giving
thanks always for all things.” Many collocations as mavtore
—mrTavtwy are given by Lobeck, Paralip. vol. i. pp. 56, 57.
This clause is still connected with wAnpotabe év IIvevtpare, and
is further descriptive of one of its results and accompaniments. —
The heart becomes so susceptible in the possession of this
fulness of the Spirit, that grateful emotions predominate, for its —
own unworthiness is contrasted with God’s gifts poured down
upon it in crowded succession. 1 Thess. v.18. And this
thanksgiving, from its very nature and causes, is continuous—
mTavtote UTép TavtTwv. Thanksgiving cannot be always for-
mally rendered, but the adverb has the same popular intensive
meaning in 1 Thess. v.18. Some, such as Theodoret, take
mavtTwy in the masculine, which is against the context; for it
is of duty toward God the apostle speaks, not duty toward
man, nor can we, with Meyer and others, limit the “ all things”
to blessings. We take it in a more extended and absolute
sense, with Chrysostom, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom,
indeed, says—‘“we are to thank God for hell”—#d7ép rijs
yeévyns avths. Whether this extreme sentiment be just or

a st i ce te

EPHESIANS Y,. 20. 405

not, it is foreign to the context, for the apostle speaks of “ all
things” now possessed by us, or sent upon us—ovy imep tay
- @yabav povov, says Theophylact; etiam in iis que adversa
putantur, says Jerome. It is an easy thing to thank God for
blessings enjoyed, but not so easy to bless Him in seasons of
suffering ; yet when men are filled with the Spirit, their modes
of thought are so refined and exalted, and their confidence in
the Divine benignity is so unhesitating, that they feel even
adversity and affliction to be grounds of thanksgiving, for—

‘* Behind a frowning providence,
He hides a smiling face.”

So many and so salutary are the lessons imparted by
_ chastisement—so much mercy is mingled in all their trials
_—so many proofs are experienced of God's staying “His
_ rough wind in the day of His east wind,” that the saints will
_ not hang their harps on the willows, but engage in earnest and
blessed minstrelsy. And such eucharistic service is to be

_ presented—
év dvopatt Tov Kupiov nuav ‘Inood Xpiatos—* in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” These thanks are rendered not
to “the honour of His name,” for the phrase is not els 70
Svowa. To do anything “to the name of,” and to do it “in the
name” of another, are widely different. The former implies
honour and homage ; the latter authority and warrant. Com-
pare ets TO dvoua, Matt. xxviii, 19; Acts xix. 5; 1 Cor. i.
13,15; but év r@ ovoyate has a very different meaning, as
_may be seen in John xiv. 13; Acts iv. 12, x. 48; Col. iii.
17; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 14. His name is the one
element in which thanks are to be rendered—that is, by His
. warrant thanks are offered, and for His sake they are accepted.
The phrase occurs in many connections, of which Harless has
Riven only a sample. Thus in His name miracles are done,
oe x. 17, Acts iii. 6, iv. 10, xvi. 18, Jas. v. 14; ordin-

ances are dispensed, Acts x. 48, 1 Cor. v. 4; devotional
“service is offered and prayer answered, John xiv. 13, xvi. 23,
26, Phil. ii. 10; claim of Divine commission is made, Mark
xi. 9, Luke xix. 38; blessing is enjoyed, Acts iv. 12, 1 Cor.
vi. 11; the spiritual rule of life is enjoined, Col. iii 17; a
solemn charge is made, 2 Thess. iii. 6; reproach is borne,

406 EPHESIANS V. 21.

1 Pet. iv. 14; or certain states of mind are possessed, Acts
ix. 27, 28. Whatever the varieties of relation, or act, or
state, the same generic idea underlies them all—as Bengel
says, wt perinde sit ac si Christus faciat. Giving thanks—

t® Ocm xal IIatpi—<to God and the Father.” The
article, as in similar places, is not repeated before the second
noun, for it is but another epithet of Him who is named under
the first term. Winer, § 19, 3, note. See under i. 3. As
to the relation of IIaryp, Erasmus, Estius, Harless, Meyer,
and Baumgarten-Crusius refer it to Christ; but others, as
Zanchius, Riickert, and Matthies, refer it to believers. The
word, however, appears to have been employed in a general
sense, for the paternal character of God has relation as well to
His own Son, as to all His adopted human children.

(Ver. 21.) ‘Yarotaccopevor adrAjrols ev Po8@ XpiotoI—
‘Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.”
Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 13, v. 5. The authority for Ocod
is so slight, that it need not be recounted. This additional
participial clause, which concludes the paragraph, forms also
a link between it and the next. Indeed, it commences a new
section in Knapp’s edition, and Olshausen inclines to the
same opinion, but the participial form trotacadpevou forbids
such a supposition. Chrysostom joins the clause to the former |
verses, and his arrangement is followed by Riickert, Meier,
Estius, Meyer, Harless. Winer, § 45, 6. Olshausen mistakes
the connection when he wonders how an advice to subordina-
tion can be introduced as a sequel to spiritual joy. But the
participle d7rotaccopevor is joined to mAnpovcbe, and has no
necessary or explanatory connection with the other dependent
participles preceding it. It introduces a new train of thought,
and is so far connected with the previous verb, as to indicate
that this reciprocal deference has its root and origin in the
fulness of the Spirit. It would perhaps be going too far to
say, that as the phrase, “be not drunk with wine,” is related
to the clause, “be filled with the Spirit,” so this connected
verse stands opposed, at the same time, to that self-willed
perversity and that fond and foolish egotism which inebriety
so often creates. It is out of all rule, on the part of Calvin,
Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, and Matthies, to take the participle
as an imperative. The words év ¢é8m Xpicrod describe the

EPHESIANS V. 22. 407

_ element of this submission. It is reverential submission to

Christ. Acts ix. 31; 2 Cor. v.11, vii. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 2. S0Bo¢

here is not terror or slavish apprehension, but that solemn
_ awe which the authority of Christ inspires. In this the mutual

deference and submission commanded by the apostle must
have their seat. This Christian virtue is not cringing obse-
quiousness ; and while it stands opposed to rude and dictatorial
insolence, and to that selfish preference for our own opinion
and position which amounts to a claim of infallibility, it is
not inconsistent with that honest independence of disposition
and sentiment which every rational and responsible being
must exercise. It lays the foundation also, as is seen in the
following context, for the discharge of relative duty, as in the
three instances of wives, children, and servants, nor is it without
room for exhibition in the case of husbands, parents, and
masters ; in short, it should be seen to develop itself in all the
relations of domestic life.

(Ver. 22.) With regard to the following admonition it is to
be borne in mind, that in those days wives, when converted
and elevated from comparative servitude, might be tempted,
in the novel consciousness of freedom, to encroach a little—as
if to put to the test the extent of their recent liberty and
enlargement. The case was also no uncommon one for
Christian wives to have unbelieving husbands, and the wife
might imagine that there was for her an opportunity to manifest
the superiority of a new and happy creed. 1 Pet. ill. 1-6.
And those Ephesian wives had little of the literary and none

of the religious education enjoyed by the daughters of modern

Christian households. Even under the Mosaic law, women
and wives had few legal rights, and they too, when baptized,
needed the injunction of the apostle—

ai yuvaixes ois idiows avdpdow, ws TP Kupio—“ wives,
submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

The sentence has no verb, and it afforded, therefore, a fair

opportunity for the ingenuity of the early copyists. Some
MSS., such as D, E, F, G, add irotaccecOe alter yuvaixes.
Scholz and Hahn place the same word after avépacw,
while A and some minusculi add trotaccécOwcav—a reading
followed by Lachmann. There are other variations in the
form ‘attempted supplement. Jerome proves that there was

“Ta, 4

408 EPHESIANS V. 22.

nothing in the Greek Codices to correspond to the subdite sint
of the Latin version. The continuity of the apostle’s style did
not require any verbal supplement, and though the gender
differs, every tyro will acquiesce in the reason given by Jerome
—€x xowod resonat. Jelf, § 391. The idea conveyed in the
participle of the previous verse guides the sense. Wives, in
the spirit of this submission, are to be directed in their duty to
their husbands. The noun davyp often signifies a husband, as
“man” does in vernacular Scotch. Matt. 1.16; Johniv. 16-18;
Homer, Od. xxiv. 195; Herod.i.140. So also &#*S in Hebrew,
Deut. xxii. 23. The precise meaning of éd/os in this con-
nection has been disputed. There are two extremes; that
indicated by Valla, Bullinger, Bengel, Steiger, and Meyer, as
if the apostle meant to say, Your own husbands—not other
and stranger men; and that maintained by de Wette, Harless,
and Olshausen, that iddovs merely stands for the common pos-
sessive pronoun. But in all such injunctions in which éddous
is used, as in 1 Cor. vii. 2, Col. iii. 18, 1 Pet. ii. 1, the word
seems to indicate peculiar closeness of possession and relation,
though indeed in later Greek its meaning is somewhat relaxed.
John v. 18; Rom. viii. 32; 1 Cor. xiv. 35, etc. Winer, §
22,7; Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, 441. The duty of submission
is plainly based on that tenderness, speciality, or exclusiveness
of relationship which /déo1s implies. But that submission is
not servitude, for the wife is not a mere vassal. The sentiment
of Paul is not that of the heathen poet—

Ilaca yap SovAn répuxev avdpos 7 cHppwv yuvy,}
9 5€ py) THppwv avota Tov Evvovd brepppovet.

The insubordination of wives has always been a fertile source
of satire; and yet Christian ladies in early times drew forth
this compliment from Libanius, the “last glory of expiring
paganism "—proh, quales feminas habent Christiani! The
essence of this submission is explained by the important
words—

as TO Kupiw—“ as to the Lord.” Pelagius, Thomas Aquinas,
and Semler capriciously regard this noun as standing for the
plural «vpiow, and render it “as to your masters,” referring
to their husbands. Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, and

1 Euripides, Zdip. Fragm. Opera, curd Dindorf, ii. p. 928.

tg pe

|

|

EPHESIANS V, 23, 409

Matthies take it to mean, that ye render this submission to
_ your husbands as if it were rendered to Christ who enjoins
it; or, as Chrysostom more lucidly explains it—@s eldvias Ste
1@ Kupip Sovrevere. The adverb ws denotes the character
_ of the obedience enjoined, and such seems to be the gram-
- matical meaning of the clause. The context, however, might
- suggest another - phase of meaning. “Women,” says Olshausen,
“are to be in submission, not to their husbands as such, but to
: the ordinance of God in the institution of marriage.” And so
de Wette, preceded by Erasmus, observes that the clause is
_ explained by the following verse. The husband stands to the
wife in the same relation as Christ stands to the church, and
the meaning then is, not as if she were doing a religious duty,
_ but “in like manner as to the Lord ”—the duties of the church
to Him being the same in Spirit as those of a wife to her
husband. In either case, the submission of a wife is a religious
obligation. She may be in many things man’s superior—in
sympathy, in delicacy of sentiment, warmth of devotion, in
moral heroism, and in power and patience of self-denial. Still
‘the obedience inculcated by the apostle sits gracefully upon
her, and is in harmony with all that is fair and feminine in
her position and temperament :
i ‘* For contemplation he and valour formed—
For softness she and sweet attractive grace :
He for God only, she for God and him.”
(Ver. 23.) “Ori duip é€otw Kepadrs) Tijs yuvaixos, ws Kal Oo
Xpicrds xeparn rijs éxxAnolas—‘ For the husband is head of
“the wife, as also Christ is Head of the church. ” The pre-
ponderance of authority is against the article 6 before dyyp,
which appears in the Received Text. It does not need the
article (Winer, § 19), though the article would not alter the
meaning. It stands here as a species of monadic noun; or it
may be rendered as a general proposition—“as a husband is
the head of the wife”—the article before yuvascos pointing
out the special relation—“ his wife.” “Ors introduces the
reason why wives should be submissive—“as to the Lord.”
In the phrase ws xal—“as also"—xai is not superfluous,
though it occurs only in the second clause and marks the
sameness of relation in xepadzj. Klotz, Devar. vol. ii. 635.
The meaning of the sentiment, Christ is the Head of the

410 EPHESIANS V. 23.

church, has been already explained under i. 22, and again
under iv. 15,16. The reader may turn to these explanations.
As Christ is Head of the church, so the husband is head of
the wife. Authority and government are lodged in him ; the
household has its unity and centre in him; from him the
wife receives her cherished help; his views and feelings are
naturally adopted and acted out by her; and to him she looks
up for instruction and defence. Severed from him she be-
comes a widow, desolate and cheerless; the ivy which clasped
itself so lovingly round the oak, pines and withers when its
tree has fallen. And there is only one head; dualism would
be perpetual antagonism. This marital headship is man’s
prerogative in virtue of his prior creation, for he was first
formed in sole and original dignity. 1 Tim.i.13. “ Neither
was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the
man,” so that he is in position the superior. “The man is
not of the woman, but the woman of the man ”—a portion of
himself—his other self; taken out from near his heart; and,
therefore, though his equal in personality and fellowship, being
of him and for him and after him, she is second to him. Nay,
more, “ Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived,
was in the transgression;” and to her the Lord God said,
“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee,” though the gospel lightens this portion of the curse
which has been so terribly felt in all non-Christian lands.
Each sex is indeed imperfect by itself, and the truest unity is
conjugal duality. Still, though the woman was originally of
the man, yet now “the man is by the woman ”—“ the mother
of all living.” Finally, the apostle illustrates this headship
by the striking declaration, that the woman is the “glory o
the man,” but “the man is the image and glory of God.’
Cor, x1. 3-12 1 Tim. n.. 14, :

avTos cwTNp TOD capatos—< Himself Saviour of the body.”
The words «ai and éots in the Received Text are found i
D’, D®, EF’, K, L, in the majority of mss., and in the Syria
and Gothic versions. Tittmann and Reiche also hold by th
longer reading, but the words are wanting in A, B, D’, E’,
G, while Codex A reads 6 cwtyp. Avtos is emphatic, an
can refer only to Xpiords. “ Christ is Head of the church
Himself, and none other, Saviour of the body.” Win

EPHESIANS V. 24. 411

§ 59, 7, note. Some refer it to dvjp. Chrysostom’s exposi-
tion would seem to imply such a reference, and Holzhausen
formally adopts it. But it is of Christ the apostle is speaking,
and the independent and emphatic clause, thrown off without
any connecting particle, gives a reason why He is head of the
church, to wit —“ Himself Saviour of the body.” The reader
may turn to the meaning of c@ua under i. 23, iv. 15, 16.
_ The paronomasia is imitated by Clement, ad Corinth. xxxviii.
—owliabw ody jpav drov 7d copa ev Xpiotd “Inood. Christ
is the Saviour of His body the church—not only its Redeemer
_ by an act of atonement, but its continued Deliverer, Preserver,
_and Benefactor, and so is deservedly its Head. This Head-
_ ship originated in the benefits which His church has enjoyed,
; and is Based on His saving work; while the conscious enjoy-
ment of that salvation brings the church gladly to acknowledge
His sole supremacy. Some, indeed, suppose that in this clause
there is an implied comparison, and that the husband is a
species of owtyp to his wife. Bucer, Bullinger,’ Musculus,
: Aretius, Zanchius, Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, Schrader, Riickert,
- Baumgarten-Crusius, Meier, Matthies, de Wette, and Peile
are of this mind. But the clause is peculiar, avros separating
“it from what is said before. There is a comparison in xefadn,
that is, in the point of position and authority, but none in
-gw77p; for the love and protection which a husband may
afford a wife can never be called gwrnpia, and has no resem-
blance to Christ’s salvation. Some even suppose that the
wife is here called capa, basing their opinion on the language
of ver. 28. There is no warrant for supposing that in the
apostle’s mind there was any etymological affinity between
_@eTnp and capa, which in Homer signifies a dead body. See
Stier, in loc.; Benfey, Wurzellex. i. p. 412; and the two
derivations in Plato, Cratylus, § 38, p. 233; Op. vol. iv. ed.
Bekker.

(Ver. 24.) "AAN’ ws Hh exxrAnola irotdacetat TH Xpiorp—
“But as the church is subject to Christ.” The reading éo7ep
has no decided authority. The commencement of this clause
Occasions some difficulty. The hypothesis of Harless—not
unlike that of Riickert, that ddAd is used to resume the main
discourse—has been ably refuted by Olshausen. It is true

1 Bullinger says—maritus uxoris saluti, consulat, erudiat, defendat, nutriat.

1s

412 EPHESIANS Y. 24.

that add does often follow a digression, but there is none
here; and even if the words were a digression, they form but

\g.

a single clause, and did not surely necessitate a formal add. —

To give this particle, with Zanchius and others, the meaning
of “now” or “ wherefore,’ cannot be allowed, however such

a meaning may seem to suit the reasoning. "AAAd, says |

Olshausen, simply introduces the proof drawn from what pre-
cedes. The husband is head of the wife, as Christ is Head of

the church, and the apostle argues—*but as the church is —
subject to Christ, so ought wives to be to their husbands.” —

Winer, § 53, 7, a, says that a\Aa concludes the demonstration.
De Wette’s view is similar—‘“the clause exhibits the other

—*

aspect of the relation, as if he said—aber daraus folgt auch.” —
Hofmann understands the antithesis thus—‘“but where the —
husband is not to his wife what he should be, in imitation

of Christ, still subordination on her part remains a duty.”

Schriftb. vol. ii. 2, p. 116. Robinson says that adda is used in ©
an antithetic clause to express something additional, and may —

be rendered “ but,” “but now,” “but further.” In the instances
adduced by him there is marked antithesis; but though this
passage is placed among them, there is in it no expressed
contrast. Baumgarten-Crusius smiles at such as find any
difficulty in add, for it means, he says, dennoch aber—
though the husband has his obligation as saviour of the body,
the wife, yet the wife has hers too, and should be obedient.

This interpretation creates an antithesis by giving the clause —

eB ee ee ee

“ He is Saviour of the body ” a meaning it cannot bear. See —
Bretschneider’s Lexicon, sub voce. Meyer and Stier follow —

an alternative explanation of Calvin, making the antithesis of
the following nature—“ Christ has this as a special character-
istic, that He is Saviour of His church; nevertheless, let

wives know, that their husbands are over them after the —

example of Christ.” Meyer’s improved representation of this
idea is—“ He Himself, and none other, is the Saviour of the
body, yet this relation, which belongs to Him exclusively,
does not supersede the obligation of obedience on the part of
wives towards their husband ; but as the church is subject to
Christ, so ought wives to submit to their husbands.” The
same antithesis is more lucidly phrased by Bengel—* though
1 Moulton, pp. 551-2,

EPHESIANS V. 24 413

Christ and not the husband is the Saviour, and though the
"husband can have no such claim on his wife, yet the wife is
: to obey him as the church obeys Christ.” Similarly Hodge,
Ellicott, and Alford. The sense is good, but sounds like a
truism. “Himself is Saviour of the body—that certainly
man is not and cannot be, nevertheless as,” etc-——you are
to obey your husbands, who can never have claims on you
like Christ. The choice is between this and giving ada
an antithetic reference. It is very often used after an implied
negative, especially after questions which imply a negative
answer. , Luke vii. 7 ; John vii. 49; Acts xix. 2. See also
Rom. iii. 31, viii. 37; 1 Cor. vi. 8, ix. 12. And without a
_ question, such usage, implying a suppressed negative answer,
is prevalent. Compare ee xxiii. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 7, xiii. 4;
bral. ib. 35 Phil. 18) i 1751 Tim. i 1d; 16% Vigerus,
Gh Idictienes cap. Vili. 8 1. A singularly acute paper on
ovx adda will be found in the appendix to the Commentary of
_ Fritzsche on Mark. If we apply such an idiom to the passage
before us, the sense will then be this: The man is head of the
{ woman, as Christ is Head of the church—Himself Saviour of the
_ body—do not disallow the marital headship, for it is a Divine
institution—adAXAa—but as the church is subject to Christ—
oUTwWS Kal ai yuvaiKes TOL avdpaow év mavrTt (dtrotaccéc-
@wcav)—“so let the wives be subject to their husbands in
everything.” ’Iéio1s, which in the Received Text stands before
dvépacwy, is properly rejected from the text. The words éy
_ mdvtt mean in everything within the proper circuit of conjugal
obligation. If the husband trespass beyond this sphere he
usurps, and cannot insist upon the obedience implied in the
matrimonial contract. Obedience on the part of a wife is not
a superinduced obligation. It springs from the affection and
softness of her very nature, which is not fitted for robust and
masculine independence, but feels the necessity of reliance
and protection. It is made to confide, not to govern. In the
domestic economy, though government and obedience certainly
exist, they are not felt in painful or even formal contrast;
and, in fact, they are so blended in affectionate adjustment,
that the line which severs them cannot be distinguished. The
law of marital government is a vopuos dypados. Even the
heathen poets, as may be seen in the following quotations from

ee Ee a eee ee ey

414 EPHESIANS V. 25.

Menander, Philemon, and Euripides, acknowledged such a
law, though they could not treat the subject with the tender-
ness, beauty, and propriety of the apostle. Their notions are
harder—

"Ayadys yuvaixds oT, .. . .

lal >
My xpetrrov elva tT dvdpds, GAN’ iaHKoov.

Their images are humiliating—

Ta devrepeta tHv yovaica Set A€yeuv,

and the feminine consciousness both of weakness and degrada-
tion occasionally breaks out—

"AAN évvoeiv xpi) TovTO pny, yuvaty’ ore

"Edupev, as mpds avdpas od paxoupeva.

(Ver. 25.) Ot dvdpes, ayarate Tas yuvaixas éavrayv—“ Hus-
bands, love your own wives.” The apostle now turns to the
duties of husbands. There is some doubt as to the word
éavtov. Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it; A and B want
it; but D, E, K, L, have it. Some MSS., such as F and G,
read vua@v instead. But there is not sufficient ground to reject
it. As wives are summoned to obedience, so husbands are
commanded to cherish love. The apostle dwells upon it. In
Eastern countries, where polygamy was so frequent, conjugal
love was easily dissipated; and among the Jews, the seclusion
of unmarried young women often made it possible that the
bridegroom was a stranger not only to the temper and manners
of his bride, but even to the features of her face. Disappoint-
ment, followed by quarrel and divorce, must have been a
frequent result. Therefore the apostle wished Christian hus- —
bands to be patterns of domestic virtue, and to love their
wives. If love leads to conjugal union, and to the selection —
of a woman to be a wife, surely the affection which originated —
such an alliance ought to sustain and cheer it. Surliness,
outbursts of temper, passionate remonstrances for mere trifles,
are condemned. Husbands are not to be domestic tyrants;
but their dominion is to be a reign of love. As the example
of the church in her relation to Christ is set before wives, so
the example of Christ, in His relation to the church, is set
before husbands—

' EPHESIANS Y. 26. 415
4

xabas kai 6 Xpioros jydrnoev thy éxxdAnolav— as also

; Christ loved the church.” For xaos, see i. 4, and xadas Kai,
iv. 32 and v. 2; and for é«xAnova, see i 22. That church
was originally impure and sinful—an infant exposed on the
day of its birth, “to the loathing of its person;” but the

Divine Lover passed by and said to it, “ Live,” for its “time
was the time of love.” The exposed foundling was His foster-
child before it became His bride. Ezek. xvi. Similar phrase-
ology as to love embodied in atonement has been employed in
the 2nd verse of this chapter. What infinite pity and ineffable
condescension are found in Christ’s love to His church!
Every blessing enjoyed by her must be traced upward and

_ backward to the attachment of the Saviour. The church did
_ not crave His love: He bestowed it. It was not excited by
_ any loveliness of aspect on the part of the church, for she was

guilty and impure—unworthy of His affection. But His
love for her was a fondness tender beyond all conception, and
ardent beyond all parallel—

kat éavtov Tapédwxevy vTrép avtis—“and gave Himself for
her.” This phraseology has also occurred in the 2nd verse of
this chapter, and been there considered. Christ’s sacrificial
death in the room of His church, is the proof and expression

of His love. What love to present such a gift! None could
_ be nobler than Himself—the God-man—and so cheerfully con-

ferred! That gift involved a death of inexpressible anguish,
rendered still more awful by the endurance of the terrible
penalty ; and yet He shrank not from it. Who can doubt a
love which has proved its strength and glory in such suffering
and death? Now the love of the husband towards his wife
is to be an image or reflection of Christ’s love to the church;
like it, ardent and devoted; like it, tender and self-abandon-
ing; and like it, anxious above all things and by any sacrifice
to secure the happiness of its object. He gave Himself—
(Ver. 26.) “Iva airiy dyidon, xaBapicas T® RovTp~ Tod
bdatos év pyjyati—In order that He might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the laver of the water in the word.”
This verse contains the nearer purpose, and the following verse
unfolds the ulterior design of the Saviour’s love and death,
both being introduced by the telic va. The account given of
the term dys under i. 1, will serve so far to explain the

416 EPHESIANS V. 26.

meaning of the allied verb which occurs in this clause. It
denotes to consecrate or to set apart, and then to make holy
as the result of this consecration. Matt. xxiii. 17; 1 Cor. vii.
14; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. i211. Calvin, Beza, Harless, and

Meier take the verb in the former sense. Others, such as’

Piscator, Riickert, Meyer, de Wette, Baumgarten - Crusius,
Matthies, and Stier, give the meaning of moral or spiritual
purification. The first appears to us to be the prominent idea,
but not, certainly, to the exclusion of the last signification.
That He might consecrate her, or set her apart to Himself as
His own redeemed and peculiar possession—that she should
be His and His alone—His by a special tie of tender devoted-
ness—was the object of His death. Riickert objects to this
exegesis, that the dative éavt@ or T@ Oc@ is wanting, but the
supplement is implied in the verb itself. Wholly out of the
question is the interpretation of Koppe, Flatt, and Matthies,
that the verb means to make expiation for—to absolve from
cuit. It is true that ayidfw is used in the Septuagint for
the Hebrew— 53 (Ex. xxix. 33, 36), and Stuart (Com-
mentary on Heb. ii. 10) maintains that the verb has such a
meaning in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but the examples which
he has adduced admit of the meaning we have assigned to the
word in the passage before us. Heb. x. 10, etc. xii. 11, 12.
See Delitzsch in loc., Comment. zum B. an die Hebréer, p. 71,
and Bleek in loc., Der B. an die Hebréer, who hold our view.
Moreover, if xa@apicas refer, as it does, to spiritual purifica-
tion, then it can scarcely be thought that the apostle expresses
the same idea in the previous verb ayiadon. The meaning is,
that having purified her He might consecrate her to Himself;
this idea being suspended till it is brought out with special

emphasis in the following verse. Meyer distinguishes dyidon —
from «xaOapicas, as if the last were the negative and the first —

the positive aspect of the idea. The distinction is baseless,

for the purifying is as positive as is the sanctification. Harless /

errs in denying that here, whatever may be the fact elsewhere,

the action of the participle precedes that of the verb, and in

supposing that they coincide in time—«a@apicas being a —
further definition of dyidon. Hofmann, loc. cit., connects caba- —

picas immediately with va eee. but very needlessly.
This exegesis is as baseless as is the Syriac version and our

,

i

EPHESIANS V. 26. 417

English translation“ that He might sanctify and cleanse it.”
‘The nominative to the verb is contained in the participle.
Riickert, Matthies, and Olshausen render it “after that He
has purified” —nachdem, De Wette, on the other hand,
prefers indem—“ since that.” The meaning is not different,
if the participle be thus supposed to contain a pre-existent
cause.
_ The idea expressed by xa@apicas is that of purification,
and its nature is to be learned from the following terms
expressive of instrumentality. That the phrase t@ Aouvtpw
tov vdaros refers to the rite of baptism, is the general and
correct opinion, the genitive being that of material, and the
dative that of instrument, while the two articles express the
Tecognized prominence as well of the water as of the laver.
‘But as the entire paragraph presents a nuptial image, we see
no reason on the part of Harless, Olshausen, and others, for
denying all allusion to the peculiar and customary antenuptial
lustrations. The church is the bride, “the Lamb’s wife;”
and described under this appellation, her baptism may be
viewed as being at the same time—noutpov vuudixov. Bos
(Ezercitat. p. 186), Elsner, Wetstein, Flatt, Bengel, Riickert,
Matthies, Holzhausen, and Stier concur in the same represen-
tation. The washing of water in baptism was the sacrament
: expressive of purification. Acts ii. 38, xxii 16; Heb. x. 22.
Baptism is called Aovtpov madvyyevertas—*« the laver of
_Tegeneration,” a phrase farther explained by the following
_ words—dvaxawacews mvevpatos wyiov—“the renewing of
“the Holy Ghost.” Tit. iii. 5.
_ But the additional words, év pnuyars, are not so easily
understood. Quite foreign to the thought is the opinion of
Hofmann, that as a man declares his will to make a woman
his wife by a word or declaration, and so takes her from the
unhonour of her maiden condition, so has Christ done to the
church. Schriftb. vol. ii. 2, 173. Some of the conflicting
opinions may be noted :—

I. The Greek fathers, followed by Ambrosiaster, Anselm,
Thomas Aquinas, Calovius, Flatt, and de Wette, easily under-
stand the phrase of the baptismal formula. Chrysostom says

| —év pnyare gdnol; then he puts the question, voip? “in
| what word?” and his ready answer is, “In the name of the
2D

418 EPHESIANS V. 26.

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But it is
not at all probable that pijwa should stand for é6voua; and if
it did, we should expect, as Harless intimates, to have it
emphasized with an article prefixed. Nor has the word such
a signification in any other portion of the New Testament.

II. Semler would strike out the words altogether ; Michaelis
would regard pjya as a Pauline Cilicism for petya; while
Ernesti and Koppe, imitated by Stolz, join the words év pnyate
iva together, and suppose that they stand for the Hebrew
formula—We 733 >y— “in order that.” The Seventy,
however, never so render the Hebrew idiom, but translate
it by évexey, Gen. xx. 6,11; Num. xvi. 49; Ps. xliv. 4.

III. Some join év pjuate to the verb aysdon— that He
might sanctify by the word,” the intervening clause, “ having
cleansed by the washing of water,” being a parenthesis. This
exegesis yields a good meaning, and is contended for by
Jerome, Flacius, Baumgarten, Morus, Bisping, Riickert, Meyer,
and Winer, § 20, 2 (0). But the position of év pnyarte at
the very end of the verse, forbids such an exegesis. It isa
forced expedient, and the only reason for adopting it is the
confessed difficulty of explaining the words in their obvious
and natural connection.

IV. By other critics the phrase év pyyare is joined to To
AouTp@ Tov VdaTos, as a qualificative or descriptive epithet. |
Such is the view of Augustine, Sedulius, Luther, Estius, |
Calvin, Erasmus, Flatt, Storr, Homberg, Holzhausen, and
Stier. But though these scholars agree as to the general con-
nection, their opinions vary much as to the special significa-_
tion. The common argument against this and similar
constructions, to wit, that the article should have been
repeated before év pnwatt, has many exceptions, though in
such a proposed construction its insertion would appear to be {
necessary :—

1. Augustine (Zractatus lxxx. in Johannem), Estius, Bodius,
Réell, Crellius, Slichtingius, Flatt, Holzhausen, and the critics”
generally who are enumerated under No. IV., take pjya as
signifying the gospel. Augustine says—accedit verbum ad
elementum, et fit sacramentum. Sacramento simul et fidei, says
Estius ; or again, aque baptismo per verbum evangelii creditum

? Moulton, p. 172. :

EPHESIANS V. 26. 419

ac fide susceptum mundat. Bodius writes—verbum ut dip-
_loma, sacramentum ut sigillum. These meanings give éy an
-unwonted sense of “along with, or by means of.” Had the
apostle meant to say that the efficacy of baptism lies in faith
in the word, surely other language would have been employed.
The view of Knapp (Vorlesungen iiber die Christ. Glaubens-
_ lehre, ii. § 140) is of the same nature, and is liable to similar
objections. “The Word,” he says, “is the evangelical system
in its fullest extent——its precepts and promises.” “In
baptism,” he adds, “the latter are made over, and we pledge
ourselves to obey the former. Baptism may be thus called
—verbum Dei visibile.”

2. Others look on fjya as denotive of Divine agency in
= This was Luther's view, as expressed in his Smaller

fe eee

Catechism—verbum Dei quod in et cum aqua est (Die Sym-
bolischen Biicher der Evang. Luth. Kirche, p. 362, ed. Miiller).
Calvin’s view is somewhat similar—verbo sublato perit tota vis
sacramentorum. . . . Porro verbum hic promissionem significat,
qua vis et usus signi explicatur. . . In verbo tantum valet atque
verbum. This notion is imitated also by Rollock. The
preposition ¢v may bear such a signification. Still, had the
apostle meant to say that baptism derived its efficacy from
the word, surely something more than the simple addition
ce yf pypare might have been expected. Olshausen looks upon
i év pypati as equivalent to év IIvevwati—“ as signifying a bath
in the word, that is, a bath in which one is born of water and
of the Spirit.” This strange opinion cuts the knot, but does
Bot untie it. Similar is the view of Stier, and Homberg who
_ paraphrases—aqua verbalis et spiritualis. The proposition of
_ Grotius is no less violent, inserting the particle @s before
_ ™® ovtp@—washing them by the word “as” in a bath of
water.

3. A third party, such as Storr—Opuscula Academica, i. 194
—and Peile, give pyjya the sense of mandate—prescriptum.
“The apostle,” says Peile, “declares water- baptism to be
the divinely-instituted sign or sacrament whereby men are
regenerated.” This notion gives ¢v the strange sense of “in
conformity to.”

V. and lastly. Others, such as Bengel, Matthies, and Har-
less, join the words év pjyate with cafapicas. To this opinion

420) EPHESIANS , V. 27.

we incline; but we cannot agree with Harless in giving the
phrase the meaning of ausspruchsweise, verheissungsweise. The
idea in such an explanation is, that the cleansing is given in
the form of a declaration or promise made in the ordinance.
But there is no need to depart from the ordinary meaning of
pjua in the New Testament. The Syriac reads—“that he
might sanctify and purify her in the laver of water and by the
word;” and the Vulgate has—in verbo vite. But we regard
év as denoting the instrument in its internal operation, and so
far different from da; and by pia we understand the gospel,
the usual meaning of the Greek term. Acts. x. 44, xi. 14;
Rom. x. 8,17; Eph. vi. 17; Heb. vi. 5. It wants the article
as if it were used, as Meyer suggests, like a proper name. It
is a mere refinement on the part of Baumgarten-Crusius to
understand by it “a preached gospel.” The church is cleansed
“by the laver of the water” —cleansed by “the word.”
The washing of water symbolizes the pardon of sin and the
regeneration of the heart. While this cleansing has its
sacramental symbol in the washing of water, it has its special
instrument in the word; or t@ Aovtp@ in the simple dative
may denote the instrument (Bernhardy, p. 100), and év pywate
the “conditional element,” as Alford calls it. The word is
the Spirit’s element in effecting a blessed and radical change,
and in guiding, ruling, and prompting the heart into which

the new life has been infused. Men are thus cleansed by
baptism in the word. Ps. cxix. 9; 1 Pet. i. 23. Thomasius,

Christi Person und Werk, § 66, Erlangen, 1859. Christ
accomplishes these results through His death, and what is

properly done by His Spirit may be ascribed to Himself, who —
for this other purpose loved the church and gave Himself

for it—
(Ver. 27.) "Iva rapactyon avtos éavt@ Evdokov thy éxKdn-

~e Ye

oiav—“in order that He might present, Himself to Himself, —

the church glorious.” Avrds, supported by the authority of

A, B, D', F, G, L, and many versions and Fathers, is decidedly —

to be preferred to the avrnv of the Textus Receptus. This
verse declares the ultimate purpose of the love and death of —
Him who is “both Ransom and Redeemer voluntary.” Har-—
less errs in regarding the two clauses beginning with fa as —
co-ordinate. The allusion is still to a nuptial ceremony, and

EPHESIANS VY. 27. 421

_ to the presentation of the bride to her husband—av’ros—éaura.
The august Bridegroom does not present His spouse to Him-
self till He can look upon her with complacency. Harless
_ affirms that the presentation described is that of a sacrifice
_ on the altar, because the epithets employed by the apostle are
occasionally applied to victims and offerings; but such a view
is in conflict with the entire language and imagery on to the
end of the chapter. Nay, there is a peculiar beauty in apply-
ing sacrificial terms to the fair and immaculate bride, as she
is fit, even according to legal prescription, to be presented to
her Lord. So Meyer remarks éavt@ would be out of place in
the theory of Harless—Jesus presenting an oblation to Him-
self! The word trapacryjocn occurs with a similar meaning
in 2 Cor. xi. 2—“that I may present you as a chaste virgin
to Christ.” Avdros—éavr@—He and none other presents the
bride, and He and none other receives her to HIMSELF. No
inferior agency is permitted; a proof in itself, as well as His
death, of His love to the church. “Evdofov—“ glorious ;” the
_ epithet being a tertiary predicate and emphatic in position.
- Donaldson, § 489. The same idea occurs in Rev. xix. 7, 8.
_ The term refers originally to external appearance—the com-
_ bined effect of person and dress. The illustrious epithet is
_ explained by the succeeding clauses—first negative—
pn Eyoucay oridov, } putida, 4 Te THY TovouUTwy—“ having
neither spot, or wrinkle, or any one of such things.” zriXos,
which ought to be spelled with a simple accent—ozinos
(domidos forming a dactyle), is a stain or blemish, and is one
of the words of the later Greeks. 2 Pet. ii. 13. Aéye 5€ «nr,
as the older Attic term, says Phrynicus (p. 28). ‘Purés is
a wrinkle or fold on the face, indicative of age or disease.
Dioscorides, i. 39; Passow, sub voce. Not only are spots and
wrinkles excluded, but every similar blemish. The terms are
taken from physical beauty, health, and symmetry, to denote
spiritual perfection. Cant. iv.'7. The attempts made by some
critics, such as Anselm, Estius, and Grotius, to distinguish
nicely and formally between the virtues or graces described
in these terms respectively, are needless. Thus Augustine
takes the first term to mean deformitas operis, and the second
duplicitas intentionis, and the last inclusive phrase to com-
prehend reliquie peccatorum ut prave inelinationis, motus

SE Sr PO at yy

422 EPHESIANS V. 27.

involuntari et multiplicis ignorantie. Not only negatively
but positively —

ar wa 9 dyia Kal dwwpos—but that she should be —

holy and without blemish.” One might have expected aA
ovoav, but it is as if va pa yn omidov had stood in the
previous clause. The syntax is thus changed, no uncommon
occurrence in Greek composition, as may be seen in John viii.
53; Rom. xii 1, 2. On the oratio variata, compare Winer,
§ 63, 2,1. The syntactic change here, with the repetition of
éva, gives special prominence to the idea which has been
expressed, first negatively, but now in this clause with positive
affirmation. The meaning of dyia has been given already
under i. 1, 4; and of dwwpos under i. 4, and needs not be
repeated here. Such, then, is to be the ultimate perfection
and destiny of the church. In her spotless purity the love of
Christ finds its extreme and glorious design realized. That
love which led Him to die, in order to bestow pardon and to
secure holiness, is not contented till its object be robed in
unsullied and unchanging purity.

But when is this perfection to be for the first time possessed,
and when does this presentation take place? We have already

said that the presentation is not contemporary with the con- —

secration, but is posterior to it, and does not finally and formally

take place on earth. The “church” we understand in its full —
significance, as the whole company of the redeemed, personi- —

fied and represented as a spiritual Spouse. The presentation ©

belongs therefore to the period of the second coming, when
the human species shall have completed its cycle of existence
on earth; and every one whom the Saviour’s all-seeing eye

beheld as belonging to His church, and whom, therefore, He

loved and died for, and cleansed, has shared in the final
redemption. (The reader may turn to what is said upon the
phrase—*“ redemption of the purchased possession,” i. 14.)

Augustine and Jerome among the Fathers, Primasius, Bernard, —

and Thomas Aquinas among scholastic divines, along with
Kstius, Calvin, and Beza, hold to this view as to the epoch
of the presentation, in antagonism with Cajetan, Bucer, Wolf,
Bengel, and Harless, who regard the glorification of the

of the Greek commentators seems to intimate that they held

;

|

church as a species of present operation. The loose language ~

EPHESIANS Y. 28. 423

the same hypothesis, Augustine flagellates the Donatists and

"Pelagians, who believed in the present sinlessness of the

church ; for truly such a state can only be such a compara-

tive perfection as John Wesley describes when he says,

“Christian perfection does not imply an exemption from
ignorance or mistakes, infirmities or temptations.” The

church as it now is, and as it has always been, has many

spots and wrinkles upon it. But perfection is secured by a
process of continuous and successful operation, and shall be
ultimately enjoyed. “The bride, the Lamb’s wife,’ hath for
centuries been making herself ready, and at length Christ, as
He looks upon His church, will pronounce her perfect without
tinge of sin or trace of any corruption; she will appear “ holy
and without blemish” in His view whose “eyes are a flame
of fire.” As He originally loved her in her impurity, how
deep and ardent must be His attachment now to her when He
sees in her the realization of His own gracious and eternal
purpose! The nuptial union is at length consummated amidst
the pealing halleluiahs of triumph and congratulation. So
fervent, self-sacrificing, and successful is Christ’s love to His

church ; and now He rejoices over her with joy, and His toil

and death being amply compensated, “He will rest in His

love.”

(Ver. 28.) Odtws nal of dvdpes apeiovow ayatav tas
éauTav yuvaixas, ws Ta EavTOVY copata— So also ought hus-

_ bands to love their own wives, as being their own bodies.”

The reading adopted has A, D, E, F, G, and the Vulgate,

_ Gothic, and Coptic versions in its favour. The adverb oitws

carries us back to xa@ws, and indicates the bringing home of
the argument. It is contrary to the plain current of thought
on the part of Estius, Meier, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
and Alford, to make it refer to ws in the following clause, as if
the apostle said, Ye are to love your wives in the way in
which ye love your own bodies. The oirws takes up the
comparison between the husband and Christ, the wife and
the church. “Thus,” that is, in imitation of Christ’s love,
“husbands ought to love their own wives.” The instances
adduced by Alford and Ellicott against the statement in our
first edition are not all of them quite parallel, in the position
and use of oirms,in reference to pracedentia. There is no

424 EPHESIANS V. 29.

parenthesis in the two preceding verses, as Zanchius and
Harless suppose. It is putting a special pressure upon the
words to insist, after the example of Macknight and Barnes,
that the husband’s love to his wife shall be an imitation of
Christ’s love, in all those enumerated features of it. When
Christ’s love is mentioned, the full heart of the apostle dilates
upon it, and in its fervour, tenderness, devotedness, and nobility
of aim, a husband’s love should resemble it. In the phrase
“as their own bodies,” Harless and Stier, in imitation of
Theophylact, Zanchius, and Calovius, suppose that ws is used
argumentatively, and that the verse contains two comparisons
—* As Christ loved the church, so husbands are to love their
wives ’—“ As they love their own bodies, so are they to love
their wives.” But the introduction of a double comparison
only cumbers the argument. The idea is well expressed by
Meyer—“ So ought husbands to love their wives, as being
indeed their own bodies.” The language is based on the
previous imagery. The apostle calls Christ the Head, and the
church the body, that body of which He is Saviour. Christ
loved the church as being His body. Now the husband is the
head of the wife, and as her head he ought to love her as
being his body. And therefore—

0 ayara@v Thy éavTod yuvaika éavtov ayara—‘“he that
loveth his own wife loveth himself.” But the phrase, “loveth
himself,” is not identical with the formula of the preceding
clause—“ as their own bodies ;” it is rather an inference from
it. If the husband, as the head of the wife, loves his wife as
being his own body, it is a plain inference that he is only
loving himself. His love is not misspent: it is not wasted on
some foreign object ; it is a hallowed phasis of self-love.

(Ver. 29.) Ovddels yap tote thy éavTod cdpKxa éulonoev—
“ For nobody ever hated his own flesh” (fools and fanatics
excepted). This is a general law of nature. Eccles. vi. 7.
Tap is argumentative, and odp€ is used by the apostle rather

than o@pa, because of its occurrence in the words of the first —
institution of marriage—*“ they twain shall be one flesh.” It —

}

has here also its simple original meaning, and not such a sense —

as it has in ii. 3. It is as if the apostle had said, “It is as

‘
’

unnatural a thing not to love one’s wife, as it is not to love

oneself,” Every one loves his own flesh, and in harmony

EPHESIANS V. 30. 425

with the same law of nature he will love his other self—his
wife. The commentators have adduced similar phraseology
_ from the classics, such as Curtius, Seneca, and Plutarch.

GAA extpéher kal Oddrre av’tHv—*but nourisheth and
cherisheth it.” “Exaotos is understood before the two verbs,
Stallbaum, Plato, De Rep. ii. p. 366. A man’s care over his
body, is that of a nursing-mother over a child. The verbs
may be distinguished thus, that the former means to supply
nutriment—éx«—referring to result; and the latter literally to
supply warmth, but really and generally to cherish—more
than Bengel’s—id spectat amictum. Deut. xxii. 6; Job xxxix.
14; 1 Thess. ii. 7. More, certainly, than food and clothing
is meant by the two verbs. This being a man’s instinct
towards his own flesh, it would, if freely developed, dictate
his duty toward her who is with him “one flesh ””—the com-
_ plement of his being.
= KaBas cal o Xpiotos tHy éxxrAnolav—as also Christ the
church.” On the authority of A, B, D) E, F, G, the Syriac,
and Vulgate, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, Xpuoros is the
preferable reading to Kupios, and is adopted by Lachmann
and Tischendorf. Christ nourishes the church, feeds it with
_ His word, fosters it by His Spirit, gives it the means of
growth in the plenitude and variety of His gifts, revives and
‘quickens it by His presence, and guards it by His own
almighty power from harm and destruction. It is a quaint
and formal interpretation of Grotius—*“that Jesus nourishes
the church by his Spirit, and clothes it with virtues.’ Some-
thing more, therefore, than food and clothing is demanded
from the husband to the wife; he is to give her love and
loyalty, honour and support. As Christ nourishes and
cherishes His church, and as every man nourishes and
cherishes his own flesh; so the bidding of nature and the
claim of religious duty should lead the husband to nourish and
cherish his wife.

(Ver. 30.) "Ore pérn éopev rod cwpartos adtov, éx Tis
capKos avrov, Kai éx tav doeréwy av’too—“ For members we
are of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” The last
two clauses beginning with é« are not found in A, B, and
other Codices of less note, such as 17 and 67°; but they are
found in D, E, F, G, K, L, almost all mss., in Chrysostom and

426 EPHESIANS V. 30.

Theodoret, and in the Syriac and Vulgate versions. We —
cannot, therefore, exclude them with Lachmann and Davidson, —
Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 378. Tischendorf adopts them
in his seventh edition. They have been omitted at first, as
de Wette suggests, by a opovotédeuTov; avTod . . . avTod,
or because hey seem to express gross and material ideas.
This verse adduces a reason why Christ nourishes and cher- |
ishes the church, for it stands in the nearest and dearest
relation to Him. We are members of His body, as being
members of His church, and, as members of that body, we
are nourished and cherished by the Head—éx in both the last _
clauses pointing to origin. Winer, § 47. See under iv. 15,
16. Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, and Stier understand by copa
the actual personal body of Jesus—the body of His glorified
humanity. But in what sense are or can we be members—
uédkn—of that body? It has its own organs and members,
which it took in the Virgin’s womb. But the apostle has his
thoughts occupied with conjugal duties, and he has, in subor-—
dination to this, introduced Christ and His church as bride- |
groom and bride ; therefore his mind reverts naturally to the
imagery and language of the original matrimonial institute, and —
so he adds“ we are members of His flesh and of His bones.”
Gen. ii. 23.1 The argument of Harless against this view,
which appears so natural, is lame and inconclusive, and he
holds the opinion, that the two clauses are simply a further

explanation of the statement—“ we are members of His body.” |
My

’ “Tt is too cold an interpretation, whereby some men expound our being in —
Christ to import nothing else, but only that the selfsame nature which maketh —
us to be men, is in Him, and maketh Him man as we are. For what man in the —
world is there which hath not so far forth communion with Jesus Christ? It is
not this that can sustain the weight of such sentences as can speak of the
mystery of our coherence (John xiv. 20, xv. 4) with Jesus Christ. The church
is in Christ as Eve was in Adam. Yea, by grace we are every of us in Christ and i
in His church, as by nature we are in those our first parents. God made Eve of
the rib of Adam. And His church He frameth out of the very flesh, the very _
wounded and bleeding side of the Son of man. His body crucified and His —
blood shed for the life of the world, are the true elements of that heavenly being
which maketh us such as Himself is of whom we come (1 Cor. xv. 48). For |
which cause the words of Adam may be fitly the words of Christ concerning His _
church, ‘flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones,’ a true native extract out of |
mine own body. So that in Him even according to His manhood we according | :
to our heavenly being are as branches in that root out of which they grow.”— _
Hooker, Works, vol. i. p. 626, ed. Ox. 1841, ;

=

‘What is really meant by the striking phraseology has been a

7

EPHESIANS V. 30. 427.

‘subject of no little dispute.
1. Cajetan, Vatablus, Calovius, Bullinger, Vorstius, Grotius,
Zanchius, and Zachariae refer the words to the origin of the

-ehurch from the flesh and bones of Christ, nailed to the cross,

and there presented to God. Such an idea is neither promi-
nent in the words nor latent in the context.
2. Not more satisfactory is the view which is held in part

by Theodoret, by Calvin, Beza, and Grotius, who find in the

phrase a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Kahnis, Abendmahl,
p. 143. These critics differ in the way in which they under-
stand such a reference, and no wonder; for the communion
there enjoyed is only a result of the union which this verse
describes. Strange, if there be any allusion to the eucharist,

that there is a reference to the bones, but none to the blood of

Christ.

3. Not so remote from the real sense is the opinion of

"Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, Cicumenius, Bengel,

wa

and Matthies, who suppose an allusion in the phraseology

_ to that new birth which is effected by Christ, as if it had

‘been shadowed out by Eve’s extraction from Adam’s side.

(Ecumenius says—é€& avtod S€é xabd arapyn jyav éote TIS

Sevtépas TAdcEws woTrep ex TOD Add Sia THY TpwTHY. It is
indeed as renewed men that believers have any fellowship
with Christ. But the idea of birth is not naturally nor
necessarily implied in the apostle’s language, and it is
founded upon an incorrect interpretation of our Lord’s
expression about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
John vi. 53.

4. As plausible is the theory which explains the clauses
by a reference to that identity of nature which Christ and
His people possess. They are partakers of one humanity.
Chrysostom and Theophylact also give this view; Irenzus,
Augustine, and Jerome maintain it; and it has been held by
Thomas Aquinas, Aretius, Cocceius, and Michaelis. The
reply, “that in that case the language must have been, He
took upon Him our flesh and bone,” has been met by Estius,
who says, “the language is just, because in His incarnate
state He is the Head and we are only members.” But our
principal objection is, that this simple community of nature

428 EPHESIANS V. 30.
with Christ is common to all men; whereas it is only of |
_ believers, and of a union peculiar to them, that the apostle —
speaks.

5. We confess our inability to understand the meaning of —
Bisping, Olshausen, and others. “The words refer,” they say,
“to Christ’s imparting of His glorified humanity to believers
through the communion of His flesh and blood. . . . It is by
the self-communication of His divine-human (theanthropic)
nature that Christ makes us His flesh and bone. He gives —
to His followers His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.”
Bisping, a Romanist, says, “In the regeneration through ~
baptism, the glorified body of Christ is communicated to us.”
That is, as he explains, “the germ of the resurrection of the -
body is implanted in us at baptism, and this germ is only an —
outflow from Christ’s glorified body.” Such an idea could
only be consistently based on the Lutheran view of consub-
stantiation, or some species of pantheism, or what Turner
calls Panchristism. But—

6. The apostle has the idea of marriage and its relations
before him, and he employs the imagery of the original ’
institute, which first depicted the unity of man and wife, to
describe the origin and union of the church and Christ. As
the woman was literally, by being taken out of Adam, bone
of his bone and flesh of his flesh; as this duality sprung from
unity, and was speedily resolved into it: so the church is
originated out of Christ, and, united to Him as its Head or
Husband, is one with Him. The language is, therefore, a
metaphorical expression of this union, borrowed from the
graphic diction of Genesis; and this image evidently presented
itself to the apostle’s mind from its connection with the
origin and nature of those conjugal duties which he is
inculcating in the paragraph before us. The error of Meyer's
exegesis is his restriction of the imagery to the one example
of Adam and Eve, whereas it has its verification in every
nuptial union, and hence the apostle’s use of it. As Eve
derived her life and being out of Adam, and was physically
of his body, his flesh, and his bones, so believers are really of
Christ—of His body, His flesh, and His bones, for they are
one with Christ in nature and derive their life from His
humanity, nay, are connected with Him, not simply and

|

EPHESIANS V. 31. 429

_ generally by a spiritual union, but in some close and

_ derivative way which the apostle calls a mystery, with His
body; so that they live as its members, and become with it
“one flesh.” Besides, in the next verse, the apostle takes his
readers to the source of his imagery—

(Ver. 31.) "Avti rovrov, catareler avOpwrros Tov Tatépa
avtod Kal tiv pntépa, Kal mporKodAnOnceTar TpOS THY yuvaiKa

- avrod, cal écovtas of Svo0 eis odpxa piav. “For this cause

shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” There are
some variations of reading. Some MSS. of superior weight
omit the articles tov and ty, as well as avrov, but the longer
reading has A, D’*, E, K, L in its favour, with many Codices,
and the Syriac and Coptic versions. It is, however, rejected

by Lachmann and Tischendorf as a conformation to the

Seventy. The critical note of Origen seems to confirm the

‘suspicion. Instead of pds tiv yuvaixa found in B, D*, E, K,

L, tH yuvatxi is read in D', E’, F, G, and is introduced by
Lachmann. The words are a free quotation from Gen. ii. 24,

though the formula of quotation is wanting. This want of

such a formula was not unfrequent. Surenhusius, Bib. Katal.
p. 21. “AvOpwrros is without the article (not used for av%p),
but having “its general aphorismatic sense”—an argument
in itself against Alford’s interpretation. These future verbs
indicate prophetically the future impulse and acting of the
race which was to spring from Adam and Eve. Winer,
§ 40,6. The Septuagint has évexey tovtov changed by the
apostle into dvr) rovrov, “on this account” (Winer, § 47, a;
Donaldson, § 474, a, dd), and these words are in this place
no introduction to the quotation, but simply a portion of it ;
and therefore Estius, Holzhausen, Meier, and Matthies labour
to no purpose in endeavouring to affix a special meaning to
them. The quotation is introduced to show the apostle’s
meaning, and exhibit the source of his imagery. His
language was remarkable; but this verse points out its true
signification, by showing whence it was taken, and how it
was originally employed. From early times, however, the
language has been directly applied to Christ. Jerome’s
interpretation is the following :—primus homo et primus vates
Adam hoc de Christo e ecclesia prophetavit ; quod reliquerit

430 EPHESIANS V. 31.

Dominus noster atque Salvator patrem suum Deum et matrem
suam celestem Jerusalem, et venerit ad terras propter suum
corpus ecclesiam, et de suo eam latere fabricatus sit et propter
illam Verbum caro factum sit. Such is the view of Heinsius,
Balduin, Bengel, Bisping, who explains pntépa by die

Synagoge, and even of Grotius. Some of the critics who held |

this view refer the words so mystically understood to Christ’s

second coming, when He shall present the bride to Himself —

in formal wedlock. Such, also, is Meyer’s view. His words

are, “ This, therefore, is the interpretation, Wherefore, that is, —

because we are members of Christ, of His flesh and bones,
shall a man leave (that is, Christ as the second Adam) his
Father and his Mother (that is, according to the mystical

sense of Paul, He will leave His seat at the right hand of ©

God) and shall be joined to His wife (that is, to the church),
and they two shall be one flesh,” etc.’ Such an exegesis, which
may be found also in Jeremy Taylor’s sermon of The Marriage
ting, has nothing to justify it, for there is no hint in this
verse that the apostle intends to allegorize. In spite of what

Ellicott and Alford have said, we cannot adopt that view, or see —

the propriety of the language as applied formally to Christ.
The allegory is not in this verse, but in the application of
nuptial figure and language to Christ and His Church; this
verse showing the source and authority. True,as Alford says,
“the allegory is the key to the whole,” but the apostle does
not in this citation allegorize Gen. ii. 24, by applying its
language directly to Christ. Nor is it deep thought or research
that finds allegories in the interpretation of this place or other
places. The process is often of a contrary nature.

Others, again, suppose a reference to Christ and the church
only in the last clause, for the sake of which the preceding
words of the verse have been introduced. This is the exegesis
of Harless and QOlshausen, who conceive in the phrase a

reference to the Lord’s Supper, and Olshausen illustrates his —

1 « Deshalb, weil wir Glieder Christi sind, von seinem Fleisch und von seinen
Beinen wird verlassen ein Mensch (d. i. Christus, bei der Parusie) seinen Vater und
seine Mutter (d. i. nach der mystischen Deutung Pauli: er wird seinen Sitz zur
Rechten Gottes verlassen) und vereiniget werden mit seinem Weibe (mit der
Gemeinde), und (und dann) werden die Zwei (der Mann und die Frau, d. i. der
herabgestiegene Christus und die Gemeinde) zu Hinem Fleische sein.”—Der Brief
an die Epheser, p. 234, Giéttingen, 1853.

EPHESIANS V. 31. 431

_ meaning with an approach to indelicacy. But there is no
_ ground for deeming all the preceding part of the verse
_ superfluous, nor is there any reason for departing from the
plain, ordinary, and original meaning of the terms. The words
of the quotation, then, are to be understood simply of human
marriage, as if to show why language borrowed from it was
applied in the preceding verse to depict the union of Christ
and His church. The verse in Genesis appears to be not the
language of Adam, as if, as in Jerome’s description of him, he
had been primus vates, but is at once a legislative and
prophetic comment upon the language of Adam—“ This is now
_ bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” The love which a
_ son bears to a father and a mother, is at length surmounted
_ by a more powerful attachment. He leaves them in whose
__ love and society he has spent his previous life; so that, while
_ love cements families, love also scatters them. “He is joined
_ to his wife” in a union nearer and more intimate than that
which united him to his parents; for his wife and he become
_ “one flesh”—not one in spirit, or in affection, or in pursuit,
but in personality, filled with “coequal and homogeneal
“fre "—
. “The only bliss
~ Of Paradise that has survived the fall.”

_ They are “one flesh,” and a junction so characterized supplied
the apostle with language to describe the union of Christ and
His Church—“ we are of His flesh and of His bones.”' This

* “They are one now, and one for ever ; he is greater than Omnipotence who
ean rend that tie ; that ‘marriage was made in heaven!’ Alone—it was in the
depths of eternity—stood Christ and His church before the altar of that divine
espousal ; none was witness but the Father of glory and the Spirit of life, when
the vow was plighted and the contract sealed ; but all heaven shall yet be
witness, when the redeemed church shall vindicate the fidelity of the church’s
Redeemer ; when she shall ‘come up from the wilderness ’ of this barren world,
‘leaning on her Beloved,’ and by Him be publicly invested with those privileges
of her rank which are hers now, but hers in silence, secrecy, and sorrow! Then
shall the ‘fellowship of one with another,’ and of all with God, be indeed
complete ; and that wondrous prayer be fulfilled, in which (as one who ties and
doubles a knot) the Saviour, by returning on His words, seems purposely to
have sought to express the infolded closeness of that maze of love in which the
‘children of light’—having within them the abiding of the Spirit—are one with
the Father and the Son.” Archer Butler's Sermons, 1st Series, p. 421, 5th ed.,
Cambridge, 1859.

432 EPHESIANS V. 32.

doctrine of marriage must have excited surprise when divorce
was of scandalous frequency by an action of diodes or
dromeuayis in Grecian states, and with less formality under
the emperors in the West, by diffarreatio and remancipatio,
See Harless, Hthik, § 52, and his Die Ehescheidungsfrage.
Hine erneute Versuch der Neut. Schriftstellen, 1860.

(Ver. 32.) To puornpiov TodTo péeya éotiv, éyw 8& Aéyw els
Xpicrov Kai eis tHv €xxAnoiav— This mystery is a great one,
but I speak concerning Christ and concerning the church.”
Mvornpvov is rendered in the Vulgate sacramentum, and the
Popish church regards marriage as one of its sacraments.’
Cajetan and Estius, however, disavow the Latin translation,
on which their own church rests its proof.? The Cardinal
honestly says, non habes ex hoc loco, prudens lector, a Paulo
conjugvum. esse sacramentum, Non enim dixit, esse sacramentum,
sed mystervum. Bisping more guardedly says that the sacra-
mental character of marriage cannot be proved directly and
immediately. Erasmus is yet more cautious. Neque nego
matrimonium esse sacramentum, sed an ex hoc loco doceri possit
proprie dict sacramentum quemadmodum baptismus dicitur,
excutt volo. The phrase 73 iD, “a great mystery,” is
found among the rabbinical formule. Those who hold that
the previous verse refers to Christ leaving His Father and
Mother, and coming down to our earth to woo and win His
spiritual bride, find no difficulty in the explanation of the
verse before us. Such a representation, couched in such
language, might well be named a great mystery, in connection

with Christ and the church. But the language of this verse —

does not prove it, or afford any explanation of it.

The question to be determined is, What is the real or
implied antecedent to todro? 1. Is the meaning this:
Marriage as described in the preceding verse is a great
mystery, but I speak of it in its mystical or typical con-
nection with Christ and the church? Those who, like
Harless, Olshausen, and others, take the last clause, “they two
shall be one flesh,” as referring to Christ and His church, say

1 Council of Trent, Sess. 24.
2 Yet in an encyclical letter in 1832 occurs the statement—“ Marriage is,
according to St. Paul’s expression, a great sacrament in Christ and in the

church.”

?

EPHESIANS Y, 32. 433

_ that the sense is—“the mystery thus described is a great one,
but it refers to Christ and the church.” But were the
meaning of that clause so plain as Harless supposes, then
this exegetical note, “I speak concerning Christ and the
church,” might be dispensed with. 2. Others, such as Baum-
garten-Crusius, look upon the word pvernpiov as equivalent to
allegory, and suppose the apostle to refer to a well-known
_ Jewish view as to the typical nature of the marriage of Adam
and Eve. Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. p. 783. The allegory,
however, of Philo on the place is of quite a different kind.
"“Evexa tijs aicOncews 0 voids, dtav ath SovkwOh, katarimn
kal Tov Tatépa, Tov drwy Oedv, Kal THY pnTépa TOV cULTaYTOD,
Thy apetnv Kal codiav tod Oeod, kal mpocKodAGTa Kal évodTaL
TH aicOnce, Kai dvadveras eis aicOnow, iva yivwvtat pia cap,
wal év wa8os, oi 600. “On account of the external sensation,
the mind, when it has become enslaved to it, shall leave both
its father, the God of the universe, and the mother of all
_ things, namely, the virtue and wisdom of God, and cleaves to
and becomes united to the external sensations, and is dissolved
into external sensation, so that the two become one flesh and
one passion.” Allix, in his Judgment of the Jewish Church,
Says the first match between Adam and Eve was a type of
that between Christ and His church. A note on this subject
may be seen in Whitby’s Commentary. Such an opinion
gives the word pwvorypiov the meaning of something spoken,
having in it a deep or occult sense ; a meaning which Koppe,
Morus, de Wette, Meier, and Grotius, and Stier to some
extent, without any biblical foundation, attach to the term in
this place. 3. The exegesis of Peile is wholly out of the
question—* this mystery is of great depth of meaning, and
for my part I interpret it as having reference to Christ ;”
a paraphrase as untenable as that of Grotius —verba ista
explicavi vobis non Kata todas, sed sensu pvotixwtéepo. But
Scripture affords us no warrant for such notions; nor is such |
allegorization any portion of the apostle’s hermeneutics.
4. Hofmann, loc. cit., quite apart from the reasoning and
context, understands the apostle to say that the sacred unity
of marriage—one flesh—is a great mystery to the heathen.
5. We understand the apostle to refer to the general sentiment
of the preceding section, summed up in the last verse, and in
25

4134 EPHESIANS V. 32.

the clause, “they two shall be one flesh;” or rather to the
special image which that clause illustrates, viz., that Christ
and the church stand in the relation of husband and wife.
The allowed application of conjugal terms to Christ and the
church is “a great mystery ;” and lest any one should think
that the apostle refers to the “one flesh ” of an earthly relation-
ship, he is cautious to add, “I speak concerning Christ and the
church.” This great truth is a great mystery, understood
only by the initiated; for the blessedness of such a union
with Christ is known only to those who enjoy it. Somewhat
differently from Ellicott, we would say that verses 25-28
introduce the spiritual nuptial relation, that ver. 29 affirms
its reality, that ver. 30 gives the deep spiritual ground or
origin of it, while the quotation in ver. 31 shows the
authorized source of the image, and ver. 32 its ultimate appli-
cation guarding against mistake. The meaning of puvotnpioy
the reader will find under i. 9. The word is used in the
same sense as here in vi. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 16.

éym 5é Aé€yw eis Xpiotov, kat els THv exxAnolav— but I
am speaking in reference to Christ, and in reference to the
church.” The pronoun is not without subjective significance.
Winer, § 22,6. The 6€ is not simply explicative, but has
also an adversative meaning, as if the writer supposed in his
mind that the phraseology employed by him might be inter-
preted in another and different way. Aéy, introducing an
explanation, is followed by the eds of reference (von der
Richtung, Winer, § 49, a, (8)), as in Acts ii. 25; and éAdAnoev |
has a similar complement in Heb. vi.14. The interpretation
of Zanchius, Bodius, and Cameron, imitated by Macknight,
supposes the marriage of Eve with Adam to be a type or a
designed emblem of the union of Christ and His church. |
Macknight dwells at length and with more than usual unction —
on the theme. But the apostle simply compares Christ and
His church to husband and wife, and the comparison helps
him to illustrate and enforce conjugal duty. Nay, so close
and tender is the union between Christ and His church, that
the language of Adam concerning Eve may be applied to it.
The nuptial union of our first parents was not a formal type
of this spiritual matrimony, nor does the apostle allegorize the
record of it, or say that the words contain a deep or mystic

|

: EPHESIANS V. 33. 435

sense. But these primitive espousals afforded imagery and

language which might aptly and truly be applied to Christ
and the church, which is of His “flesh and His bones;” and

the application of such imagery and language is indeed a
mystery—a truth, the secret glory and felicity of which are
known but to those who are wedded to the Lord in a
“perpetual covenant.” The apostle might have in his eye
such passages as Ps. xlv.; Hos. ii. 19-23; the Song of
Solomon; Isa. liv. 5, lxi. 10; Ezek. xvi. 8. The same
imagery is found in 2 Cor. xi. 2, and in the conclusion of the
Apocalypse.

(Ver. 33.) IDAnv cal ipets of xa Eva, Exactos trv éavtod
yuvaixa otws wyaTdtw ws éavtrov—“ Nevertheless also as to
every one of you, let each love his wife as himself.” The
word 7Anv does not indicate, as Bengel, Harless, and Olshausen

_ wrongly suppose, any return from a digression. The preced-

ing verses are no digression, but an interlinked and extended

illustration. As Meyer insists, 7Anv means, “yet apart from

this;” that is, apart from this illustration of the conjugal

‘Yelationship of Christ to His church. The term, therefore,
_ does not indicate a return from a formal digression, but rather

a return to the starting thought. The «aé contains an allusion
to the leading idea of the preceding illustration—the love of
Christ to His spiritual spouse. As He loves His spouse, do
you also, every one of you, love his wife. Oi xa@ é&a.
1 Cor. xiv. 27-31; Jelf, § 629; Winer, § 49,d. The verb
dyarrarw is singular, agreeing with éxacros and not tyets—
a mode of construction which individualizes and intensifies
the injunction.

ws éavrov-—“ as being himself” one flesh with him. (Verses
31 and 28.) Not that he is to idolize her, as if, among all
his other bones, Adam’s “extracted rib alone had been of
ivory.”

} 5é yuvn wa poBijrat tov dvdpa— and the wife that she
reverence her husband.” The construction of this clause is
idiomatic, as in Gal. ii. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 7; Mark v. 23;
Winer, § 63, II. 1. In such an idiom yuvy, in effect, is the
nominative absolute, though in the resolution of the idiom a
verb must be supplied; or as Ellicott, who objects to our
statement, admits—it is not so definitely unsyntactic as Acts

436 EPHESIANS V. 33.

vii. 40, and that is all we meant to say. dé may be slightly
adversative, the conjugal duties being in contrast. The verb
to be supplied, and on which, in the mind of the writer, wa
depends, is furnished by the context (Meyer on 2 Cor. viii. 7,
and Osiander on the same place), as, “I command,” or “let
her see.” In such a case dzrws is used by the classical writers.
Raphelius, Annotat. 488. The wife is to reverence her
husband—numquam enim erit voluntaria suljectio nisi pre-
cedat reverentia. Calvin. One peculiarity in this injunction
has been usually overlooked. What is instinctive on either
side is not euforced, but what is necessary to direct and hallow
such an instinct is inculcated. The woman loves, but to
teach her how this fondness should know and fill its appro-
priate sphere, she is commanded to obey—p7 Sovdomperas.
Ccumenius. The man, on the other hand, feels that his
position is to govern; but to show him what should be the
essence and means of his government, he is enjoined to love,
“ He rules her by authority, and she rules him by love: she
ought by all means to please him, and he must by no means
displease her.” Sermon on the Marriage Ring, by Jeremy
Taylor; Works, vol. xv. When this balance of power is
unsettled, happiness is lost, and mutual recriminations ensue.
“A masterly wife,” as Gataker says, “is as much despised and
derided for taking rule over her husband as he for yielding
to it.”

In fine, the apostle, by the language he has employed in~
reference to Christ and His church, has given marriage its
highest honour. No ascetic condemnation of it occurs in the
New Testament. “Single life makes men in one instance to _
be like angels, but marriage in very many things makes the —
chaste pair to be like Christ.” Sermon on the Marriage Ring, |
by Jeremy Taylor; Works, vol. xy. |

CHAPTER VI.

THE apostle, after expounding the duties that spring out of
_ the conjugal relation, as one sphere in which the maxim—sub-
_ mitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ—came
into operation, naturally turns to another and kindred sphere
of domestic life, and addresses himself to children. And he
does not speak about them, or tell their parents of them, but
he looks them in the face, and lovingly says to them—*“ chil-
dren.” It is plainly implied that children were supposed by
_ him to be present in the sanctuary when this epistle was read,
or to be able to read it for themselves, when it should be
_ transcribed and circulated.
— (Ver. 1.) Ta réxva, iraxovere tots yovedow vuav ev Kupip
—“ Children, obey your parents in the Lord ”—that is, “ in
Christ.” The words év Kupiw are wanting in B, D', F, G,
and are, on that account, excluded by Lachmann, but they
are found in A, D’*, E, I, K, the major part of mss., and the
Greek fathers. They describe the element or sphere of that
obedience which children are to render to their parents, and
certainly do not qualify yovetouw—as if the reference were
to fathers in the faith, in contrast to fathers after the flesh.
Not merely natural instinct, but religious motive should
prompt children to obedience, and guard them in it. The
love which Jesus showed to children, when He took them in
His arms and blessed them, should induce them, in a spirit of
filial faith and fondness, to obey their parents, and to regard
with special sacredness every parental injunction. And that
obedience, if prompted, regulated, and bounded by a sense of
religious obligation, will be cheerful, and not sullen; prompt,
and not dilatory ; uniform, and not occasional; universal, and
not capricious in its choice of parental precepts.

tovto yap éorw Sixavov—“ for this is right ;” the vd éper-
xvotixov in éorw, and other similar verbal forms being a

438 EPHESIANS VI. 2.

general characteristic in the spelling of ancient MSS. The
reference of the clause is not to év Kupiw, but to the injunction
itself. Filial obedience is “ right,” for it is not based on any-
thing accidental or expedient. The meaning is not that obe-
dience is “according to the law of God, or Scripture ”—xata
Tov Tod cov voyov—as is said by Theodoret and Calvin, and
virtually by Harless and Meyer, but that it has its foundation
in the very essence of that relation which subsists between
parents and children. Nature claims it, while Scripture enjoins
it, and the Son of God exemplified it. It is in perfect consist-
ency with all our notions of right and moral obligation—
duce. Sixacov, as Theophylact rightly adds. For the very
names téxva and yovets point out the origin and essential
reason of that filial duty which the apostle, in Colossians, calls
“ well-pleasing to the Lord.”

(Ver. 2.) Tia tov matépa cov Kal tHv pntépa—< Honour |

thy father and thy mother ”—a quotation from the fifth com-
mandment—JOXNN) PANNS 133. Ex. xx. 12; Deut. v. 16.
This citation does not, as Harless supposes, give the ground
of the preceding injunction, for dékavov contains a specific
reason ; but it is another form of the same injunction, based
not upon natural right, but upon inspired authority. Honour
comprehends in it all that respect, reverence, love, and obedi-
ence, which the filial relation so fully implies. Though the
Mosaic law did not by any means place man and woman on
the same level in respect of conjugal right, yet here, in special
and delicate homage to maternal claim, it places the mother

in the same high position with the father himself. Marcion, —

according to Tertullian, left out this quotation in his so-called
Epistle to the Laodiceans, because it recognized the authority of
the God of the Old Testament, p. 329, vol. ii, Op. ed. Oehler.

Hrs éotly évtodn mpwtn év érrayyedia— for such is,” or
“as it is the first command with promise ;” #rvs giving expla-
nation, or expressing reason. Winer, § 24.’ Some critics
give mpwrtos the sense of prime or chief—*“ which is the chief
commandment connected with promise.’ Such is the view
of Wetstein, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, Hodge, and
Robinson. The adjective may bear this signification; but
such cannot be its meaning here, for the fifth commandment

1 See Moulton, p. 209, n 3.

|
|
|

EPHESIANS VI. 2. 439

- cannot surely be deemed absolutely the most important which
God has ordained with promise. Matt. xxii. 38, 39; Rom.
xiii 9. Stier regards it as a first command, in point of
importance, to the children whom Paul directly addresses.
Ambrosiaster, Michaelis, von Gerlach, and Holzhausen pro-
pose to take mpwrn as meaning first in a certain position ; and
the last affirms that éyrod7 denotes only the statutes which
belong to the second table—duties not of man to God, but of
man to man. This is only a philological figment, devised to
escape from a theological difficulty. The division of the deca-
logue into first and second tables has no direct foundation in
Scripture ; but if it be adopted, we quite agree with Stier that
the fifth commandment belongs to the first table. Its position
in Lev. xix. 3, and its omission in Rom. xiii. 9, seem to
_ prove this. The second table is comprised in this, “ Love thy

neighbour as thyself;” but obedience to parents cannot come
_ under such a category. The parent stands in God’s place to
his child. On the division of the ten commandments sepa-
rately, and on that into two tables, see Sonntag and Ziillig,
| Stud. und Kritik. 1836-37; and Kurtz, Geschichte des Alten
~ Bundes, vol. iii. § 10. We are obliged to join rpwrn with év

érayyedia, and render—* which is the first command with a
_ promise,’ éy pointing to that in which the firstness consists,

and the promise being expressed in the following verse. Such

is the view of the Greek commentators, of Jerome, of the

Reformers, of Bodius, a-Lapide, Aretius, Zanchius, Crocius,

and of Harless, de Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-

Crusius, and Winer, § 48,a.' It has been remarked by others,

that what appears a promise in the second commandment is

only a broad declaration of the great principles of the divine

government, and that this is really, therefore, the earliest or
first of the ten commands with a promise—first, as Chrysostom
says, not TH tafer ddA TH érayyedla. It has been objected
that there is only one command with a promise in the deca-
logue, and that the apostle, if he thought of the decalogue
alone, would have said, not the “ first,” but the “only” com-
mand with promise. Harless says that “first” refers to what
precedes, not to what follows; and Meyer suggests that Paul
included in his reckoning, not the decalogue alone, but other

1 Moulton, p. 488.

440 EPHESIANS VI. 3.

succeeding injunctions of the Mosaic code. As a “ first”
implies a second, we should be inclined to adopt the last view,
limiting, however, the calculation of the apostle to the first
body of commands delivered at Sinai. The fifth is thus the
first commandment in point of promise. The article is not
needed, for ordinals having a specific power in themselves often
want it. Phil. i. 12; Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 100.

(Ver. 3.) “Iva ed cou yévntar nal on paxpoypovios él Tis
y7is— That it may be well with thee, and that thou be long-
lived on the earth.” The quotation is from the Septuagint
ere z Ex. xx. 12, but somewhat varied—_ 1D? he WP:
ine i ee 6 oe cov SiSwol cot. Such is the pro-
mise. The phrase “that it may be well with thee ”—as in
Gen. xii. 13, Deut. iv. 40—seems to have been a common
mode of expressing interest in another's welfare. In the
second clause, the apostle changes the construction of the
Septuagint, which reads—x«al tva paxpoypovios yevyn. It had
been affirmed by Erasmus, and has been reasserted by Winer
(§ 41,0, b, 1)' and de Wette, that the apostle drops the construc-
tion with ta and uses éoy in the simple future. We agree
with Meyer, that there is no genuine grammatical ground for
separating on from iva, since the apostle has in some instances
connected iva with the future (1 Cor. ix. 18), and there is a
change of construction similar to that which this verse
presents, in the Apocalypse, xxii. 14. Klotz-Devarius, vol.
ii, 630.2 The future écy stands here in its proper significance,
but still connected with #a; and such a use of the future
tense may in a climactic form indicate the direct and certain
result of the previous subjunctive. Obedience secures well-
being, and this being the case, “thou shalt live long on the

1 Moulton, p. 361. .

? A similar construction with ¢#ws occurs in classical Greek. Dawes indeed
laid it down as a rule that érws was never joined with the subjunctive of the
first aorist, active or middle; but that in place of them the indicative future
is employed, and that therefore the indicative future and the subjunctive are
often interchanged. The critic cordially congratulated himself on the discovery
of such a usage—mirum, opinor, quod dicturus sum, plerisque omnibus videbitur ;
sed nihilo tamen idcirco minus verum est. Dawes, Miscellan. Crit. p. 418, Lond.
1827. But Kiihner (ii. § 777) has shown that the whole is error, as many instances
abundantly testify. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 209.

EPHESIANS VI. 3. 441

earth.” The longevity is the result and development of its

being well with thee.
_ Maxpoypévios is “long-lived” or “ long-timed,” and belongs

to the later Greek. What then is the nature of this promise
- annexed to the fifth commandment? In its original form it
had reference to the peculiar constitution of the theocracy,
which both promised and secured temporal blessings to the
people. The words are, “that thy days may be long in the
Jand which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” The promise in
its first application has been supposed to mean, that filial
obedience being the test and exponent of national religion
and morality, would preserve the Hebrew nation from those
aberrations and crimes which led to their deportation and
their ultimate expulsion. Or if the command be supposed to
possess an individualizing directness, then it may mean, that
under Jehovah’s special guardianship the coveted blessing of
longevity would be the sure fruit and noble reward of filial
piety. But what is the force of the promise now? The
apostle gives it a present meaning and reality, and omits as if
on purpose the clause which of old restricted it to the theocracy.
_ It is out of the question on the part of Olshausen, Schrader,
_ and Gauthey, preceded by Estius, to spiritualize the promise,
and to suppose that as Canaan was a type of heaven, so the
_ blessing here promised is happiness in a better world. Hints
of this view are found in Jerome and Thomas Aquinas. The
epithet waxpoxpovios can never denote immortal duration, and
the apostle omits the very words which placed the earthly
Canaan in its peculiar position and meaning as a type. On
the other hand, Meyer regards this omission as unessential,
and pronounces that the words “in the earth or land” refer
historically and only to the land of Canaan. Our question
then is, Why did the apostle make the quotation? Does it
merely record an ancient fact which no longer has any
existence ? or does that fact suggest lessons to present times ?
If the former alternative, that of Meyer and Baumgarten-
Crusius, be adopted, then the language of the apostle loses its
significance and applicability to Christian children, Meyer
says that the apostle dropt the last clause of the command-
ment because he presumed that his readers were well
acquainted with it—a presumption we can scarcely admit in

442 EPHESIANS VI. 3.

reference to the Gentile portion of the church. Rather, as we
have said, do we believe, with Calvin, Riickert, and Matthies,
that the apostle omitted the last clause just to make the
promise bear upon regions out of Palestine, and periods
distant from those of the Hebrew commonwealth. Bengel,
Rosenmiiller, Morus, Flatt, Harless, and Baumgarten-Crusius
regard the original promise as applicable not to individuals,
but to the mass of the Jewish society. The meaning, says
Morus, as applied to our times is simply, patriam florere diu,
ubt liberorum sit erga parentes reverentia. This comment is
certainly better, though it is in a similar strain: as if blessings
were promised to the mass, in which the individual shares if
he remain a part of it. But such views dilute the apostle’s
meaning, and proceed in their basis upon a misconception of
the Hebrew statute. The command is addressed to individuals,
and so is the promise. The language plainly implies it—
“that thy days may be long.” Our Lord so understands it
(Matt. xv. 4-6), and thus in the sermon on the mount He
expounds the other statutes. Is it so, then, that long life is
promised to obedient children? The special providence of
the theocracy could easily secure it in ancient times; nay,
disobedient children were by law punished with death. Nor
is the hand of the Lord slackened in these days. Under i. 3
the reader will find a reference to the place which temporal
blessings occupy under the Christian economy. Godliness has
“the promise of the life which now is.” Matt. vi. 25, ete. ;

Mark x. 29, etc. Obedient children sometimes die, as ripe |

fruit falls first. But the promise of longevity is held out—it
is a principle of the Divine administration and the usual course
of providence. Not that we can say with Grotius, that man
therefore has it somewhat in his power to prolong his days;

or with Stier, that the life would be long, quoad sufficientiam |

—for obtaining salvation; or as in the maxim, sat vixit diu,

quem nec pudet vixisse, nec piget mort. We understand the —
command, as modified by its Christian and extra-Palestinian —

aspect, to involve a great principle, and that is, that filial
obedience, under God’s blessing, prolongs life, for it implies

the possession of principles of restraint, sobriety, and industry, |

which secure a lengthened existence. It is said in Prov. x. 27,
“The fear of the Lord prolongeth days, but the years of the

|
|
|
.

EPHESIANS VI. 4. 443

_ wicked shall be shortened ;” and in ix. 11, “ By me thy days
_ shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased ;”
and again in Ps. lv. 23, “ Bloody and deceitful men shall not
live out half their days.” Not that God shortens their days
by an express and formal judgment from heaven, or that all of
them without exception drop into a premature grave; but the
principle of the Divine government does secure that sin is its
own penalty, and that vicious or criminal courses either ruin
the constitution, or expose their victim to the punishment of
_ civil law, as in the case of men whose existence is early and
suddenly broken off by intemperance, imprisonment, or exile,
by the scourge or the gallows. The Greeks had apothegms
similar to this of the apostle. Obedient children are guided
and guarded by their very veneration for their parents, and
_ prevented from these fatal excesses ; whereas the “ children of
disobedience” are of necessity exposed to all the juvenile
_ temptations which lead to vice and crime. God does not
bribe the child to obedience, but holds out this special and
_ blessed result to “ tender understandings” as a motive which
they can appreciate and enjoy. (E£cumenius says—ri/ yap
Hovtepov Tract THs paxpoypovias ?

(Ver. 4.) Kai oi warépes, un wapopyifere ta Téxva tuov—
“ And ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.” The
«ai connects closely this injunction, as one parallel or com-
plementary to the one preceding it. The address of the
apostle is to fathers, not to parents, as Flatt, Meier, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Robinson, Wahl, and Bretschneider erroneously
hold it. IIarépes can scarcely be supposed to change its
signification from that which it bears in the 2nd verse, and
why should the apostle not have employed yoveis, as in the
lst verse? Fathers are here singled out, not, as Riickert
wrongly holds, because mothers were in no high position in
the East. Prov. xxxi. 10, etc. Nor is the reference to
“fathers” because the father as husband is head of the wife,
and this idea of Meyer, Harless, and Stier is too vague, for the
advice seems scarcely appropriate to mothers, who so usually
err through fondness, if the apostle spoke to them through
their husbands. Nor is there any ground for Olshausen’s
hypothesis, that Paul refers to the education of adolescent
children, which, from the nature of the case, belongs to fathers

444 EPHESIANS VI. 4.

more than mothers. But the training of children is the
father’s special function; for the duty is devolved upon him
to select and put into operation the best means and methods
for the culture of his offspring. And especially does the
prohibition of this first clause apply to fathers. As Chry-
sostom remarks, He does not say—love them—rodro yap Kal
aKovTav avtav % dvows émiomatar. Chastisement is within
their province, and they are apt to administer castigation in a
passion, as if to gratify their ill-humour. The caution does
not apply so much to mothers, for they are apt, on the other
hand, to spoil the child by indulgence.

The verb wapopyi{w signifies to irritate—to throw into a
passion. See under iv. 26. In Col. iii. 21 the apostle uses
épeOiSere—“ do not rouse or provoke.” The paternal reign is
not to be one of terror and stern authority, but of love. The
rod may be employed, but in reason and moderation, and
never from momentary impulse and anger. Children are not
to be moved to “wrath” by harsh and unreasonable treat-
ment, or by undue partiality and favouritism. If they be
uniformly confronted with paternal frown and menace, then
their spirit is broken, and the most powerful motive to
obedience—the desire to please—is taken from them. No—

GAA extpéfpete aita év traideia Kal vovdecia Kuplov—
“but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the
Lord” —in disciplina et correptione. Vulgate. The verb
refers here to spiritual culture, and not as in v. 29 to physical

support. IIase’a may not signify discipline in itself, but
rather the entire circuit of education and upbringing which ©
a mais requires, and of which discipline is the necessary and —
prominent element. The sense of chastisement was taken

from the Hebrew 10%, which it represents in the Septuagint. ©
Lev. xxvi. 18; Ps. vii 1; Isa. lili, 5; 2 Tim. iii 16. Augus-~
tine renders it per molestias eruditio. Ast, Lex, Plat., sub voce.
Chastisement is thus quite consistent with obedience to the
previous injunction. Children are not to be provoked, but
yet are to be corrected. Novfecia (vovOérnois being the
earlier form—Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 512), as several expositors

have remarked, is one special element or aspect of the

maoeta. It denotes, as the composition of the word indicates,

“putting in mind, admonition, or formal instruction.” Job

:

EPHESIANS VI. 4. 445

‘iv. 3; Rom. xv. 14; Col. i 28; 1 Thess. v.12; 2 Thess.
‘iii. 15; Plutarch, De Cohib. Ird, 2; Xenophon, Mem. i. 2, 21.
_ Jerome says—admonitionem magis et eruditionem quam austeri-
tatem sonat. Trench, Synon. § 32. Koppe, as usual, makes
the two words synonymous. The philological commentators,
such as Kypke, adduce some peculiar phraseology from the
classical writers, but not with great pertinence, such as from
Plutarch—oi paf8Soe vovPerodat, and from Josephus—padoriiv
vovOereiv. Stier adopts the opinion of Luther, who renders—
mit Werk und Wort, a translation which has been followed
by Grotius, who takes the first term as pena, and the second
as verba. We have in Prov. xxix. 15—nn3im b3v’—* the rod
and reproof.” The genitive Kupéov belongs to both substan-

tives, and refers not to God, but to Christ. See under i. 2.
It cannot signify “worthy of the Lord,” as Matthies wrongly
understands it; nor can it bear the meaning which Luther
and Passavant give it—‘“to the Lord.” Neither can we
accede to the view of Erasmus, Beza, Estius, Menochius,
- Semler, Morus, and others, who render “according to the
Lord,” or in harmony with Christianity—an idea, however,
which is implied. Michaelis, Scholz, a-Lapide, Grotius, and
Peile give the sense “about Christ” — instruction about

Christ, making the genitive that of object. Olshausen,

Harless, Stier, and Meyer rightly take it as the genitive of
' possession—‘ that nurture and admonition which the Lord
prescribes,” or which belongs to Him and is administered by
Him. Chrysostom refers especially to the Scriptures as one
source of this instruction. Such training leads to early piety,
and such is ever welcome to Christ and His church. For the
sun shining on a shrub, in its green youth, is a more gladsome
spectacle than the evening beam falling dimly on the ivy and
ruins of an old and solitary tower. Harless, Christliche Ethik,
§ 53, 1860, 5th ed.

The apostle next turns to a numerous and interesting class
of the community—the slaves—dodAos, which is distinct
from picO.os or picOwrds, and is opposed in verse 8 to the
érevOepos. Slavery existed in all the cities of Ionia and Asia
Minor, and in many of them slaves were greatly more
numerous than freemen.’ In fact, the larger proportion of

? Ample information on this subject may be found in such writers on Greek

446 EPHESIANS VI. 4.

artisans and manufacturers, and in general of the industrial

classes, were in bondage. There is little doubt that very ©

many of these bondmen embraced the gospel, and became
members of the early churches. Indeed, Celsus said, and no
doubt with truth, that those who were active proselytizers to
Christianity were—é€puoupyovs Kal oxvtoTopmous Kal Kvaheis—

weavers, cobblers, fullers, illiterate and rustic men. Origen, |

Contra Celsum, lib. iii. p. 144, ed. Spencer, Cantab. 1677.

But Christianity did not rudely assault the forms of social

life, or seek to force even a justifiable revolution by external —

appliances. Such an enterprise would have quenched the

infant religion in blood. The gospel achieved a nobler feat.

It did not stand by in disdain, and refuse to speak to the
slave till he gained his freedom, and the shackles fell from
his arms, and he stood erect in his native independence. No;
but it went down into his degradation, took him by the hand,
uttered words of kindness in his ear, and gave him a liberty
which fetters could not abridge and tyranny could not
suppress. Aristotle had already described him as being
simply éuyvyov épyavov—a tool with a soul in it; and the
Roman law had sternly told him he had no rights, quia
nullum caput habet—because he was not a person. He may
have been placed on the mpatnp é0os—“ the auction block,”
and sold like a chattel to the highest bidder; the brand—
otiypa, of his owner might be burned into his forehead, and
he might bear the indelible scars of judicial torture—that
Bacavos without which a slave’s evidence was never received ;

but the gospel introduced him into the sympathies of a new

brotherhood, elevated him to the consciousness of an immortal
nature, and to the hope of eternal liberty and _ glory.

Formerly he was taught to look for final liberation only in

that world which never gave back a fugitive, and he might
anticipate a melancholy release only in the grave, for “there
the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary be at

r
'
:

rest; there the prisoners rest together; they hear not the

voice of the oppressor; the small and great are there, and the ©

servant is free from his master.” Now, not only was he to

antiquities as Wachsmuth, Béckh, and Becker ; in Reitermeier’s Geschichte der

Sclaverei in Griechenland, Berlin, 1789 ; and in Histoire de l’Esclavage dans —

C Antiquité, par F. Wallon, Paris, 1847.

|
4

.

‘
’

EPHESIANS VI. 5. 447

look beyond the sepulchre to a region of pure and noble
enjoyments; but as he could even in his present servitude
realize the dignity of a spiritual freeman in Christ, the friction
of his chain was unfelt, and he possessed within him springs
of exalted cheerfulness and contentment. Yes, as George
Herbert sings—

‘*Man is God’s image, but a poor man is
Christ’s stamp to boot.”

At the same time, Christianity lays down great principles by
_ the operation of which slavery would be effectually abolished,
and in fact, even in the Roman empire, it was suppressed in

the course of three centuries. Other references of the apostle
to slavery occur in 1 Cor. vii. 20-24; 1 Tim. vi. 1; Col.
tii. 22; Tit. ii. 9; the Apostle Peter also refers to it in 1st

Ep. ii. 18. ;
(Ver. 5.) Ot S00X01, irraxovere trois Kupios Kata capxa—
“Slaves, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh.”
The phrase cata capa, though the article be not repeated,
qualifies xvpious, and so some MSS., such as A, B, read rots
_ kata cdpka xvpiors, imitating Col. iii. 22. Koppe, Olshausen,
_ and Meyer suppose in the phrase a tacit contrast to a—xvpuos
Kata mvedpa. Still there is no need for such a supposition,
for the contrast belongs, not to such a supposed formula, but
pervades the entire paragraph—‘“the Master,” or “the Lord,”
“the Master in heaven.” Various meanings have been attached
to the phrase, many of which are inferences rather than
explanations. The formula cata cdpxa plainly denotes a
corporeal or external relationship. 1 Cor. i. 26; 2 Cor. v.
16, etc. Their master’s sway was only over the body and its
activities, and the relation was one which was bounded by
bodily limits in its sphere and exactions. So that, such being
its nature, the inferential exegesis of Chrysostom is plain, that
the tyranny endured by the slave was only Seorore/a mpoc-
xaipos Kat Bpaxeta— a temporary and brief despotism.” The
exegesis of Harless is a mere deduction in the form of a truism,
“that in the predicate lies this idea, though in one jurisdiction
they were free, still they had masters in their earthly relations.”
Not less an inference is the thought of Calvin, “ mitigat quod
potuisset esse nimis asperwm in statu servili.” If the relation

am

er

448 EPHESIANS VI. 5.

of master and slave be only xara odpxa, then it is also a just
deduction on the part of Grotius, Riickert, Matthies, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Kistmacher, and others, that such a relation
has reference only to external or earthly matters, and leaves
spiritual freedom intact. Even Seneca could say—Servitus
non in totum hominem descendit ; excipitur animus. Now, if
the slave followed the apostle’s advice, he acquired happiness,
and commended the new religion; while sullenness and refrae-
tory insolence, on pretence of spiritual freedom, would have
led to misery, and brought an eclipse on Christianity.

The apostle, in the following clauses, hits upon those
peculiar vices which slavery induces, and which are almost
inseparable from it. The slave is tempted to indolence and
carelessness. When a man feels himself doomed, degraded,
and little else than a chattel, driven to work, and liable at any
moment to be sent to the market-place and sold as an ox or
a horse, what spring of exertion or motive to obedience can
really exist within him? The benevolent shrewdness of
Seneca (Hp. 47) had led him to say—Arrogantice proverbium
est, totidem esse hostes quot servos. Non habemus illos hostes,
sed facimus. The apostle urges this obedience to be—

peta poBov Kat tpdomuov— with fear and trembling.” The
words do not mean with abject terror, but with that respect
and reverence which their position warranted. The strong
language shows, according to some, that this “fear and trem-
bling” are not before “ fleischli lordes,” but before the one
Divine Lord. The words occur 1 Cor. ii. 3, 2 Cor. vii. 15,
Phil. ii. 12, and in two of these places they seem to describe
sensations produced by mere human relationships. The pre-
position peta indicates that such emotions were to be the
regular accompaniments of obedience :—

év amXoTnTe THs Kapdias tuwov—“in singleness of your
heart.” While pera in the first clause refers to the accom-
paniment of obedience, év here, as usual, characterizes the
internal element. “ Singleness of heart” is plainly opposed to

duplicity ; a7dobs, guasi plicis carens. Tittmann, De Syn.
p. 28; Beck, Seelenl. p. 166; Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. viii. 2) 7

ix. 11; Jas. i.5. The slave is ever tempted to appear to

labour while yet he is loitering, to put on the seeming of .

obedience and obey with a double heart. The counsel of the

J

EPHESIANS VI. 6. 449

_ apostle therefore is, that he should obey in singleness of aim,
giving undivided effort and attention to the task in hand, for
it was to be done—

as T@ Xpist@—“ as to Christ;” the dative governed by

the verb drraxovere. Obedience with all these characteristics
was to be yielded to earthly masters as to Christ. As common
and secular inducements can have but small influence on the
mind of a slave, so the apostle brings a religious motive to
bear upon him. See under v. 22.

(Ver. 6.) My kar’ df0arpodovrclav, ws avOpwmdperxor—
“Not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers;” Kata,
Winer, § 49, d. The duty is explained, first negatively, and

then positively. The two nouns have their meaning indicated
sufficiently by their composition. The first of them, which
_ occurs only elsewhere in Col. iii. 22, is an expressive term of
_ the apostle’s own coinage. In an allusion to this place the
adjective occurs, u1 @s dpOarpodouros GAN ws hidrodécroTos.
_ Apostol. Const. iv. 12, p. 98, ed. Ultzen, 1853. The second
noun belongs to the later Greek. Ps. liii. 5; Lobeck, ad
_ Phryn. p. 621. LEye-service is labour when the master is
r present, but relaxation and sloth so soon as he is gone, labour
_ only—rt@ oynpyatt. Theophylact. Need we add that this is
~ avice which slavery everywhere creates and exhibits ? Hence
the necessity for drivers and overseers, whips and collars,
-treadmills and dungeons. The slave has usually no higher
aim than to please him who has in his hands the power of
punishment and sale; and whether in deception, or in an
ingenious show of obedience, or a cunning feint of attention,
this one motive prevails—to prevent his master taking offence
at him. But the apostle presents another and deeper induce-
ment, which should lead to punctual and honest industry
carried on to please the Lord in heaven. For the slaves were
to work not as man’s—

GX’ ws S00ri01 Xpiorop—“ but as the slaves of Christ ”—
His by peculiar purchase and special proprietorship. The
article in the Received Text before Xpsorod is struck out on
the authority of A, B, D', F, G, etc.

mowbvres TO OéAnwa Tod Oeod ex wuyiis—“doing the will
of God from the soul.” Mark xii. 30; Luke x. 27; Col. iii.
23. This clause, according to some, is not to be joined with

2F

450 EPHESIANS VI. 6.

the one before it—‘“as the servants of Christ,’ but with the
first clause of the verse—‘“not with eye-service, as men-
pleasers, . . . doing the will of God.” There is no reason
to adopt such a view. Though they were slaves to a human
master, they were to live and labour in the character of
Christ’s servants, the characteristic of whose industry is, that
they do God’s will from the heart. That sphere in which
they had been placed was of God’s allotment ; and when they
discharged its duties, they were to labour not to please men,
as if simply doing man’s bidding, but to please God, and
under the idea that they were doing His will. Such an
impression must create motives which no secular premiums or
penalties could ever have originated.

But the connection of é« yvy7js has been disputed. Nume-
rous and eminent authorities join the words to the next verse.
So the Syriac reads —“and serve them with all your soul.”
Chrysostom adopts this disposition of the clauses, with Cicu-
menius and Jerome, followed by Bengel, Koppe, Harless, de
Wette, Stier, and Alford, as well as by the editors Knapp and
Lachmann. But we see no reason for following such a con-
nection, as the keeping of the words in union with the preced-
ing clause yields a good and appropriate sense. Col. iii. 23.
The phrase é« Wvyjs signifies “heartily,” and stands in con-
trast with “eye-service.” Delitzsch, Psych. p. 160. The
slave is to do the will of God from the soul—not reluctantly,
and as if from mere conviction that it should be done. This
cordiality is an essential element of Christian service. The
limbs of the slave move with a reluctant tardiness and
heartlessness ; and such forced or feigned obedience is one of
those inevitable results of slavery, against which the apostle
is cautioning this class of his readers. But if the words
€x yruyns be joined to the next verse, its first clause will then
have the aspect of tautology, é« yuyijs, wet’ edvolas SovdevovTes.
Had there been a «ai connecting the two nouns, this exegesis
might have had some probability. Harless distinguishes the
two nouns thus, that é« wvyijs points out the relation of the
servant to his work, and per’ evvolas characterizes the relation -
of the servant to his master. See Passow, Liddell and Scott,
and Pape, sub vocibus ; Xenophon, Gconom. p. 673; Cyrop.
li. p. 54; Elsner, ii, p. 228. But though such a distinction —

EPHESIANS VI. 7, 8. 451

just, it is no argument for connecting the two terms in one
clause. It rather affords to us the best reason for separating
‘them, because the clause to which we attach é« yvyijs speaks
of work to be done, and that cordially; while the next clause,
! to which per’ edvolas belongs, turns attention to the master
for whom this labour is to be performed. That master being

Christ, goodwill to Him must characterize the performance of it.

(Ver. 7.) Mer’ evvoias dovAevovtes—* Serving with a well-
affected mind,” that is, not only cordially, but higher yet—
remembering that He whom you really serve is not a tyrant,
but a generous master; for your service is done to Christ.
It is no goodwill which the slave often bears to his master, his

common feeling being the torment of his master’s presence
and the terror of his lash. Serving—
@ 5 T@ Kuplg, nai ovx avOpwrou—“as to the Lord, and
‘not to men ;” the phrase being in contrast with “ men-pleasers.”
The particle ws, not found in the Received Text, is now right-
fully inserted, on the authority of A, B, D', F, G, and many
other concurrent authorities. The spirit of their service was
to be Christian. They were to remember Christ the Master,
and in serving others were to serve Him—the Master not
according to the flesh. In external aspect the service was to
men, but in motive and spirit it was to the Lord. It is
evident that if the slaves cherished such religious feelings, the
hardships of their condition would be greatly lightened.
Menander has also said—éAevOépws Sovreve, SodrA0s ovK eon
—“ serve freely, and you are no longer a slave.” The spirit
of this paragraph, as Olshausen remarks, detractis detrahendis,
should regulate all service. “Whatever ye do in word or in
deed, do all in the name of Christ.” Or, as Luther says in a
quotation by Stier, “ when a servant-maid sweeps out a room,
she can do a work in God.”!

(Ver. 8.) Elddres bri 8 dav te Exactos roumon ayabov, TodTO
Kopiceras mapa Kupiov,elre SodXos, elte é€Xev0epos—*“ Knowing,”
or “as ye know that whatsoever good each one shall have
done, this shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond
or free.” Lachmann, supported by A, D, E, F, G, etc., reads

* **Wenn eine Magd die Stube auskehrt, kann sie ein Werk in Gott thun;”

or, as John Wesley says, ‘‘ Making every action of common life a sacrifice to
God.”

452 EPHESIANS VI. 9.

dtu Exaotos 6 éav Toinon, but Tischendorf reads as we have
printed it. There are also many other variations which need
not be noted, as they have sprung from emendation. The
6 and te are separated by a tmesis, and édy stands after the
relative for dv. Winer, § 42, 6, Obs. Instead of xopiceras,
which is supported by A, B, D’, F, G, the Stephanic text has
KomuetTas, on what appears to be the minor authority of D*,
E, K, L, and the texts of Basil and Chrysostom. The
Received Text has the article tod before Kupiov, but without
sufficient evidence. Tovdzo, “ this,” and not something else, the
verb being in the middle, and really meaning “ shall receive
back for himself.” Col. ii. 24,25. The object of the apostle
is, to encourage the slaves to the cultivation of those virtues
which he has described. If they obeyed him, and became
diligent and industrious, and served their masters with con-
scientious fidelity and goodwill, then, though their master
might fail either to note or reward their conduct, they were
not to be disheartened. For the one Master on high is also
the Judge, and He will not fail to confer on them a recom-
pense, not of merit indeed, but of grace. The hope of a
future world, in which there would be a gracious recognition
of their character and actions, would preserve them from
impatience and discontent amidst insults and ingratitude on
the part of thankless and “froward ” masters. The Christian
doctrine of rewards is too often lost sight of or kept in abey-
ance, as if it were not perfectly consistent with the freest
bestowment of heavenly glory.
(Ver. 9.) Kai, ot xvptor, Ta adta rroite mpos adtovs—
“ And, ye masters, do the same things towards them.” Kai
indicates an immediate connection, for the duties were re-
ciprocal. The master needed instruction as well as his slave,
for irresponsible power is above all things apt to be abused,
Plato has well said, that treatment of slaves is a test of cha-
racter, because a man may so easily wrong them with impunity?
The apostle had stooped to the slave, and he was not afraid
1 Moulton, p. 390,
2 Aiadnros yap mace nal Ba Tracras cibwy Thy dixny pirwy BR tvrws +d adixovi iv
rovros THY avbeumwy i iy ols aura i pg diov adixtiv. —Plato, Leges, lib. vi. Opera, vol. viii.
p- 245; ed. Bekker, London, 1826. (Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. cap. 11, vol. i,
p. 14d ed. Bipont. ) j

EPHESIANS VI. 9. 453

_ to speak with erect attitude to the master. The masters are
summoned to do the same things—rta avtd—to the slaves, as
their slaves are enjoined to do to their masters. The language
is general, and expresses what Calvin well calls jus analogum.
They were to act toward their servants in a general spirit of
reciprocal kindness, or as the apostle says in Col. iv. 1, they
were to give them “that which is just and right.” The duty
taught to the slave was earnest, conscientious, and religious
service; the corresponding duty taught to the master was
earnest, conscientious, and religious government. All the
elements of service were to be also those of proprietorship.
Such appears to us to be the general sense of the language,
and such is the general view of Zanchius, Crocius, and Mat-
thies; while Theodoret, Bengel, Harless, Meier, Olshausen,
Riickert, Stier, and Meyer dwell, perhaps, too much on the
mere evvova already recommended. Many other commentators
confine and enfeeble the meaning, by specifying too minutely
_ the reference of ra a’td. The Greek commentators refer the
- words at once to Sovdevovres in ver. 7, as if the apostle

meant to say—*“ your slaves serve you, you are also to serve
them.” Chrysostom shrinks, however, from this full form of
putting his meaning. “The apostle,’ he adds, “does not
actually say it, but he means it”—dAX’ ov« elzre, Sovdevere,
walto. ye eitwv Ta avta TodTO édyjAwoe. Flatt restricts the
reference to doing the will of God, that is, “so demean your-
selves towards your slaves, that ye accomplish in reference to
them the will of God.” De Wette refers to the clause 70 ayaOov
move in ver. 8, as if there were a paraphrastic allusion to the
Thy icornta."

1 The following note is comprehensive and eloquent :—

** And with respect to all servants of every denomination, equity requires that
we treat them with humanity and kindness: that we endeavour to make their
service easy, and their condition comfortable ; that we forbear rash and passionate
language ; that we overlook accidental errors, and remit trivial faults; that we
impose only such labour as is reasonable in itself and suitable to their capacity ;
that our reproofs be calm and our counsels well timed ; that the restraints we
lay upon them be prudent and salutary ; that we allow them reasonable time
for rest and refreshment, for the culture of their minds, and for attendance on
the worship of God ; that we set before them a virtuous example, instil into them
useful principles, warn them against wickedness of every kind, especially against
the sin which most easily besets them ; that we afford them opportunity for
reading and private devotion, and furnish them with the necessary means of

454 EPHESIANS VI. 9.

avievtes THY amreiNnv— forbearing threatening.” Chrysos-
tom, Calvin, Harless, and Baumgarten take these words too
vaguely, as if, sub wna specie, they generally forbade contume-
lious treatment. The reference is more pointed. Bloomfield,
preceded by the Syriac, on the other hand, presses too hard
upon the clause when he understands it as signifying “ remit-
ting the threatened punishment,” and he bases his opinions
upon two passages from Xenophon and Plutarch which call a
menaced penalty, or the thing threatened, a threatening. The
former of these two interpretations is forbidden by the use of
the article. But, alas! threatening has always been the special
characteristic and weapon of slave-owners. “AmwesAn is a
feature of mastership so well known, that the apostle defines
it as ameedn—that system of threatening which was a
prevalent and familiar feature of slavery. Now, however, not
only was no unjust and cruel punishment to be inflicted, but
even “ threatening” was to be spared. The apostle hits upon
a vice which specially marks the slave-holder; his prime

instrument of instigation to labour is menace. The slave is

too often driven on to his toil by truculent looks, and words
and acts of threatening ; and, by the sight of the scourge and
the imitated application of it, he is ever reminded of what
awaits him if his task be not accomplished. Masters were
not merely to modify this procedure, but they were at once
to give it up. The Lex Petronia had already forbidden a
master on his own responsibility to throw a slave to the wild
beasts, but no statute ever forbade “threatening.” Homines
tamen esse memento—“ remember your slaves are men,” says
Cato ; but Lactantius goes further, and adds what Cato’s pen
would have shrunk from—cos et habemus et dicimus spiritu
Jratres religione conservos. And this is the motive—

eldotes Ste Kal adtav Kal buav 6 Kips éotw év ovpavois
—“ knowing, as ye know, that both their and your Master is
in heaven.” This reading has A, B, D', many minuscules,
with the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, Clement, and Jerome in its
favour, while F and G read a’rav tpev, and L has vyov kal

learning the way of salvation ; that we attend to the preservation of their health,
and have compassion on them in sickness ; and, in a word, that we contribute
all proper assistance to render them useful, virtuous, and happy.”—Lathrop,
Discourses on the Ephesians, p. 538, Worcester, U.S., 1810.

—s
ee

EPHESIANS VI. 10 455

4
S

airtov. The readings have arisen from homoioteleuton and
other causes. The Master in heaven is your Judge and theirs
equally, and you and they are alike responsible to Him.
Such an idea and prospect lodged in the mind of a Christian
master would have a tendency to curb all capricious and
‘harsh usage, and lead him to feel that really and spiritually
he and his serfs were on a level, and that all this difference of
social rank belonged but to an external and temporary
institution. Could he either threaten or scourge a Christian
brother with whom but the day before, and at the Lord’s
table, he had eaten of the one bread and drunk of the one
sacramental cup ?
kai rpocwroAnuwia ovx éott Tap avt@—“ and there is no
respect of persons with Him;” “and the takynge of persouns
is not anentis God.” Wyckliffe. This compound substantive

is imitated from the Hebrew idiom—b'25 8%). In the New
_ Testament the word is always used with a bad sense. Matt.

xxii. 16; Mark xii. 14; Jas. ii. 1, etc. The Divine Master
who bought them with His blood has no partialities. Strictest
equity characterizes His judgment. Difference of worldly
station has no influence with Him, but bond and free have a
perfect parity before Him. The gold ring of the master
‘does not attract His eye, and it is not averted from the iron
fetter of the slave. Slaves may be denied justice in earthly
courts; the law may, a priori, injure the bondman by acting
upon the presumption that he is in the wrong, and his
evidence may be legally refused as unworthy of credit: but
there is a tribunal above, where the servant shall have equal
position with his lord, and where the sentence pronounced
shall be devoid of all that one-sidedness which has too often
disgraced the judicial bench in matters between a master and
his slaves.

(Ver. 10.) To Aourov, adedhod wou—“ In conclusion, my
brethren ”—a reading of far higher authority than tod Aovrod,
adopted by Lachmann after A and B, and meaning—“hence-
forward.” Madvig, § 66. It is as if he said, What remains
for me to tell you but this? The address, ddedpol pov, of
the Received Text is omitted by Tischendorf and Lachmann
—an omission which the majority of modern expositors
approve. The words are not found in B, D, E, and several of

456 EPHESIANS VI. 10.

the patristic writers. They seem to have been introduced —
from other passages where they occur in connection with
TO Aowrrov. 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 1;
2 Thess. iii. 1. Olshausen says, that the apostle never in this
epistle addresses his reader by such an appellation as aderdol,
though as an epithet it occurs in the 23rd verse of this chapter.

The apostle now represents the church as engaged in an
active warfare with the powers and principles of evil.
Olshausen suggests that his residence in the Pretorium at
Rome, where the equipment and discipline of soldiers were a
daily spectacle, may have originated the allegory. Similar
allusions are found in Isa. xi. 5, lix. 17; Ps. xviii. and cxliv. ;
2 Cor. x. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8. The primary charge to the
spiritual militia is—

évduvapovabe év Kupip xal év T@ Kpater THs ioxvos
avtov-—“ be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of His
might.” The verb is passive, not middle, as some suppose. It
is a word peculiar to the Alexandrian Greek, and occurs in
the Septuagint, Ps. li. 7, and in Acts ix. 22; Rom. iv. 20;
2 Tim. u. 1; Heb. xi. 34. “In the Lord,” or in union with
Him, is this strengthening to be enjoyed. The nouns of the
last clause have been explained under i. 19. Comp. Phil. ii.
13, iv. 13. The second clause—xa/—further points out or
explains the special blessings which result to the Christian
warrior from his union with Jesus—he is strengthened in
“the power of His might.” This command is one of primary
necessity. No matter what armour is provided, how finely
tempered, how highly polished, or how closely fitted it may be,
if there be no strength in the heart—if the man have merely
the dress of a soldier, with the spirit of a poltroon. And
the valour is spiritual, as is the armour; for physical courage
and intellectual prowess are often, alas! allied to spiritual
cowardice. Moreover, soldiers have an invincible courage
when they have confidence in the skill and bravery of their
leader; and the power of His might, in which they are strong,
has proved its vigour in routing the same foes which they are
summoned to encounter. As the Captain of salvation, “ He
spoiled principalities and powers, and triumphed over them.”
The order to the spiritual host is now given, as if with the
stirring peal of a trumpet—

EPHESIANS VI. 11. 457

(Ver. 11.) ’Eviicacde tiv ravordiav tod Ocop—* Put on
_ the panoply of God.” Stier regards the rest of this clause and
that of the preceding verse as identical in inner meaning.
The sense cannot indeed be very different, though the image
before us is distinct—first, strength or courage, and then pre-
paration in that strength to meet the enemy. IlavornXia is
complete armour, as the name implies. Luke xi. 22. It isalso
found in the Septuagint (2 Sam. ii. 21; Job xxxix. 20), and in
2 Mace. iii. 25 ; Judith xiv. 3. It denotes full armour, and not
simply, as some erroneously suppose, “the equipment” of God.
The specification of the pieces of armour proves that Paul
meant panoply in its literal sense. In fact,as Meyer remarks,
on this word lies the emphasis, and not on tod @eov, as Har-
less erroneously supposes. Did the emphasis lie on tod Qecod,
_ it might imply that other armour than this might be used in
the combat. But the strength of the charge is—Do not enter
into battle with such adversaries naked and defenceless, but take
_ to you armour. Do not cover one portion and leave another
exposed ; do not assume the cuirass and neglect the helmet ;
but put on “the whole armour.” Do not resort to any arsenal
of your own, for its armour is weak and useless; but put on
the whole armour of God. “And furthermore, we must neuer
leaue these armours as long as we be in thys worlde, for we
shall alwayis haue batayle.” Taverner’s Postils, p. 495; ed.
Oxford,1841. The genitive, @cod, is that of origination: God
provides the armour. Winer, § 30. It cannot mean, as Anselm
dreams, such armour as God uses. Each of its pieces—its
girdle, breastplate, boots, shield, helmet, and sword— is fur-
nished by Him. It is armour forged on no earthly anvil, and
tempered by no human skill. See Winer’s Realwort.; Kitto’s
Cyclopedia ; Smith’s Dictionary, sub voce.

mpos To Sivacbat twas arivar mpos tas peOodelas Tod dia-
Aorxov—“ in order that ye may be able to stand against the
stratagems of the devil.” The reading peOvdias has good
authority, A, B, D', E,G, K, L. Winer, § 5, 4.1 The first
mpos indicates purpose. Winer, § 49,h. But orfvase pds
is, in military phrase, to stand in front of, with the view
of opposing. Kypke (ii. 301) illustrates the phrase from
Polybius, iv. 61, and Antoninus, lib. vi. § 41. Leesner, Obser-

} Moulton, p. 49, note ¢.

458 EPHESIANS VI. 12.

vat. p. 347, Xenophon makes this contrast—ov«érs totaytas, —
adra devyovor. De Expeditione Cyri,i. 10,1. The plural
peBodelas seems to denote instances of the abstract singular—
Ausdruck mannichfaltiger Arten und Féalle—of which usage
Bernhardy gives examples, p. 62. Mec@odefa has been
explained under iv. 14, and dsaBoros has been considered ©
under iv. 27. The great enemy of man, a veteran fierce
and malignant, has a method of warfare peculiar to him-
self, for it consists of “ wiles.’ His battles are the rush of a
sudden ambuscade. He fights not on a pitched field, but by
sudden assault and secret and cunning onslaught. Vigilance,
self-possession, and promptitude are therefore indispensable
to meet him: and as his aim is to throw his opponents off
their guard and then to surprise them, so there is need to be
ever clothed in this complete armour of God. His “ wiles”
are seen in unsettling the mind of Eve by representing God
as jealous of the first man and woman; in stirring up the war-
like aspirations of David to take a military census and force
a conscription as the basis of a standing army; in inflaming
the avaricious and sordid spirit of Judas; and in his assaults
on our Lord by an appeal to appetite, piety, and ambition.
(Ver. 12.) "Ore ode éotiv juiv 4 adn mpos aluwa Kal capKa
—“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood.” The
reading vyuiv, commended by Griesbach, and adopted by Lach-
mann, Riickert, and Olshausen, has the authority of B, D', F,
G, but tv is supported by the preponderant authority of A,
D*, E, K, L, etc., with other concurrent witnesses. Olshausen’s
argument for juiv proves the reverse of his position, for the
temptation was to alter »yiv to div, since the rest of the
paragraph is delivered in the second person. The idea of a
necessary combat on the part of man with evil of all kinds
around him, is so natural, that we find it under various
representations in classical writers. Homer, J/. xx. 47, and
especially Plato, De Leg. x. 906. This latter passage is
regarded by some of the Fathers as parallel to the one before
us (Clemens Alex. Strom. 593; Eusebius, Hvang. Prep. xi. 26),
and as an echo from some old oracle of the Jewish scriptures.
The apostle has just spoken of the wiles of the devil, and
he justifies the statement now—ér.—“ because.” The article
is prefixed to waAn, not simply because the contest is already

EPHESIANS VI. 12. 459 ©

"supposed i in the preceding verse, but because it is the one con-
; test in which each must engage—a contest of life and death.
_ The noun adn occurs only here, and is not used by the
Seventy. It signifies a personal encounter, and is rendered
colluctatio in the Vulgate. The phrase “flesh and blood”
' denotes humanity, viewed in its palpable characteristics, and
as opposed to such spiritual and uncompounded natures as the
apostle describes in the following clauses. The terms do not
point out humanity in its sinful or fallen state, but only in its
ordinary and organized form. Matt. xvi. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 50;
Gal. i. 16. The conflict which the apostle describes is no
equal one with humanity, no wrestling on equal terms of pot-
sherd with potsherd; and man being placed at this terrible
disadvantage, there is therefore all the more need of the panoply
of God. The common notion, adopted also by Stier, Passa-
vant, and Burton, that the apostle means to say that we
_ wrestle not only with the evil of human corruption, but against

superhuman adversaries, cannot be sustained. Yet Bloomfield
and Trollope without hesitation supply wévov. Our struggle
is not against flesh and blood—

GANA Tpdos Tas dpyds, mpds Tas éEovolas—“ but against
principalities, against powers.’ The combat is with spirits,
and those of high rank and position. It has been remarked
by Meyer and de Wette, that ov« . . . dddd does not mean
non tam, non tantum, for the apostle excludes flesh and blood
from the lists altogether: the combat is only with principali-
ties and with powers. Winer, § 55, 8; Klotz-Devarius, vol.
ii. 9. The two substantives are explained under i. 21. The
terms there employed to denote the good are here used to
denote the evil chiefs. The apostle therefore refers to fallen
spirits, who once occupied positions of rank and prerogative
in heaven, and may still retain a similar place among the
hosts of apostate angels. It is no vulgar herd of fiends we
encounter, but such of them as are darkly eminent in place
and dignity. For we fight—

mpos Tos KoopoKpdtopas ToD aKdTovs TovTov-—“ against
the world-rulers of this darkness.” The Received Text inter-
poses Tod ai@vos before rodrov, but without valid proof. The
words are wanting in A, B, D', F, G, and in many versions
and Fathers, though they are found in D’, E,K,L. It is

460 EPHESIANS VI. 12. |

wrong on the part of Harless to sink the meaning of «ocpos |
by explaining the compound term as meaning only rulers. —
When applied to earthly sovereigns, it is always to those of —
most extensive sway, who were supposed to have the world —
under control—munditenentes. Tertullian. The strong term
denotes world-lords, and is so far equivalent to o dpywv Tod
Koopouv Tovrov in John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11; and o Beds
Tov ai@vos Tovrov in 2 Cor. iv. 4. The rabbins have also
adopted the word—O7piNNP. See also 1 John v.19. What
influence is ascribed in these texts to Satan, is here ascribed
to others of his unholy associates or subjects. These evil
spirits, who are our wary and vengeful antagonists, have
acquired a special dominion on earth, out of which they are
loath to be dislodged. “This darkness” is that spiritual
obscurity which so painfully environs the church—that zone
which surrounds an unbelieving world with an ominous and
lowering shadow. The moral obscurity of paganism and
impiety is fitly presided over by beings congenial in gloom,
and guilt. See ii. 2, v. 8; Acts xxvi. 10. The darkness, as
Chrysostom says, is not that of the night, but ts vovnplas.
It is plain that fallen spirits have a vast and mysterious
agency in the world, and that in many ways inscrutable to
man they lord it over ungodliness—shaping, deepening, or
prolonging the means and methods of spiritual subjugation.
Not, says Theophylact, as if they were lords of the creature,
but only of the world of sin—of such as voluntarily submit
to them—avdaipétas trrodovAwbévtwv ; not, says Theodoret,
as if God gave them such government—ovy @s mapa Tov
Ocod thv apyny SeEapévors. This dark spirit-world is anxious
to possess and maintain supremacy, and therefore Christians
must wage incessant warfare with it. The term coopoxpatwp
is used by Irenzus as synonymous with the devil—éraBonrop,
ov Kal Koop. Kadovar. Contra Hereses, lib. i. cap. v. p. 64;
ed. Stieren, Lipsiea, 1848-52. The same idea pervaded the
demonology of the later Judaism, as Schoettgen (Hore Hebr. p.
790), Buxtorf (Lexicon Talmud. p. 2006), and Wetstein (in
loc.) abundantly prove. Elsner has also produced similar
language and epithets from the “Testament of Solomon” and
Jamblichus “on the Egyptian Mysteries.” Observat. p. 229.
Not that the apostle fancifully adopted either their nomen- .
:
/

EPHESIANS VI. 12. 461

_clature or their notions, but these citations prove that the
inspired language was well understood and recognized in the
_ Eastern world.
mpds Ta mvevpaTixa THs Tovnpias év Tois erovpaviois—
“against the spirits ” or “ spiritual bands of evil, in heavenly
places.” Our English version, preceded by Erasmus, Zegerus,
and a-Lapide, renders “spiritual wickednesses ”—spirituales
_ nequitie, Adopting such a meaning of the adjective, the
sense, as Meyer suggests, would be, the spiritual elements or
aspects of evil But the following genitive shows that the
preceding adjective has the form of a substantive, and here of
a collective noun. Winer compares mvevyatixd with dapona,
which is really an adjective (§ 34, note 3). So we have
70 immixov—the cavalry. Rev.ix.16. Other critics compare
ta Saipovia to the ta AnoTpixa—band of robbers, Polyznus,
Strat. v. 14; 70 wodctixov, Herodot. vii. 103; ta vavutixd,
ete. Kiihner, § 474, 8, § 479, b; Bernhardy, p. 326;
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 378. The genitive will then be that of
_ character or quality—the spiritual cohorts of evil. Scheuer-
lein, p.115. Their nature is evil, their commission is evil,
their work is evil. Evil and evil only are they, alike in
essence and operation. This interpretation has the con-
currence of Harless, Meyer, Olshausen, Meier, Matthies, Stier,
Ellicott, and the Greek fathers Gicumenius and Theophylact.
The fivefold repetition of pos adds intensity to the
sentiment, which displays the emphatic vehemence of martial
excitement. Not only is mpos repeated, but the usual xai is
omitted. The verse is thus a species of asyndeton, in which
each clause, as it is dwelt upon and individualized, stands out
as a vivid, independent thought. Winer, § 50, 7. To rouse
up the Christian soldiery, the apostle brings out into bold
relief the terrible foes which they are summoned to encounter.
As to their position, they are no subalterns, but foes of mighty
rank, the nobility and chieftains of the fallen spirit-world ; as
to their office, their domain is “this darkness” in which they
exercise imperial sway; as to their essence, they are not
encumbered with an animal frame, but are “spirits;” and as
to their character, they are “evil ”"—their appetite for evil
only exceeds their capacity for producing it.
év tots émrovpaviows—* in the heavenly places.” See under

462 EPHESIANS VI, 12.

i. 3, 20, ii. 6, iii 10. It needs scarcely be remarked—
1. That the exegesis which makes ta émovpavia signify
heavenly things cannot be borne out, but is wholly against
the idiom of the epistle. See under i. 3. Yet this false
meaning is adhered to in this place by Chrysostom, Theodoret,
and (Ecumenius, by Cajetan, Heinsius, Glassius, Rosenmiiller,
and Tyndale, who renders—“ against spretuall wickednes for
hevenly thinges,” giving é¢v an unsustainable signification.
2. We need not stay to refute the notion of those who, like
Schoettgen, Wilke, Crellius, Van Til, Brennius, and the
editors of the “Improved Version,” think the apostle means,
in whole or in part, in this verse to describe bad men of
station and influence, like the Jewish rabbinical doctors, or
provincial Gentile governors. The meaning of the phrase
depends on the connection assigned it:—1.The phrase may
describe the scene of combat. To sustain this interpretation,
there is no necessity either, with Augustine, to join the words
to uty, or to connect them with wd)m, as is done by Riickert,
Matthies, and Baumgarten-Crusius, for perhaps they are too
remote in position. Or, 2, Ta érovpdvia may mean the seat
of these evil spirits. This view is maintained by no less
names than Jerome, who adds—/we autem omnium doctorunr
opinio est; by Ambrosiaster, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius,

Grotius, Bengel, Hammond, Meier, Holzhausen, Meyer, ©

Olshausen, Harless, de Wette, Ellicott, and Alford. See
Photius, Quest. Amphiloch. p.94; Petavius, Dogmata Theol.
lib. iii. c. iv. But Jerome says—non quo demones in celes-
tibus commorentur, sed quo supra nos aér hoc nomen accepertt.
But the “heavenly places” have been referred to by the
apostle as the scenes of divine blessing, of Christ’s exaltation,
of His people’s elevation, and as the region of unfallen and
pure intelligences, and how can they be here the seat or
abode of impure fiends? The first opinion does not, as
Alford hints, stultify itself; for the scene of warfare may be
different from the scene of proper residence. His view is, in
effect at least, coincident with ours—the place of abode
becomes the place of combat. Nor is there any proof that
Ta émovpavia means heaven, in the sense of the air or atmo-
sphere. None of the other clauses in which the phrase occurs
can bear such a signification, and yet such is the sense put

a a i etiam celal ea ae EOS.

EPHESIANS VI. 12. 463

n the words by the majority of those whom we have
quoted. Allioli renders—in der Luft. Consult what is said
under ii. 2, as to the meaning of dnp. Ta érovpdva are the
-¢elestial spots occupied by the church (i. 3, ii. 6); and in
them this combat is to be maintained. Those evil spirits
have invaded the church, are attempting to pollute, divide,
secularize, and overthrow it; are continually tempting its
members to sin and apostasy; are ever warring against
goodness and obstructing its progress; and therefore believers
must encounter them and fight them “in the heavenly places.”
Such appears to us to be the plain allusion of the apostle,
and the exegesis is not beset either with grammatical or
theological difficulty. Still the subject is one of mystery, and
we dare not definitely pronounce on the express meaning of
the terms employed.

_ Our translators felt a dilemma here, and shrank from the
‘same right rendering which they had given in the other verses
where the phrase occurred. Under the same perplexity, some
have proposed to read troupavious, for which unwarranted
“emendation Erasmus and Beza had a kindly preference; and
‘the version of Luther is—wnter dem Himmel. The Syriac
also renders L8as das2)—<“under heaven.”! The per-
plexity was felt to be so great, that no less a scholar than
Daniel Heinsius actually proposes the desperate shift of
transposing the words ¢y tois érovpaviois to the beginning of
the verse, and making out this sense—‘“in heavenly things
our contest is not with flesh and blood.” vercitat. Sac.
p. 472. Neither of the renderings of Storr can be sustained

' The following is the description of Prudentius, in his Hamartigenia :—

** Non mentem sua membra premunt, nec terrea virtus
Oppugnat sensus liquidos, bellove lacessit :
Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte dieque
Congredimur, quorum dominatibus humidus iste,
Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aér.
Scilicet hoc medium, coelum inter et infima terre,
Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit hiatu,
Frena potestatum variarum sustinet, ac sub
Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis.
His colluctamur predonibus ; ut sacra nobis
Oris Apostolici testis sententia prodit.”

—Opera, vol, i. p. 578. Lond. 1824,

464 EPHESIANS VI. 13. |
:

—qui in celo fuere, or qui celestes origine sunt. Opuscula, |
i. p. 179; Observat. p. 174. The opinions of Locke and
Doddridge are erroneous. The former renders—“ the spiritual
managers of the opposition to the kingdom of God ;” and the
latter—“ spirits who became authors and abettors of wicked-

ness even while they abode in heavenly places.” Hofmann —

generalizes, or as Meyer says, rationalizes the phrase in saying —

—that it refers not to place—that evil spirits are not

confined to this or that locality of this earthly world—sondern ©

dieselbe tiberwaltend, wie der Himmel die Erde wmspannt.
Schriftb. i. p. 455. Not much different from the view of
Doddridge is that of Cocceius and Calovius, who join zovnp/as
closely with the phrase —“spirits who do evil in the
heavenlies.” The exegesis of Peile is as arbitrary as any of
these—* wickedness exhibited in spiritual beings who kept
not their first estate, their righteous principality in the centre
of heaven.”

(Ver. 13.) Ata TodTo avadaBete THY TavoTAay To) Ocov—
“Wherefore take up the panoply of God.” “ Wherefore,” the
foes being so formidable in power, operation, and nature, what
need is there not to be fully protected with this complete and
divine suit of mail? The charge is repeated from ver. 11,
and the words employed are the usual military phraseology,
as is shown by the illustrations of Elsner, Kypke, and Wet-
stein. Thus, Deut. i. 41—dvaraBovtes Exactos Ta oKEevN TA
qoNeuika avTov; Jer. xxvi. 3; 2 Macc. x. 21.

iva SuvnOte avticthvar év TH hpuépa TH Tovnpa— that ye
may be able to withstand in the evil day.” The soldier is.
equipped for the purpose of defending himself and opposing
the enemy. The Christian armour is not worn for idle
parade, or as holiday attire. The enemy must be encountered.
But what is meant by “the evil day”? Similar phraseology
is found (Ps. xli. 1, xlix. 5) in the Septuagint version. If we
preserve the spirit of the imagery, we should at once be led to
conclude that it was the day of battle, or, as Theodoret calls
it—rhs twapatdfews. That is an evil day; for it may lead
to wounds, though it does not destroy life. It is not specially
and of necessity the day of death, as Schmid supposes, though

it may be, and has often proved so. Nor is it every day of
our life, as Chrysostom, CEcumenius, and Jerome understand —

EPHESIANS VI. 13 465

it—rov rrapovta Biov—for there may be many a lull during
a campaign, and there may be a long campaign ere a decisive
battle be fought. Our view is that of most modern commen-
_tators, with the exception of Koppe and Meyer, who suppose
Paul to refer to some future and terrible outbreak of Satan
before the expected advent of Christ, which the apostle
thought to be near at hand. Such is also the view of Usteri.
Paulin. Lehrbeg. p. 341. But there can be no allusion to
such a prospect in the verse before us. The evil day is that
of resolute Satanic assault; “evil”—on account of the
probability, or even possibility, of the sad consequences which
failure or unpreparedness so often involves—damaged reputa-
tion, impaired usefulness, and the bitter regrets and memories
of subsequent years. To how many has it been an evil day!
Did not our Lord bid us pray, “ Lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil” ?
_ Kal atavta KaTepyacdyevor orjvat— and having done all
to stand.” Two distinct interpretations have been given of
‘the deponent middle participle xatepyaoduevor:—1. Some
‘give it this sense, “ having subdued or overcome all,” as in the
margin of our English Bibles. This is the exegesis of Cicu-
‘Menius and Theophylact, the former of whom expressly says
that catepyacapevor is used for kataToXeunoavtes. The view
of these Greek critics is followed not only by Beza, Grotius,
and Wetstein, but also by Harless, Olshausen, Riickert, Cony-
beare, and de Wette. There is no doubt that the verb does
bear such a meaning among the classical writers; but though
the word occurs often, there is no instance of such a sense in
the New Testament. MRaphelius, in loc. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom.
i. p. 107. Why then should this place be an exception ?

2. Others, therefore, prefer the signification “ having done
or accomplished all,” that is, not simply “having made all
necessary preparation,’ as the Syriac, Morus, and Bengel
too narrowly take it; but having done everything which the
crisis demanded, in order to quell the foe and maintain their
position. This preferable exegesis is supported by Erasmus,
Bucer, Meier, Meyer, and Baumgarten-Crusius. Now, not to
| say that the neuter davra is against the former view, and
more in accordance with the second, which refers it not to
enemies, where we would have expected another gender, but

2G

466 EPHESIANS VI. 14,

to the general elements of military duty, we may add, in

contradiction of Harless, that the spirit of the context is also

in favour of the last exegesis. For, 1. The apostle proceeds to

arm the Christian soldier, and it is not natural to suppose that _

he speaks of victory prior to equipment and battle. 2. The
verb orjvar cannot be supposed to have a different significa-
tion from what it has in ver. 11. If the first opinion be
adopted, “ having vanquished all your enemies, to stand,” then

otnvat would denote to stand victorious ; or, as Luther has it, |

das Feld behalten—* to keep the field.” Now this is changing
the meaning of the verse, for it signifies in verses 11 and 14
to stand, not when the combat is over, but to stand with the

front to the foe, in the very attitude of resistance and self-—

defence, or in expectation of immediate assault. 3. The clause
appears to be explained by the succeeding verses; “Stand

therefore” (ver. 14) with girdle, cuirass, sandals, shield,

helmet, and sword, ever praying. The rendering of the Vul-

vate—in omnibus perfecti—is a deviation, probably borrowed
from such a reading as Codex A presents—xarepyacpevor,

Jerome has omnia operat.

(Ver. 14.) This warlike picture of the apostle is to be taken

in its general aspect. It is useless, on the one hand, to seek

out the minutize of far-fetched resemblances, as is done by

some foreign divines, and by Gurnall (Christian in Complete
Armour, fol., Glasgow, 1763) and Arrowsmith (Zactica Sacra,
4to, 1657), and more elaborately learned than either, Lydius |
in his Syntagma sacrum de re militari, ed. Van. Til, 1698,
Dordraci. All that we can affirm is, that certain spiritual
acquisitions or gifts endow us with peculiar powers of self-
protection, and that these graces, in their mode and province
of operation, bear some similitude to certain pieces of ancient
armour, So that it is an error, on the other hand, to imagine
that the apostle selects at random some graces, and compares”
them to portions of military harness. It is probably to the
armour of a Roman soldier that the apostle refers, the fullest
account of which may be found in Lipsius (De Milit, Roman.,
ed. Plant. 1614) and Vegetius (Zpitome Institutorum Ret
Militaris, ed. Schwebel, Bipont. 1806), or in Polybius, lib. vi.
20; Martial, ix. 57. See Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, sub
voce “ Arms.” The apostle’s account, as has been remarked,

coincides with the figures sculptured on the Arch of Severus.
First, there are three pieces of iron armour—armour fitted on
to the body—girdle, breastplate, and shoes ; thus—

aornte otv tmepitwoduevor THY dodiy buav év adnOeia—
“stand therefore, having girt about your loins with truth.”
Isa. xi. 5; Dan. x. 5. The aorist participles precede in point
of time the verb. ‘Ev is instrumental. The allusion is to
the ancient military belt or girdle, which was often highly
ornamented with laminz and clasps of gold and silver, and
used occasionally, when thrown over the shoulder, to support
the sword or quiver. This zone is formed of truth, not objec-
tive truth, as Harless believes, for that is declared to be the
‘sword; but, as the article is wanting, of subjective truth—
truthfulness. It is not simply integrity or sincerity, but the
assured conviction that you believe, and that it is God’s truth
you believe. Such a sincere persuasion binds tightly the
other pieces of armour; and “trussing up his loins” gives the
combatant alertness and buoyancy in the battle, enabling him
_to “endure hardness as a good soldier of Christ.” He feels
“supported and braced by his conscious knowledge and re-
ception of the truth. Harless errs in supposing the baldric to
be a mere ornament, for the ungirded soldier had not done all
to qualify him for the fight—is not fully prepared for it.
Grotius says—veritas adstringit hominem, mendaciorum magna
‘est laxitas. 1 Sam. xxv. 13; Ps. xviii. 32, xlv. 4.

kai évdvedpuevor Tov Owpaxa Tis Sixavoovvns— and having
put on the breastplate of righteousness.” The genitive is
that of apposition, and the article before it may be that of
correlation, though we incline to give it a more distinctive
meaning. Isa. xi. 5, lix. 17. The breastplate, as its name
implies, covered and protected the chest. It was sometimes
formed of linen or plates of horn, but usually of metallic scales
or feathers. Pliny, Hist. Natur. xxxiii. 54. Roman soldiers
wore chain mail, that is, hauberks or habergeons—

EPHESIANS VI. 14. 467

* Loricam consertam hamis, auroque trilicem.”

But sometimes the breastplate was made of two pieces of
leather or bronze, which fitted to the person, and were united
by hinges or fastened by buckles. Smith’s Dictionary of
Greek and Roman Antiquities, p. 576. The righteousness

i sig

468 EPHESIANS VI. 15.

which forms this xapdvopvna€ is, according to Meyer, Fergus-
son, Olshausen, Holzhausen, and Meier, moral rectitude, or,
as Ellicott says, “ the righteousness which is the result of the
renovation of the heart by the Holy Spirit;” and, according
to Baumgarten-Crusius, the conscious possession of it. The
article before S:cavocvvn has a special prominence, and we are
inclined, with Harless, de Wette, Matthies, and Winzer (Pfinst-
programm, tiber Ephes. vi. 10, 17, Leipz. 1840), to understand
it as the righteousness of God, or of faith, or as “justification
by the Bload of the cross,” three scriptural phrases meaning
in general one and the same thing. What Christian can boast:
of entire rectitude, or use as his arene what Turner unhappily
calls “ his own righteousness ”—nvl conscire sibi, nulla palles-
cere culpa ? But when the justifying righteousness of Christ
is assumed as a breastplate by sinners, they can defy the
assaults of the tempter. To every insinuation that they are
so vile, guilty, worthless, and perverse—so beset with sin and
under such wrath that God will repulse them—they oppose
the free and perfect righteousness of their Redeemer, which is
“upon them.” Rom. ui. 22. So that the dart thrown at
them only rings against such a cuirass, and falls blunted to
the earth.

(Ver. 15.) Kat trrodnodpevor tods modas év éroipacia Tod
evayyedliou THs elpnvns—“ And having shod your feet with
the preparedness of the gospel of peace.” Isa, iii. 7. The
usage of such an accusative following the verb may be seen,
in Buttmann (§ 135, 3), though pier (he radu tect is
put in the accusative. The last genitive is that of contents
(Bernhardy, p. 16), and the one before it that of source,
that is, the preparedness is from the gospel, and that gospel
has peace for its substance. The reference is not to greaves,
which were a kind of military leggings, but to th
mpoxvnuides—ealige or sandals, which were worn by thé
ancient warriors, and the soles of which were thickly studded
with hobnails. Byneus, de Calcibus, Dordraci, 1715. The
military sandal of this spiritual host “is the preparation of
the gospel of peace ;” Wyckliffe—*in makynge redi.” Th
preposition év is instrumental or quasi-local, and éroiacia i
represented as forming the sandals. So that there is error 0
the part of Erasmus, who renders — parati ad evangeliw

|

EPHESIANS VI. 16. 469

The noun éromacéa has in the Septuagint an active meaning,
-as—els érowaciay tpodis—Wisdom xiii. 12; also an in-
transitive meaning—readiness or preparedness—imovus eis
éropaciav tpiv mapéyeew—Josephus, Antig. x. 1, 2; and
still in a more spiritual sense, Ps. x. 17—rqv éroipaciav ris
kapdias. The term is sometimes employed in the Septuagint
as the representative of the Hebrew, 39, as in Ps. Ixxxix. 15,
where it is said to mean foundation, and therefore Beza,
Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, and Flatt take the word in such a
sense here—the firm basis of the gospel of peace. Ezra il.
68; Dan. xi. 7. The figure is not appropriate; it might
apply, indeed, to the road on which they were to march, but
not to their boots. The feet were to be shod “with pre-
paredness.” The feet in fighting are so protected or cased.
The feet, too, are the instruments, and therefore the appro-
priate symbols of motion. The Christian warrior must move
as the battle shifts; his career is indeed but a battle and a
march,and march and a battle. Andwhence is this promptitude
to be derived? From “the gospel of peace ”—or peace the sub-
stance of the gospel, the same gospel which was called i. 13
—the gospel ris owrnpias. For the possession of peace
with God creates blessed serenity of heart, and confers upon
the mind peculiar and continuous preparedness of action and
movement. There is nothing to disconcert or perplex it, or
divide and retard its energies. Consequently it is an error
on the part of many expositors, from Chrysostom down to
Conybeare, to represent the meaning thus—“ preparation to
preach or publish the gospel of peace,” for it is of defensive
armour alone the apostle is now speaking.

(Ver. 16.) "Emi waow dvadaBovtes tov Oupedv tis TlaTews
—*“In addition to all, taking up the shield of faith”—the
genitive being that of apposition. Lachmann, almost on the
single authority of B, reads év waow, which might justify
Jerome’s rendering—in omni opere. Some, such as Luther,
Beza, and Bengel, give the words the sense “above all,” or
“especially,” “above all.things,” as if the most important
piece of armour were now to be specified. The Gothic has
“ufar all.” But the meaning is simply “in addition to all.”
Luke iii. 20; Winer, § 48, c. And the construction is
changed. The pieces of armour already mentioned being

470 EPHESIANS VI. 16.

fitted on to the body and fastened to it, each by appropriate
mechanism, have each its characteristic verb—epifoodpevol,
évouodpevot, vTodncdpyevor; but shield, helmet, and sword
need no such special fastening, for they are simply taken up

|

eer eet Se,

or assumed, and therefore they are joined to the one general ©
participle, avadaBovres, and the verb dé£acbe. Ovpeov— —

scutum—a word of the later Greek,’ denotes, as the name
implies, a large door-like shield, differing in form and
especially in size from the aomis—celypeus—and was, accord-
ing to Polybius, two feet and a half broad and four feet
long—to mAdtos . . . TEVO tyTrodiwv, TO S€ pHKos, TOdaV
tettapwv. Polybius, lib. vi. cap. 20, 23. The shield pre-
served the soldier from being struck, and his armour, too,
from being hacked or notched. Such a large and powerful
shield is faith—that unwavering confidence in God and His

grace which guards the mind from aberration and despond- ©

ency, and easily wards off such assaults as are made upon it.
John v. 4, 5. The special value and purpose of the shield
are then described —

év & Suvncecbe Tavta TA BEdn TOD Tovnpod Ta TeTUPwWLEVA
oBécar—“ in,” or, “with which ye shall be able to quench
all the fiery darts of the wicked one.” The article ta before
meTup@uéva is not found in B, D,, F, G, and is rejected by
Lachmann, but probably without sufficient authority. It
seems to imply that the devil throws other darts besides
those so specified. ‘O srovnpos is “the wicked one,” either
in proper person or as leader and representative of the foes
so vividly described in ver.12. 2 Thess, iii. 3; Matt. vi. 13;
John xvii. 15; 1 John v. 18. In the phrase ta BeAn ta
merupwpeva, there is a reference to a species of missile
which was tipped or armed with some combustible material.

Ps, vii. 13; Lipsius, de Milit. Roman. p. 106; Alberti,

Observat. Philol. in loc. This malleolus resembled a hammer,
as its name imports. The inflammatory substances were
compressed into its transverse portion or head, and this being
ignited, the mallet was thrown among the enemy. References
to such weapons are found in Herodotus, lib. viii. 52; Arrian,

1 Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 866. He quotes Homer, who uses the term for
the trong door of a cave, adding, that it means a shield, but not among
approved or old authors.

yy

EPHESIANS VI. 17. 471

Alexan, Exped. ii. 18; Thucydides, ii. 75; Smith’s Dictionary
Of Greek and Latin Antiquities, sub voce—Malleolus ; Winer,
art. “Bogen;” and other ancient writers. Thucydides calls
these shafts mupdopoe dioroi; and Apollodorus gives them
the same name as the apostle. Bibl. ii. 4. See also Livy,
lib. xii. c. 8; Ammianus Marcellinus, 23, 4. The Coptic
version reads ~ OLA. O 2, —“ filled” with fire. These blazing
arrows are shot by the evil one—o zrovnpos—who is evil
and undiluted evil; the evil one “by merit raised to that
bad eminence.” In the verb oféoae there is an allusion
not to any power in the shield to quench the burning darts,
as many try to show with learned labour, but to the simple
fact, that such a missile caught on, or in, the shield, glances
off it, and falling to the earth, is speedily extinguished. It
is a misconception of the meaning of the participle wemupwpéva
on the part of Bodius, Rollock, Hammond, and Bochart,
that poisoned darts are meant, and are named “fiery”
because of the burning sensation, or fever, which they pro-
duce; as if they received this appellation not from their
effect, but from their nature. Hierozicon, Opera, tom. iii.
_p. 425, ed. Leusden, Lugd. Batav. 1692. What they are,
it is difficult to say. The Greek fathers, with too great
restriction, think that reference is made to such lusts and
desires as we sometimes term “burning” lusts and desires.
The darts appear to be Satanic assaults, sudden and terrible
—such suggestions to evil, such unaccountable impulses to
doubt or blaspheme, such horrid insinuations about the Divine
character and one’s own state, as often distract persons,
especially of a nervous temperament. The biographies of
Inther and Bunyan afford apposite examples. But the
shield of faith must be used to repel such darts, and if
brought to intercept them, it preserves the Christian warrior
intact. His confidence in God keeps him from being wounded, or
from falling a prisoner into the hands of his ruthless enemies.
‘Whatever happens moves him not; his faith saves him from
despondency and defeat. The future form of the verb by no
means supports Meyer’s view as to the period of the evil day.

(Ver. 17.) Kat rhv epixeharalav tod owrnpioy détacbe
—‘And take the helmet of salvation.” D’, F, and G omit
the verb; 5é£ac@a:, a glaring emendation, is found, however,

472 EPHESIANS VI. 17.

in A, D*, K,and L. The adjectival form ocwrypiov is found
also in Luke u. 30, iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28. This use of the
finite verb in such a series is a characteristic of Pauline style,
as if from the participial construction his mind likes to rest
at length on the finite form. The military helmet protected
the head. It was a cap usually made of leather, strengthened
and ornamented with metallic plates or bosses, and commonly
surmounted with a crest or plume. In 1 Thess. v. 8, the
apostle says, “ For an helmet the hope of salvation ”—é€Amida
cwTnpias—and therefore many suppose that the same idea
is expressed elliptically here. Such is the view of Calvin,
Zanchius, Calovius, Grotius, Estius, Bodius, Meier, and
Winzer, but a view which is as unwarranted as that of
Theodoret, Bullinger, Cocceius, and Bengel, who refer cwrpiov
to the Saviour Himself, because He has received such an
appellation in Luke ii. 30. The apostle takes the phrase
from the Alexandrian version of Isa. lix. 17, in which the
Hebrew M33v) yd is translated zepimedadaiav oswrnpiov.
Salvation, and not the hope of it, is here represented as
forming the helmet; not salvation in an objective sense,
but in conscious possession. It is the assurance of being
interested in this salvation that guards the head. He who
knows that he is safe, who feels that he is pardoned and
sanctified, possesses this “helme of helthe,” as Wyckliffe
renders it, and has his “ head covered in the day of battle :”—

Kal THY paxatpay Tod TIvevpatos, 6 éotiw pha Ocov—“ and
the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The
last genitive is that of source, and the relative 6 is neuter, by
attraction or assimilation. This is the only offensive weapon
which the Christian soldier is to assume. That sword is
described as being the “word of God.” By “the word of
God” we understand the gospel, or revealed will of God—
and to us it is in effect Holy Scripture, not in any restricted
sense, as limited either to its commands or its threatenings. —
Theodore of Mopsuestia says, however, that pia Oecod is
equivalent to Ocod évépyesa—referring in proof to such phrases —
as “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made,” the
meaning of which is easily understood. And this weapon—
“the word of God”—is “the sword of the Spirit,” for it is.
the Spirit who supplies it. By the special organic influence

EPHESIANS VI. 17. 473

_ of the Spirit, plenary inspiration was enjoyed, and God’s ideas
_ became, in the lips and from the pens of apostles and prophets,
God’s words. The genitive, mvedyaroc, thus indicates the
relation in which God’s word stands to the Spirit. How
strange on the part of Harless, Olshausen, Matthies, Stier, and
von Gerlach, to make it the genitive of apposition, and to
represent the sword as the Spirit Himself! In this erroneous
view they had been preceded by Basil, who has adduced this
_ verse as a proof that not only the Son, but the Spirit, is
called the Word—the Son being the Word of the Father, and
the Spirit the Word of the Son. Contra Hunom. lib. v. cap. 11.
Such an exposition only darkens the passage, and compels
Olshausen himself to ask in perplexity a question which his
own false exegesis originates—How can the Word of God
be represented as the Spirit? and he answers the insoluble
query by a statement no less erroneous and unintelligible, that
the Spirit is an operation which the Word of God produces.
Harless argues, that as the previous genitives specifying the
pieces of armour are those of apposition, so analogy must
_ justify the same syntax in this clause. But the argument is
wholly out of place, and that because the apostle subjoins an
explanation. Had he simply said “the sword of the Word,”
then according to the analogy of previous clauses the exegesis
of Harless and Olshausen would be the correct one, but he
enters into fuller and more precise detail. Away at the
other extreme from this exposition is that of Chrysostom in
one of his interpretations, of Ccumenius and Theophylact,
with Michaelis and Grotius, which makes the clause merely
mean—“take the spiritual sword of the Word; and still
more remote is the lame exegesis of Morus, Rosenmiiller, and
de Wette, which understands by “spirit” the human spirit,
as if the apostle meant to say—“ take your soul’s best sword,
the word of God.”

The word of God is thus the sword of the Spirit, by which
the spiritual foe is cloven down. The Captain of salvation
set the example, and once and again, and a third time, did
He repel the assault of the prince of darkness by three brief
and simple citations from Scripture. Diplomacy and argu-
ment, truce and armistice, are of no avail—the keen bright
sword of the Spirit must be unsheathed and lifted.

|

474 EPHESIANS VI, 18.

os

(Ver. 18.) Ava rdons tmpocevyis kai Senoews mpocevyopevot —

év mavtl Kaip@ év TIvedpatt—* With all prayer and supplica-
tion praying always in the Spirit.” The participle is not,
with Conybeare, to be rendered as a simple imperative. We
cannot agree with de Wette and others in regarding prayer as
a separate weapon, for the apostle now drops the figure. It
is indeed an effectual means of repulse, not by itself, but in
its connection with all these other graces. So that we under-
stand this verse as describing the spirit or temper in which
the armour should be assumed, the position taken, the enemy
met, and the combat pursued, that is, as still connected with

oTnte ovv. We cannot, with Olshausen, restrict it to the ©

previous clause, namely, that prayer must accompany the use

of the sword of the Spirit. The order of thought is—make

preparation, take the armour, stand, fight, and all the while be
praying.

Meyer’s effort to make dua wdons mpocevyns Kal dSenoews
an independent sentence, at least disconnected with the follow-
ing participle, is not happy; and his argument as to tautology
and the impossibility of “praying always” is without force.’
The preposition 6a expresses the means by, or the condi-
tion in or through which, the spiritual exercise implied in
mpocevxopuevot developes itself. The two nouns are distin-
guished not as ¢mprecatio and deprecatio, as is the opinion of
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, and others; nor can we say,
with de Wette, that the first term denotes the form, and the
second the contents, of prayer. The two words are conjoined
in the Septuagint. 1 Kings vil. 28; 2 Chron. vi 19; Ps. vi.
9; and in Phil. iv. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 1. We believe with
Harless, Meier, Meyer, and others, that wpocevyn is prayer in
general—the general aspects and attitudes of devotion, in
adoration, confession, and thanksgiving; and that dénows is a
special branch of prayer, direct and earnest petition. The
adjective waons adds the idea of “every kind” of prayer—all
the forms, public and private, secret and domestic, oral and

1 <« «Praying always ’—what does it mean? Being always on our knees ?
always engaged in the very act of prayer? This I believe to be one of the
grossest glosses that Satan casts on that text. He has often given that gloss;
monkery, nunnery, abstraction from the world in order to give oneself up to
prayer, are but the effects of that false gloss.” Evans, Sermons on the Ephesians,
p- 393 (British Pulpit), Lond.

eobe p-ee 0 oe

;

EPHESIANS VI. 18. 475

_ unexpressed, formal and ejaculatory, which prayer may assume.
_ And such prayer is not to be restricted to peculiar times,
but is to be employed—év mavtl xaip@, at every season.
Luke xxi. 36. “Not only the minor officers along the ranks,
but the whole hosts are to join in these yearnings.”’ And
such continuous and diversified prayer must be—
év IIvevpati—* in the Spirit ”—as its sphere. It is surely
an unhallowed and perverse opinion of Castalio, Crocius,
Grotius, Homberg, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and Zanchius even,
_ which gives these words the meaning of é« mvevpatos, and
_ makes them signify “ out of the heart, or sincerely.” Bloom-
field indeed lays down the canon that wvedpa, not having the
_ article, cannot mean “the Holy Spirit ”—a canon which is
_ contradicted by numerous passages of the New Testament, as
already stated under i. 17. The theology of the apostle is,
_ that while the Son pleads for His people in heaven, the
Spirit within them makes intercession for them and by them,
_ by giving them an enlarged and appropriating view of the
_ Divine promises, that they may plead them in faith and
_ fervour, and by so deepening their own poignant consciousness
_ of want as to induce them to cry for grace with an agony of
earnestness that cannot be fitted into words. Rom. viii. 26.
_ Jude speaks also of “praying in the Holy Ghost” (ver. 20),
that is, in His exciting and assisting influence. The soldier
needs courage, vigilance, and skill, and therefore he ought,
with continued prayer and supplication, to look up to the
Lord of hosts, “ who teaches his hands to war and his fingers
to fight,” and who will make him “more than a conqueror; ”
so that in due time, the combat being over and his foes
defeated, the hand that wielded the sword will carry the palm,
and the brow that wore the helmet will be crowned with
immortal garlands before the throne. Praying always—
kal eis alto aypurvotvtes ev tacn mpooKaptepycer Kal
Sejcet rept ravtwy tov dyloyv— and for this watching in all
perseverance and supplication for all the saints.” Todro,
found in the Stephanic text after aro, is regarded as doubtful
on the authority of A, B, and other concurrent testimonies.
Eis aité—“ for this,” that is, for the purpose specified in the
* The Soldier of the Cross, by J. Leyburn, D.D., Philadelphia; a series of
popular and discursive sermons on Eph. vi. 10-18. Reprinted, Glasgow, 1853.

476 EPHESIANS VI. 19.

clauses preceding, not, as Koppe and Holzhausen argue, for

‘the design expressed in the following verse—iva pou 5007. —
To secure this earnest supplication at all times in the Spirit, ©
they were to be ever on their guard against remissness, for

many “impedimenta” exist in the Christian army. The —

phrase é¢v waon mpockaptepnce: kal Senoes, is one of pregnant
emphasis. Acts i. 14; Rom. xii. 12; Col. iv. 2. “ Persever-

ance and prayer,” though not properly a hendiadys (the tech-

nical order of the words, as they should occur in such a figure,
being inverted), practically means perseverance characterized
by prayer, the one and the other noun having a distinct,
though blended signification. The term dyiwy has been
explained under i. 3. We are inclined to take the two
clauses as somewhat parallel, the second clause as containing,
at the same time, a specific addition. Thus, first, the apostle
exhorts them, by means of “all prayer and supplication,” to be
praying at all times in the Spirit, the tacit or implied reference
being for themselves; and then he adds, but without any
formal transition, “and for this watching along with all per-
severance and prayer for all saints.” The two thoughts are
closely connected. To their persistent supplication for them-
selves, they were to join, not as a separate and distinct duty,
prayer for all saints, but rather, as the compact language of
the apostle suggests, in praying for themselves they were
uniformly to blend petitions for all the saints. “All the
saints,’ in obedience to the same mandate, pray for us, and in
a spirit of reciprocity it becomes us to pray for them. They
need our prayers; for many of them, at every given moment,
must be in trial, temptation, warfare, sickness, or death. And
as but a very few of them can ever be known to us, our all-
inclusive sympathy with them will prove its vitality by
universal and unwearying supplication for them.

(Ver. 19.) Kal tmép éuod—* And for me.” When xaé
knits, as here, a part to a whole, it has an intensive or
climactic signification. Winer, § 53, 3; Hartung, i. 45.
The apostle lays emphasis on this mention. of himself. And
we apprehend that the same speciality of request is marked by
the change of preposition. When he bids them pray for all
saints, he says wept mdavtwv Tav ayiwv ; but when he points to
himself as. the object of supplication, he writes imép €mod.

Ee Dele ee, Be EG BER, oO On Rien tec re

meper mmei fe

a

ee

: EPHESIANS VI. 19. 477
3 .
_ Meyer and de Wette, indeed, and Robinson, apparently deny

that any change of idea is involved in the change of pre-
position. Harless admits such a distinction as is between pro
and propter. Certainly, in the later writers wepé and i-rép are
_almost identical in use and sense. They are even found
together, as Demosthenes, Philip. ii. p. 162, vol. v. Oratores
Att., ed. Dobson, Oxon.; Thucyd. vi. 78, 1, p. 152, vol. iii.
sect. 2, ed. Poppo. No one denies this, but surely it may be
asked, Why should the preposition here be changed? not,
perhaps, for mere variety of phrase and style. The preposition
mepi—“about,”* used generally in a tropical sense when it
governs the genitive, may be regarded as the vaguer in its
reference. They could not know much about all saints, and
they were to pray about them. All saints were to be ideally
encircled with their supplications. The prayer for the apostle
was more direct and personal, and w7rép is employed, while the
blessing to be prayed for is also clearly specified. In Rom. viii.

26, 1 Tim. ii. 1, Heb. vii. 25, where d7ép is used, there is

marked directness in the supplication, though it be for all men.

1 Pet. iii 18. In Col. iv. 3, the apostle, in making a similar

_ request, uses mrepi ; but he includes himself with others, and

writes 7uov, and so in Heb. xiii. 18. Though such a distinc-
tion cannot be uniformly carried out, yet the use of these two
different prepositions in two consecutive clauses would seem
to indicate that some ideal change of relation is intended.
Turner says that the prepositions are changed “for the mere
sake of variety,” and he instances é« and dca in Rom. iii. 20,
which in his opinion “apparently convey precisely the same
thought.” But the explanation is slovenly ; for though there
is a kindred meaning, there is a distinct difference of image or
relation indicated by the two prepositions. And for what
were they to pray ?

iva pot 5004 Aoyos év avoiger Tov aTopaTos pou— that to
me may be given speech in the opening of my mouth.” The
conjunction iva denotes the purpose, which is told by telling
the purport of the prayer. The Received Text has So00e/m,

? tigi, in Sanscrit pari, from the root {J, is ‘round about,” differing from
4u@', Latin amb, German um, which means on both sides, while érig, Sanscrit
upari, from the root DY, Latin super, Gothic ufar, German diber, English over,
signifies ‘‘ upon ” or ** over.”

478 EPHESIANS VI. 19.

a more subjective representation, but the principal uncial
MSS. are against such a reading. Aoyos here denotes power
of speech—utterance—as in 1 Cor. xii. 8; 2 Cor. xi.6. The
connection of the next clause has been much disputed. It
appears to us plainest and easiest to join év davolEe Tod
oTouatos pov to the preceding words— that utterance may be
given unto me in the opening of my mouth.” The arguments
for this view, and against the opposing hypotheses of Kypke
and Koppe, are ably given by Fritzsche, Dissert. ii. ad Cor.
p. 99. Such is the critical opinion of the three Greek fathers,
Chrysostom, Cicumenius, and Theophylact, of Luther and
Calvin, of Estius, Morus, Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Mat-
thies, and Meyer. The sense then is, not that the opening of
his mouth was in itself regarded also as a Divine gift ; but the
prayer is, that utterance should be given him when the oppor-

tunity of self-vindication or of preaching should be enjoyed. -

Bullinger, a-Lapide, and Harless give avo.fis an active signi-
fication, as if the sense were, that utterance along with the
opening of my mouth may be given me, referring to Ps. li. 15,
Ezek. iii. 27. We prefer the simple signification—“in the
opening of my mouth,” that is, when I shall have occasion
to open my mouth. Matt. v. 2; Acts villi 35, x. 34; 2
Cor. vi. 11. Wholly baseless is the translation of Beza and
Piscator—wut aperiam os mewm. That the phrase describes
not the simple act of speech, but also specifies its quality as
bold or open, is the view of Pelagius, Vatablus, Bodius,
Zanchius, Riickert, Meier, and Matthies. See Alford on
2 Cor. vi. 11. But this view gives an emphasis to the simple
diction which cannot be proved to belong to it. We believe
that its only emphasis lies in its use—prefacing a set
discourse of some length, and not merely a brief or con-
versational remark. That the apostle refers to inspiring
influence we have little doubt, whether that influence be
regarded as essential to the general preaching of the gospel, or

to the apostle’s vindication of himself and his mission at the —

imperial tribunal in Rome; for he was now prosecuting the

appeal which he had originated at Caesarea. Luke xxi. 14; ©

Matt. x. 19, 20; Mark xiii. 11. His pleading for himself

involved in it a description and defence of his office, and |

that he refers to such unpremeditated orations is the view of

.

|

: EPHESIANS VI. 20, 479

(Ecumenius, The next clause is explanatory, or gives the
result—

év wappnola yvwpicat TO pvotnpiov Tod evayyedhiov— in
boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel.” B, F,
G, omit tod evayyediov, but the words have good authority.
The genitive may be that of subject or of object, as ini. 9.
Ellicott prefers the former. The noun wappnoia has been
explained under iii. 12, and does not signify “freely,” as
Koppe and Grotius take it, that is, in contrast with previous
confinement. Wyckliffe has—‘“with truth to make known.”
It characterizes the speaking in itself or in quality,as bold
and open—without reserve or trepidation. Ivwpica: is the
infinitive of design. Mvornpuov has been spoken of under i. 9.
In the first chapter the apostle calls one special result and
purpose of the gospel—to wit, the re-capitulation of all things
under Christ—a mystery; and in the third chapter he cha-
racterizes the doctrine of the union of Jew and Gentile in one
church by a similar appellation. But here he gives the same
general name to the gospel. For it is a system which lay
hidden till God’s time came for revealing it. To know it,
there must be a Divine initiator, for its truths are beyond the
orbit of all human anticipations. The God-man—a vicarious
death—a gratuitous pardon—the influence of the Spirit—are
doctrines which man never could have discovered. They are
to him a mystery, not indeed something unknowable, but
something unknown till it be revealed. This gospel, without
mutilation, in its fulness and majesty, and with all its cha-
racteristic elements, the apostle wished to proclaim with plain
and unfaltering freedom, and for this purpose he asked the
prayers of the Ephesian church.

(Ver. 20.) ‘Txép od mpecBevw ev addvcer—“ On behalf of
which I am an ambassador in chains.” The antecedent to
ob is not barely evayyeAvou—the gospel, but the preceding
clause. It was not simply because of the gospel, but because
of making known the gospel, that he was imprisoned. This
simple sentence has been variously analyzed. Some, as
Riickert and Matthies, translate it—“for which doing of the
office of ambassador, I am in chains;” while others give it
this turn—‘ for which, even in chains, I am an ambassador.”
The apostle calls himself an ambassador, but one in chains.

480 EPHESIANS VI. 21.

His evangelical embassy—an office peculiar to the apostles—
has been described under iv. 11. It is perhaps too much to
infer, with Paley, Macknight, and Wieseler, that the singular
term ddvows refers to that form of military surveillance in
which the prisoner had his arm bound with a chain to that of
the “ soldier who kept him.” Acts xxvill. 16, 20. The singular
form may bear a collective signification (Bernhardy, p. 58), yet,
as we find the same expression in 2 Tim. i. 16, there is a possi-
bility at least that such may be the reference. Still, we find the
apostle, when in military custody at Czsarea, employing the
plural, and saying—7ov Secpuav tovtwy. An ambassador in

chains was a rare spectacle. Tovds mpécPers vouos pundev trac-

xew Kaxov, says Theophylact. The person of an ambassador
is by international law sacred and inviolable; and yet Paul,
a legate from the mightiest Sovereignty, charged with an

embassy of unparalleled nobleness and urgency, and bearing ~
with him credentials of unmistakeable authenticity, is detained —

in captivity. The object of the prayer was—

iva év avT@ Tappnoltacwpat, ws Set we AaARTat—“ in order
that I may speak boldly in this, as I ought to speak.” ‘This
clause resumes the object or design of the prayer, and is

parallel to the previous tva pot 5007 Aoyos. Rom. vii. 13; |
Gal. iii, 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3. It dwells upon the same thought. ©

The phrase év avt@ refers back to the relative ob—“that in
this,” in making known the gospel—and there is thus no
repetition or tautology. Itis not the ground, but the sphere of
the mappnola, This meaning of the sentence is lost in the
exegesis of Meier, who follows Chrysostom and Bengel, and
makes tva and its clause dependent on mpécBevw év arvoer,
the sense then being—“ that even my imprisonment may pro-
duce its effect.” The apostle’s earnest wish was, that he
might expound his message in a manner that became him
and his high commission, that his imprisonment might have
no dispiriting effect upon him, and that he might not in his
addresses compromise the name and dignity of an ambassador
for Christ. The epistle now ends with some personal matters—

(Ver. 21.) “Iva &é eidfte Kai tpets Ta Kat’ eué, TL mpacca,
Tavta wpiv yvwploes TuxiKos 0 ayarrntos adedpos, Kal TicTos
didKovos év Kupiw—“ But that ye also may know my state,
how I fare, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful in the

EPHESIANS VI. 22. 481

‘Lord, shall make known all things to you.” The reading,

xa) ipeis eidfre, is found in A, D’, E, F,G. This verse needs
almost no exposition. The supposition that in «al dpeis there
is a reference by contrast to the Colossians, has been already
noticed in the Introduction. The particle 5é is one of transi-

tion to another subject—the conclusion of the epistle. The

words Ta xat’ éu~é—res mee—are a very common Greek idiom
(Phil. i. 12; Acts xxiv. 22, xxv. 14), and they are further

explained by ti rpdocw, a phrase which means “ how I fare”
_—*what” or “how I do”—not what I am employed about

in prison, but with the same meaning as in the common salu-
tation—‘“ How do ye do.” The apostle was well aware of
their anxiety to know many particulars as to his health,
spirits, condition, facilities and prospects of labour; and not
to burden an inspired composition with such minutia, he

charged Tychicus with an oral message. Little is known of

_Tychicus save what is contained in a few allusions, as in Acts
xx. 4; Col.iv. 7. In 2 Tim. iv. 12 the apostle says, refer-
ring, as some suppose, to this mission—“ Tychicus have I sent

to Ephesus.” There is no ground for supposing, with Estius,

that Sidovos refers here to any office in the church.

oy

Tychicus, like Mark, was useful for general service. 2 Tim.
iv. 11. The words év Kupip show the spirit and sphere of

.
.
|

the labours of Tychicus, that it was Christian service which
he rendered to the apostle and their common Lord. We
understand motos to denote “trusty ”—“trewe mynystre.”
See under i. 1. The previous epithet “brother” implies his
profession of faith, but he was selected to this mission, out of
many other believers, because of his trustiness, and he was
commended to the Ephesians as one on whom they might rely
with implicit confidence. And therefore Paul says of him—

(Ver. 22.) “Ov érepa pos ipas eis avtd TovdTO, iva yvate
Ta Tepl ipav, Kai Tapaxadéon Tas Kapdias bwov—‘ Whom I
have sent unto you for this very reason, that ye might know
our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts.” The verb
might bear the translation, “I send.” Phil. ii. 28; Winer,
§ 40, 5,2. The phrase ra epi jue is a common idiom,
and the apostle includes himself among others who were
identified with him and his position in Rome. There is
plain reference in the last clause to iii. 13. The different

24

482 EPHESIANS VI. 23.

-readings in these two verses principally refer to the position
and order of some of the words. Now comes the farewell—

(Ver. 23.) Eipyvn tots adder dois, cal aydrn peta wlatews—
“ Peace to the brethren, and love with faith.” Eipyvn is not
concord, as some suppose, and it cannot be so in a parting
salutation. The word in such a relation has not a special
theological sense, but means, in a Christian mouth, “all that
was good for them here and hereafter.” See the term ex-
plained under i. 2. “Peace be to the brethren”—the Chris-
tian brotherhood in Ephesus; and not, as Wieseler restricts it,
to the Jewish portion of the church. Chronol. p. 444.

Kab ayatrn peta twictews— and love with faith,” that is,
love in union with faith. “Love” is not God’s love to us,
but our love to one another; or as the apostle has already
called it, “love unto all the saints.” And that love is “ with
faith,’ as its accompaniment, for “faith worketh by love.”
' The apostle wishes them a more fervent love along with a
more powerful faith. He had heard that they possessed these
already, but he wished them a larger inheritance of the twin
graces. See underi. 15. We could not say, with Robinson,
that in this instance, and in some others, etd is equivalent
to «ai, for close relation seems always to be indicated.
Mera indicates something which is to be regarded not as an
addition, but as an accompaniment. “Ayaan Kal tictis—
“love and faith,’ might mean love, then faith, as separate or
in succession, and ody wiores would have denoted coherence, ©
but “love with faith” denotes love and faith in insepar-
able combination with it. The reading of Codex A, édeos for
ayda7rn, is an emendation suggested to some old copyists for
the very reasons which have led Riickert to adopt it. The
concluding salutations in the other epistles are commonly brief,
but the sympathy and elevation which reign in this letter
stoop not to a curt and common formula. In his fulness of
heart the apostle bestows an enlarged benediction on the
Christian community at Ephesus—

amo Ocod Ilatpis Kxai Kupiov *Incod Xpictov—* from
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” In the 2nd verse
of the first chapter, the apostle says, “from God our Father,”

' Merd, in Sanscrit mithas, from the root F{T, is connected with ptvos, mid,
middle, and still contains the germ of its original meaning.

EPHESIANS VI. 24. 483

and the Syriac reads here also }4}j. Though yydv be not

expressed, the meaning is the same, and the exposition will
therefore be found under i. 2.

(Ver. 24.) ‘H ydpis peta ravrev tov dayarw@vtwy Tov
Kipiov jpav ‘Incoiv Xpicrov ev apOapcia— Grace be with
all them who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.”
This is a second and more general benediction. The article
_ is prefixed to ydpis in the valediction. See underi. 2. The

words “our Lord Jesus Christ,” occurring previously in i. 3,
have also been already explained.

The concluding difficulty of the expositor, and it is no
slight one, lies in the concluding words of the epistle—
év ad@apoia. Wyckliffe has “vncorrupcioun,” Tyndale
_“ puernes,” the Genevan “to their immortalitie,” and Cranmer
_ “vnfaynedly.”
| The connection and meaning are alike matter of doubt.
_—J1. Some, such as Drusius, Wilke, and Peile, connect év
ap0apcla with ydpis, as if the meaning were—“ grace with
immortality,” or immortal grace. But this exegesis appears
on the face of it contrary to the verbal order of the clause.
Piscator, taking év for ovv, regards grace and immortality as
_ two separate gifts. Beza, Musculus, Bengel, Michaelis,
Matthies, and Bloomfield (supplemental volume, in loc.),
_ give the phrase another turn of meaning, and render—“ grace
to immortality,” or “grace for ever abide with you.” The
opinion of Harless is similar—év, he says, “marks the
‘element in which this grace reveals itself, and ap@apc/a is
its indestructible essence.” And this is also the view of
-Baumgarten-Crusius. Such a construction, however, has no
philological foundation, for the two nouns are not so homo-
geneous in meaning as to be used in such a connection.
Olshausen resorts to the desperate expedient of an ellipse,
saying that the words mean—iva Cwnv éywow ev afpGapaia,
This ellipse, as Meyer says, is a pure fiction. 2. As far
removed from a natural exegesis is the opinion of Wetstein,
Reiners, and Semler, who join év d¢0apoia to ’Incotv Xpicror,
and give this interpretation——“who love the Lord Jesus
Christ in His incorruptible or exalted state.” We should
have expected a very different phraseology if that had been

484 EPHESIANS VI. 24

the apostle’s meaning, and at least, with the present words,
the repetition of the article — Incoty Xpiotov tev év
apOapoig. 3. Whatever difficulty may be involved in the
exegesis, we are obliged to take the év adf@apaia as qualifying
ayarwvtwv. This appears to be the natural connection. But
as to the meaning—

1. Chrysostom and Theophylact give an alternative explana-
tion—“on account of those things which are incorruptible.”
These critics say—ro év d1d éott, that is, év stands for dua.
But such violence to the words cannot be warranted.

2. Some give the meaning—“in sincerity.” Such is the
view of Chrysostom and Theophylact in another of their
interpretations, in which they explain év a¢@apcia by év
koou.oTntt; and they are followed by Pelagius, Erasmus,

Calvin, a-Lapide, Estius, and Robinson. At the same time |

there is some difference of opinion among this class, some
giving more prominence to sincerity as an element of the
love itself, and others regarding this sincerity as proved by
the result and accompaniment of a chaste and holy life.

3. Others give the phrase this meaning—“in perpetuity.”
Among this party are CEcumenius, who employs as synonyms
apGaptos Kal apetwros, and Luther, Zegerus, Wolf, Meyer,
Wahl, Bretschneider, and Meier. MRiickert and de Wette
are undecided, though the latter seems to incline to the first
interpretation of the Greek expositors. The Gothic version
reads in unriurein—in incorruptibility.” It is somewhat
difficult to decide. The noun means incorruption, and must

define either the sphere or character of this love. If it

refer to the sphere, there then may be an allusion to the
heavenly places to which believers are elevated—a region
of unchanging and undecaying love to Jesus (Rom. i. 23;
1 Cor. ix..25, xv. 52; 1 Tim. 1 17); or if,.as Meyer says,
it describe the character of this affection, then it signifies
that it possesses an enduring freshness—that it glows for
ever. <A similar construction is found in Tit. 1.15. We
are inclined to believe that the word characterizes the
nature of this love, perpetuity being a necessary element
of this incorruption. The term points out that in this love
there is no source of decay or change, that it does not con-

tain within itself the seeds of dissolution, and that it is of ©

EPHESIANS VI. 24. » 485

ch compactness, that its elements cannot one after another
out and itself gradually perish. Incorruptness is im-
‘mortality based upon simplicity of essence. And therefore
this love to Jesus — filling the entire nature, burning with
pure and quenchless fervour, proving itself a holy instinct,
unmixed with baser motives and attachments, one and indi-
visible—is “in incorruption,’—év a@@apola, AMEN.

be
d

<=. ee Ul

, oo oe.

+

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS TREATED OF.

Acczss to the Father by Christ,

r 186-188, 237

_ Adoption into the Divine family, 30-35

er, which is not sinful, 348;

which is sinful, 349 ; its evil effects

(note), 359

4 le the office of, and its institu-

tion, 298, 299

_ Apostleship, Paul’s designation there-

_ Armour, spiritual; offensive

_ defensive, 457, 464, and foll. pp.

yom the doctrine thereanent,
67

Author of this Epistle ; his designation,

and

1, 2, 210; his qualification to be a
s teacher of the Gentiles, 211-214
_ Baptism, 275
epeeceings, spiritual, enjoyed in Christ,
:
a enjoined, 3
Christ, His ring Aes Sonahi e hipaa: Ls
capitulation of all in im, 54;
Headship over the Church, 321 ; His
humiliation, 293 and foll. Pp
sacrificial death, 369 ; ee
99-105 ; His execution of the plan of
redemption, 235 ; His boundless love,
249-258 ; He is the believer's inherit-
ance, 58-60 ; dwells in the believer
246-247 ; has received and conf
gifts on men, 281 and foll. pp.;
subjugates His enemies, 287
should remember their
former condition, 160; which is
described, Pee 160-167 5 their
present con tion descri 169, 170
see also 145, 155, 156 ; whould do all
in Christ's name, 405 ; should be
Might: dive submissive, i a oe to
harge o ve du
. 406, 407; should be setablished 12
the ‘faith, "815
Church, the; in relation to Christ,
104-116 ; in relation to the Father,

a family, 241; should glorify God,
262 ; her subjection to Christ, 411;
her presentation to Christ in purity,
420-422

Circumcision, the ; who so called, 162

Colosse, the Epistle to ; compared with
that to Ephesus, xlv-xlviii

Commandments; the first with
promise, 438

Commentators on the Ephesians, liii.

Conclusion of the Epistle; refers to
personal matters, 451

Conversation (language) to be pure,
352, 371, 372

Converts are to manifest that they are
of the light, by proper fruits, 382,
383 ; must have no ellowship with
evil, 382; ought to be wise, 392;
ought to redeem the time, 393 ;
ought to be sober, 395

Creation, idea of, used to delineate a
spiritual change, 156, 178; ascribed
to God, 230

DARKNESS, moral and spiritual, of the
Gentile world, 329 and foll. pp.

Death of Christ, sacrificial, 367 _873 ;
is an atonement, 369

Depravity inborn in man, 133, 138

Descent into hell of Christ, ‘doctrine
of, 291

Devil, the, described as “the rince of
the power of the air,” 123-128 ; his
activity and its sphere of operation,
128

Domestic duties, 407 and foll. pp. and
also 435-440

Doxology, the introductory, 10; con-
cluding a prayer, 260-265

Drunkenness and dissoluteness for-
bidden, 395

Evection, doctrine of, 18 ; its cause is
in God, 18; believers chosen in
Christ, 20; believers chosen from
eternity, 21; believers chosen to

488

holiness, 22; general remarks on
this doctrine, 23-25

Ephesians, the ; their steadfastness in
the faith, 73; love to the saints,
75; cause Paul to give thanks, and
offer up prayers on their behalf, 76 ;
are built into the temple of the Lord,
204 ; no longer walk as the Gentiles,
327

Ephesus, and the planting of a Chris-

. tian church in it, xiii.
Epistle, the ; its title and destination,
x; its genuineness, xxxiii; its
relationship to that to Colosse, xlv ;
its place and date of composition,
xlix; its object and contents, li;
works on the Epistle, liii

Epistle to the Ephesians; parties
addressed, 2; its fitness to show
Paul’s insight into Divine truth,
215 ; practical portion commences,
chap. iv. 266

Eternity scripturally expressed, 267

Evangelist, the office of, 302

Evil ; question of its origin, 139

Exaltation of believers, 145 ; is for the
manifestation of the Divine excel-
lence, 147

Exaltation of Christ, the, 98-107, 295,
and foll. pp. ; is eternal, 103

FAINTING under tribulation forbidden,
238

Faith and holiness intimately con-
nected, 6

Faithful, the ; its twofold sense, 4-6

Farewell salutation, the, 480

‘*Father of glory,” the, expression
analyzed, 80, 81

Fathers ; tenderness to their children
enjoined, 443; and careful up-
bringing, 444

Filial duties—obedience and honour,
437; inculeated by nature, 437;
and by revelation, 438

Filial piety or dutifulness co-exists
with, or is generally accompanied by
temporal advantages, 440

Flesh, the; its peculiar Scriptural
meaning, 131

Foes, the Christian’s spiritual, 458 and
foll. pp.

Forgiveness of sin ; meaning of phrase,
42

Forgiving spirit required, a, 360

Foundation of the Church and of
individual believers, 192; its corner-
stone Christ, 198

Fulness of times; meaning of this
expression, 51

GENTILES, the ; by Christ are fellow-

INDEX.

heirs with the Jews, and made par-
takers of equal privileges, 220 and
foll. pp. ; their former condition
described, 327-334, 379-383

Gifts, diversity of, in the Church, 279

God ; riches of His mercy, 140; love
to man, 141

Godhead, the; the Father, 241, 276; ©
the Father in His relations to all,
277 ; ‘* The Father of Glory,” phrase
analyzed, 80-82; the Son in His
relation to the Father, 78, 80

Grace ; sense of the word in salutation,
7 ; its usages in scholastic theology —
(note), 150; the source of salvation,
144, 149

Graces, Christian, inculcated, 268 and ~
foll. pp.

HEADsuHIP, Christ’s universal, 105;
over the Church, 321

Heaven and heavenly places, 15-18

Hierarchy, the celestial, 101-103

Humiliation of Christ, 290-296

Husband’s position and duty relative
to the wife, 409, 414; the measure
of his love to the wife, 415, 423,
435 ; the reason of it, 424; and the
reasonableness of it, 425

IMITATION of God, commanded, 362

Impurity of the Gentile world, 332,
(note) 377 ; forbidden to Christians,
370; all such practices exclude
from heaven, 377

Intemperance of the Gentile world,
395-397

JEws despised and disliked by Gentiles
(note), 175

LABOUR inculcated, 351

Long-suffering inculcated, 268-9

Lord, the title as applied to Christ, 9

Love of God to man; its greatness,
141

Love in the heart; the foundation
necessary for comprehending the
love of Christ, 249-256

Lowliness inculcated, 268

Manuoop, Christian, 313-315 ; neces-
sary for security, 316

Marriage ; its reciprocal duties, 485
and foll. pp. ; is applied to illustrate
Christ’s relation to the Church, 425-
435, and specially in 428

Masters; their relative duties, 453;
solemn warnings to stimulate to
their right discharge, 454, 455

Meekness inculcated, 269

Members; their individual efficiency

in perfecting the Christian body,
322-326

osaic economy abolished, 175
ystery ; meaning and application of
the term; 49, 215; erroneously
rendered sacrament, 432; of Christ,
first fully revealed in apostolic
times, 217, 218 ; and God’s wisdom
thereby manifested, 232

Orrice-Bearers of the Church insti-
_ tuted. by Christ, 297 and foll. pp. ;
_ ordinary, 303-306; extraordinary,
297-301; p of their institu-
tion, 307; period of their continu-
ance, 309

Oneness, Christian, 272-281; is
different from uniformity, 280

Pastor, office of Christian, 303

Paul, his apostleship, 1; his bonds,
210, 480; his gospel ministry was

_ according to the measure of grace

and strength received, 223; his
_ sphere of action, 226; his personal
humility, 224

ce ; sense of the word as a saluta-

tion, 7, 482 ; inculcated as a grace,
272; as a blessing preached by
Christ, 185

Perfection, Christian,

313-317; is
__ inculcated in order to security, 318
Prayer ; attitude to be assumed therein,
_ 240; must be made in the Spirit,
; 474: addressed to the Father, 240 ;
_ should embrace all saints, 475; and
‘may be answered beyond our desires,
_ 261; examples: Paul’s for the
Ephesians, 76, 243, and foll. pp.
estination, 31; is according to
God’s sovereign will, 33
Predestination, is for the Divine glory,
85, 61; is to adoption, 32; and to
inheritance in Christ, 60
Pride, a besetting sin of ministers ;
Baxter’s reproof of it (note), 224
Privileges of believers ; access to the
Father, 186; heavenly citizenship,
190 ; admission to ’s household,
191 ; spiritual habitation, 205
hets, were such through the
rit, 218; office, etc., under the
Old and New Testament dispensa-
> ca hare or p. 1
ms and hymns of the ear urch,
399-404 2

}
q
.
:
‘

QuicKENING with Christ ; meaning of
phrase, 143-146

Quotations from Jewish Seri ‘
how made by Paul, 281 and foll. pp.,
387-392

INDEX, :

489

RECONCILE ; use of the verb and its
_— tes in New Testament (note),

Reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in
Christ, 178

Redemption is by blood, 40; the doc-
trine concerning it, 68-71 ; the plan
thereof manifests the Divine wis-
dom, 232; was revealed according
to God’s eternal purpose, and was
executed by Christ, 235

Regeneration in life and character ;
how described, 388-347

Resurrection of Christ manifested the
Divine power, the, 95

Right hand of God, the ; its significa-
tion, 99

SACRIFICE, the, of Christ, 366-369 ;
is atoning, 377

Saints, primary and derivate sense of
the term, 3

Salutation, the, 7

Salvation is by grace, 145-149 ; through
faith, 150; not of ourselves, 151 ;
nor of works, 153; is the gift of
God, 153 ; boasting excluded, 154

Seal of-the nd pak the, 64-67

Sensual indulgences not to be excused,
377 ; those who practise them will
experience God’s wrath, 378 ; the
ought to be exposed and reproved,
382

Separation between the Jewish and
Gentile world done away with, 169-
173; by abolition of the Mosaic
economy, 173; in order to their
being united in Christ, 178; and
made one, 180; with equal privileges,
220-222

Slave, the; his condition described,
445-446 ; his duties and vices, 447 ;
his conduct, how influenced by Chris-
tian motives, 451

Sojourner, scriptural usage of word,
189

Song ; a service to be rendered to God,
399-405

Spirit, the Holy; why so named?
65-66

Spirit, the Holy; seals believers,
66-68, 356 ; ought not to be grieved,
855 ; his work in the soul, 244-247 ;
is the source of revelation, 219

Spiritual, as respects blessings, its
signification, 13-15

Stranger, Scriptural usage of word,
189

TeacueRr, office of Christian, 303
Temperance, duty of, 395

490

Temple of the
named, 203

Thanksgiving enjoined, 373

Theft condemned, 350

Tribulations not to be succumbed to,
238 ; but gloried in, 239

Truth, the, gospel so characterised, 63

Truth ; to be strictly practised, 347

Lord, believers so

Usiguity of Christ, Lutheran dogma
of, 99, 115, 297

Unbelievers — spiritually dead, 117;
children of disobedience, 129

Uncharitableness forbidden, 357

Uncircumcision, the, who thereby
designated, 162

Union, the mystic, of Christ and His
people ; its analogy to the human
relation of marriage, 425-435

Unity of knowledge ; a future perfec-
tion of the Church, 311-312

INDEX.

Unity of Spirit inculeated, 272-277
Unregenerated, the; their character
and condition, 128-139

-VALEDICTION, the, 482 to end.

WARFARE, the Christian’s, 457 and
foll. pp. ; the scene of the conflict,
462

Wife’s, the, subjection to her husband,
407-413 ; the reason and manner of
it, 408, 411-413; reverence to her
husband, 436

Wisdom, Divine, manifested in the
plan of redemption, 232

Word of God, the, the
weapon, 473

Works, good, the fruit and end of
faith, not the cause of it, 157-160

Christian

]

qv

Rsdpowdpsenes
drarrorpia, ;

dewonad ods
sae ER

drodirpwrss .

Bidos, sorvpupirer,

— :

:

+ i 15 4,15, 18; iti 5.

c/o Wee
aN ee

F: 3. 3. =:

a3
BES emer:

iv.
ode Ug iv. 8,
i.

Tend, .

yun,
Aingis,

dskia, xabilriv iy,

Biabixn,
Biaxovia, .
Bicxoves,
Biavosm,
Bidaoxnaree,

ixrAiye,
ixxAnola, .
ixrpipw,

Wagirrorspes, .

tAsos,
iAwis,
ivdeixvupes,
ivduvausw,
ivipysa,
ivroat, «
ikaryopa lw,
veia,
iwayytria,
lriyrwoss,.
leritupia, .

ipyacia,
iow dvépwwes, ie ;
ivomacia,

YDEX OF GREEK TERMS MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO.

iii. 5, 21.
.v. 22.

es

5 ae 1S 7,
iii, 2; iv. 21
i, 2; ii, ‘14, 17.

18, 20; “ii. 6; vi 12

492 INDEX.

tvAoynTos, ; - iL 8. | Bévos, é A . ii, 12, 193
sUorAayryo;, . lv. 32. | Oixsios, ; . li. 20.
tUTpamrsria, Pama eS oixadous, , ii. 21; iv. 12.
sUxaporio, E16: oinovopic, . i. 10; iii. 2.
LU epioria, v. 4. bvoece Tov Koya, : : . v. 20.
tx dpa, ii, 15, 16. | copys, ; ; P ii. 3; iv. 31.
“Haixia, iv. 13. | opyifw, . : ; . iv. 26,
Oarrw, . v. 29. | ocsrns, ; -iv. 24,
Oianua, Pie Pa eouen sVadiags, Vv. 2
beutrsos, i. 205-111, -18; borss, . , a eS
bums, .iv. 31. | odpavois, ra tv ea. i. 10; iv. 10
bupsoy, ; . Vi. 16. | 6pbarAmodouasia, . , ‘ . vi, 6,
buaia, v. 2. | Madsia, . : : : i fa
bapak, vi. 15. | ravorria,. ; ‘ vi. 11.
“Iva, i. 17. | ravoupyia, iv. 14.
ions, : : i. 20. | raparrwuc, ay are) Pe
KatiZu, . i - 1. 20. | wepoxos, . : ; , ~ ii, 29,
ry ee 1. 4. | reepopyilw, ‘ : iv. 26; vi. 4.3
xaiand musra, . ; vi. 23. | rapopyiomos, ’ . iv. 26,
xaNvOS, 5 lv. 24. | rappnoia, . iii. 12.
X26PO5, . . i 10; il. 12; v. 16. Tas, . . | age
RLKia, ; : _ iv. 31. Tarnp Ts hea i; 17,
RCUTTH, . : lil. 14. | rarpc, iii. 15.
xaraBorn, A : i. 4. | reroidnois, : i; 12:
HATLARUBA VOM, lili, 18. | wepi and ovis, . . vi. 19.
XATAYTAEMW, ‘ . .lv. 13. | wipixeparcia, Vi. Ld.
Rar UpTio Mos, ; ‘ .iv. 12. | rsprartw, ii, 2, 10.
HUTONNT PLOY, . é ii. 22; iii. 17. | wtpsroingss, i, 14,
nares poe TAS Vis, Ta, iv. 9. Tspircsva, e i. 8.
xAnpovouia, 1.18. | wixpia, . ; . : lv. 31.
xAnpow, . : ; . L 11. | riers, de, ee
xARois, i. 18; iv. 2. | wAsove¥ia, . LV: 10; Ve ee
xAvdviZ ons, iv. 14. | rAnpow, i. 23; iv. 10
xoomes, . li, 18. | TAnpape, . i. 10, 23
ROT Moxpa Twp, . vi. 12. | rAoveres, . r We ay Pe Soa hi ae
XpLTOS, . 1. 20. | rvsvea, . Pee ye eye 1 2, 18: iii. 5.
xparTaiow, . lili, 16. | wvsd~ee rod voos, . iv. 23.
xpauyn, . ; - 31. | tveuuerines, . : ; » 1 om
xpupn, 12. | wvevwaerixer, +d, vi. 12.
xrigw, . ; ii. 10: i iii. 9. | women, . : iv. 11.
xubsia, . wiv. 14. | wodsrsia, . » ic 12;
x Upios, z i. 2,15. | rorvmroixiros, ili. 10.
xupiorns, . i, 21. | wpaivens, . ; : : . iv. 2
Aoyos, . : : ; ~Vi. 19. | wposrosmeeZun, ii. 10.
Maxpay, . ii. 13, 17. | wporpifu, . . : i. 5.
paxpobumia, iv. 2. | tpocaywyn, : 4 ii. 18; iii. 12,
MaAAOY Ob nai, Vina Tprosuxn, : : : : - Vi. 38;
perbodsia, iv. 14. | wporpopa, . : * o We Me
psbionw, 2 - : ¥: 48: mpourornurpia, ‘ : . vi. 19,
Hey, -iv. 11. | xpopuens, . a He 0s tik; 5; iv. 11.
werd and os : . Vi. 23. | rapwors, . : , ; iv. 18.
irororxoy, : H. L4ol Pci, 3 3 ° : . Ve Be
Hixp, ; 3 ‘ iv. 13. | Sarpos, : iv. 29,
pnniti, F ‘ ; wiv. 17. | cag, ii. page 15; v. 29.
pints, « AN, 7h Bul See : ; i. 8, 17.
fur ripioy, 1.8% iii, 3, 4; v. 82; vi. 19. | ewires, . ; : . . Vv. Bh
Puprroryic, : - . v.4. | oriivas wpos, : ° o Vi. A
Nais, ’ : : ii, 21. | cof wort, : : : . ie
vExpos, - . il. | copBs pala, : ; .iv. 16.
vopeos, . te 35. oummonrirng or Bee TN Ma . ii. 19.
voubscia, - Vi. 4. | ctvsous, . ‘ : . li 4
vous, -iv. 17. | Tassivoppocvvn, . . : . iv.2

——

INDEX.

° ‘ -iv. 13. | @wrie, .
af lis Latha,
. « V2 19, | yaplSopas,

’ - —- Wi 19, | eepurr
i. 21; iii. 20; iv. 10. | xpnerds, .
i. 19; ii. 7; iii. 20. | ypnordens,

MaDe A, AA

ii. 14. | Waaraw,

‘ i. 8. | Yarmes, .

: ii. 3. d

THE END.

ee

T. and T. Clark's Publications. I

In Three Volumes, Imperial 8vo, Price 24s. each,
VOLUME III. In the Press,

me NC Y CL OP As Da

DEC VO Nea

OF

| BLICAL, HISTORICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND
PRACTICAL THEOLOGY.

"BASED ON THE REAL-ENCYKLOPADIE OF HERZOG, PLITT, AND HAUCK.

le

EDITED BY

PHILTR SCHAFF, D:D. <LL.D;,

PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

a comprehensive work of reference, within a moderate compass, we know
hing at all equal to it in the large department which it deals with.’—Church Bells.

| * The work will remain as a wonderful monument of industry, learning, and skill. It
] be indispensable to the student of specifically Protestant theology; nor, indeed, do
" that any scholar, whatever be his especial line of thought or study, would

id it superfluous on his shelves.’—Literary Churchman.

| *We commend this work with a touch of enthusiasm, for we have often wanted such

burselves. It embraces in its range of writers all the leading authors of Europe on

clesiastical questions. A student may deny himself many other volumes to secure

‘is, for it is certain to take a prominent and permanent place in our literature,"—

*Dr, Schaff’s name is a guarantee for valuable and thorough work, His new Encyclo-
pdia (based on Herzog) will be one of the most useful works of the day, It will prove

‘standard authority on all religious knowledge, No man in the country is so well fitted

ect such a work as this distinguished and exact scholar,’—Howarp Crossy, D.D.,

D., ex-Chancellor of the University, New York.

*This work will prove of t service to many; it supplies a distinct want in our
dlogical literature, and it is sure to meet with welcome from readers who wish a
book of reference on points of historical, biographical, and theological interest,

of the articles give facts which may be sought far and wide, and in vain in our

pyc ’—Scoteman.

* Those who possess the latest edition of Herzog will still find this work by no means

superfluous. . . . —_—- to say, the condensing process seems to have improved the

original articles, . .. We hope that no minister's library will long remain without a

scopy of this work.’—Daily Review.

*Por fulness, comprehensi and accuracy, it will take the first place amon

Biblical Enoyclopedias,’—Ws. M. Tarton, D. D.” , :

a

ZT. and T. Clark's Publications.

NEW SERIES

OF THE

FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY,

The Issue for 1883 will comprise—

WEISS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Vols. I. and II.
WEISS ON BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT. Vol. II. (completion).
GOEBEL ON THE PARABLES. One Vol.

1380.—GODET’S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE)
ROMANS. Vol. I.

HAGENBACH’S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Vols. I. and IL
DORNER’S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vol I.

1881.—GODET’S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE)
ROMANS. Vol. II.

DORNER’S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vol. II.
MARTENSEN’S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Individual Ethics.)
HAGENBACH’S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Vol. III. (completion),

1882.—DORNER’S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vols. III. and Iv.
(completion).

WEISS’S BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Vol. I.
MARTENSEN’S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Social Ethics.)

PALANAN ADA ARAN AWW

The FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY was commenced in 1846, and
from that time to this Four Volumes yearly (or 156 in all) have appeared
with the utmost regularity.

The Publishers decided to begin a NEW SERIES with 1880, anil
so give an opportunity to many to subscribe who are possibly deterred
by the extent of the former Series.

‘ : are |
The Publishers are sanguine enough to believe that a Series containin
the works of writers so eminent, upon the most important subjects,
cannot fail to secure support.

The Binding of the Series is modernized, so as to distinguish it fro
the former Series.

The Subscription Price will remain as formerly, 21s. annually for
Four Volumes, payable in advance.

A SELECTION OF TWENTY VYOLUMES
FOR FIVE GUINEAS

(OR MORE AT SAME RATIO)

May be had from the Volumes issued previously to New Series, viz.:
Works mentioned on pages 3, 4, 5.

[See pages 3, 4, 5.

FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

_ ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION: One Guinea for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo.

.B.—Any two Years in this Series can be had at Subscription Price. A single Year's
Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot ’ . Non-
subscri price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions mar

8 6 4—Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II,
8 6 5—Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III.
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes,
Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume.
18 6 6—Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume.
Keil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes.
Martensen’s System of Christian Doctrine. One Volume.
1 8 6 7—Delitzsch on Isaiah. Two Volumes.
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. (12s.) One Volume.
Auberlen on Divine Revelation. One Volume.
1 8 6 8—Keil’s Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes.
Delitzsch’s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. I.
Harless’ System of Christian Ethics. One Volume.
1869-— Brea gg on Ezekiel. One Volume.
Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume.
Keil’s Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I.
Bleek’s Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I.

1 8 7 O—Keil’s Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Bleek’s Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II.
Schmid’s New Testament Theology. One Volume.
Delitzsch’s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II.

18 7 1 — Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Psalms, Three Volumes.
Hengstenberg’s Kingdom of God under the Old Testament. Vol. I.
187 2- Keil’s Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume.
Keil’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume.
Keil’s Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume.
Hengstenberg’s History of the Kingdom of God. Vol. II.
1 8 7 3—Keil’s Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume.
Winer’s Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume,

Keil’s Commentary on Jeremiah, Vol. I.
Martensen on Christian Ethics.

1 8 7 4—OChristlieb’s Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol.
Keil’s Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. II.

Delitzsch’s Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. I.

Oehler’s Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I.

1 8 7 5 —Godet’s Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Two Volumes.
Oehler’s Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Delitzsch’s Commentary on Proverbs, Vol. II.

1 8 7 6 — Keil’s Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Volumes.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John’s Gospel. Vol. I.
Godet’s Commentary on St. John’s Gospel. Vol. I.

18 7 7 — Delitzsch’s Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes,
Godet’s Commen on St. John’s Gospel. Vols. II. and III.
Luthardt’s Commen on St. John’s Gospel. Vol. II.

1 8 7 8 —Gebhardt’s Doctrine of the Apocalypse.
Luthardt’s Commentary on St. John’s Gospel. Vol. III.
Philippi’s Commentary on the Romans. Vol. I.
Hagenbach’s History of the Reformation. Vol. I.

18 7 9—Philippi’s ht emia on the Romans. Vol. II.
Hagenbach’s History of the Reformation. Vol. II.
Steinmeyer’s History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord.
Haupt’s Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Volume.

*," For New Series commencing with 1880, see page 2.

4 T. and T. Clark’s Publications.

MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Twenty Votumss (or more at the same
ratio) from the Volumes issued previously to New Series (see below),

At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas.

Non-SUBSCRIPTION PRICES WITHIN BRACKETS,

Dr, Hengstenberg.—Commentary on the Psalms. By E. W. HENGsTENBERG, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vols. 8vo. (383s.)

Dr. Gieseler.—Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L. GrEsELER,
D.D., Professor of Theology in Gottingen. Five Vols. 8vo. (£2, 12s. 6d.)

Dr. Olshausen.—Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Adapted especially
for Preachers and Students. By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D., Professor of
Theology in the University of Erlangen. In Four Vols. 8vo. (£2, 2s.)—Com-
mentary on the Romans. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)—Commentary on St.
Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. In One Vol. 8vo. (98).
—Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, and the
First to Timothy. In continuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lic.
AvGusT WIESINGER. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)

Dr. Neander.—General History of the Christian Religion and Church. By
Avueustus NEANDER, D.D. Nine Vols. 8vo. (£3, 7s. 6d.)

Prof. H. A. Ch. Havernick.—General Introduction to the Old Testament. By
Professor HAVERNICK. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)

Dr. Muller.—The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. Junius MUtizr. Two
Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition.

Dr. Hengstenberg.—Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the
Messianic Predictions, By E. W. HENGSTENBERG, D.D. Four Vols. (£2, 2s.)

Dr. M. Baumgarten.—The Acts of the Apostles; or, The History of the Church
in the Apostolic Age. By M. BaumGarTEeN, Ph.D. Three Vols. (£1, 7s.)

Dr. Stier.—The Words of the Lord Jesus. By Rupoutpn Stier, D.D., Chief
Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In Hight Vols. 8vo. (£4, 4s.)

Dr. Carl Ullmann.—Reformers before the Reformation, principally in Germany
and the Netherlands. Two Vols. 8vo. (£1, 1s.)

Professor Kurtz.—History of the Old Covenant; or, Old Testament Dispensation,
By Professor Kurtz of Dorpat. In Three Vols. (£1, 11s. 6d.)

Dr. Stier.—The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of
St. James. By Rupoipy Stier, D.D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Professor Tholuck.—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. One Vol. (9s.)

Professor Tholuck.—Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Dr. Hengstenberg.—On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended: Treatises

on the Song of Solomon; the Book of Job; the Prophet Isaiah ; the Sacrifices of Holy
Scripture; and on the Jews and the Christian Church. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)

Dr. Ebrard.—Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. Jonun H. A,
ExsrArD, Professor of Theology. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Dr. Lange.—Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St.
Matthew and Mark. By J. P. Lancer, D.D. Three Vols. (10s. 6d. each.)

Dr. Dorner.—History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ,

By Dr. I. A. Dorner, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin.
Five Vols. (£2, 12s. 6d.)

Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee.—Theological and Homiletical Commentary on
the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) |
Dr. Ebrard.—The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in ~
support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Lange, Lechler, and Gerok.—Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the
Acts of the Apostles, Edited by Dr. LAncrE. Two Vols. (21s.) |
Vr. Hengstenberg.—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) |
Professor Keil.—Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 5

CLARK’S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY—Continued.

Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. J. P. Lange.—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Delitzsch.—_Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews, Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Harless.—A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr, Hengstenberg.—Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Stier.—The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil.—Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Bleek.—Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Schmid.—New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch_—Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg.—The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on Jeremiah. Two Vols. (21s.)
Winer (Dr. G. B.)—Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. (10s.6d.)
Bishop Martensen.—Christian Ethics. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch.—_Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Oehler.—Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Christlieb,-_Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Godet.—Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Luthardt.—Commentary on St. John’s Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Professor Godet.—Commentary on St. John’s Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Professor Keil.—Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.)
= r Delitzsch.—Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One
ol. (10s. 6d.)
Gebhardt (H. )—Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.)—History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord,
One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Haupt (E.)—Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
bach (Dr. K. R.)—History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (2ls.)
ppi (Dr. F. A.)—Commentary on Romans. Two Vols, (21s.)
And, in connection with the Series—
Murphy’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 7'o count as Two Volumes. (12s.)
Alexander’s Commentary on Isaiah. Two Volumes. (173s.)
Ritter’s (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Volumes. (32s.)
Shedd’s History of Christian Doctrine. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Macdonald’s Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Volumes, (21s.)
Gerlach’s Commentary on the Pentateuch. §8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr, Hengstenberg.— Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.)
The series, in 163 Volumes (including 1883), price £42, 15s. 9d., forms an Apparatus
without which it may be truly said no Theological Library can be complete; and the
Publishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be
"presented to a Clergyman than the in whole or in part.
_ *,* No pupticates can be included in the Selection of Twenty Volumes ; and it will save
trouble and correspondence if it be distinctly understood that NO Less number
than Twenty can be supplied, unless at scription price.

Subscribers’ Names received by all Retail Booksellers.
Lonvon: (For Works at Non-subscription price only) HamiLton, ADAMS, & Co.

—_

6 andl T Clarks Publicatom,

In Twenty Handsome 8vo Volumes, SUBSCRIPTION PRICE £5, 5s.,

MEYER’S
Commentary on the New Testament.

* Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German |
expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is)
unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred
writers. The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to |
English students in producing this translation.’—Guardian.

Each Volume will be sold separately at 10s. 6d. to Non-Subscribers.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

By Dr. “Hs As WW. MEY ER,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER,

The portion contributed by Dr. Meyer has been placed under the editorial |
care of Rev. Dr. Dickson, Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow;
Rev. Dr. CromBiE, Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. Mary’s College, St.
Andrews; and Rev. Dr. Srewart, Professor of Biblical Criticism, University
of Glasgow.

ist Year—Romans, Two Volumes.
Galatians, One Volume.
St. John’s Gospel, Vol. I.

2d Year—St. John’s Gospel, Vol. II.
Philippians and Colossians, One Volume.
Acts of the Apostles, Vol. I.
Corinthians, Vol. I.

8d Year—Acts of the Apostles, Vol. IT.
St. Matthew’s Gospel, Two Volumes.
Corinthians, Vol. II.

4th Year—Mark and Luke, Two Volumes.
Ephesians and Philemon, One Volume.
Thessalonians, (Dr. Liinemann.)

5th Year—Timothy and Titus. (Dr. Huther.)
Peter and Jude. (Dr. Huther.)
Hebrews. (Dr. Liinemann.)
James and John. (Dr. Huther.)

The series, as written by Meyer himself, is completed by the publication of Ephesvans
with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have thought it right to add
Thessalonians and Hebrews, by Dr, Liinemann, and the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles,
by Dr. Huther. So few, however, of the Subscribers have expressed a desire to have Dr,
Diisterdieck’s Commentary on Revelation included, that it has been resolved in the mean-
time not to undertake it.

‘TI need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, pean and learned com-
mentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout; and I must again,
as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholar-
ship of the learned editor.’—BisHop Ex.icorr in Preface to his ‘ Commentary on Ephesians.’ —
‘The ablest grammatical exegete of the age. —Puitip Scuarr, D.D. |
‘In accuracy of scholarship and freedom from prejudice, he is equalled by few.’— '
Literary Churchman. '
‘We have only to repeat that it remains, of its own kind, the very best Commentary ©
of the New Testament which we possess.’—Church Bells.
‘No exegetical work is on the whole more valuable, or stands in higher public esteem.
As a critic he is candid and cautious; exact to minuteness in philology ; a master of the
grammatical and historical method of interpretation.’—Princeton Review.

———_—__—-—

T. and T. Clark's Publications. ae

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.
Just published, in Two Volumes, ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.,
SECTION FIRST—APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 1-100.
| A New Edition, thoroughly Rebised and Enlarged.

Contexts.—General Introduction.—I. Preparation for Christianity. IJ. Jesus Christ.
III. The Apostolic Age. 1V. St. Peter and the Conversion of the Jews. V. St. Paul
and the Conversion of the Gentiles. VI. The Great Tribulation. VII. St. John and
the Last Stadium of the Apostolic Period—The Consolidation of Jewish and Gentile
Christianity. VIII. Christian Life in the Apostolic Church. IX. Worship in the
Apostolic Age. X. Organization of the Apostolic Church. XI. Theology of the
Apostolic Age. XII. The New Testament. Alphabetical Index.

*No student and, indeed, no critic can with fairness overlook a work like the present,

written with such evident candour, and, at the same time, with so thorough a knowledge —

of the sources of early Christian history.’—Scotsman.

*I trust that this very instructive volume will find its way to the library table of every
minister who cares to investigate thoroughly the foundations of Christianity. I cannot
refrain from congratulating you on having carried through the press this noble contri-
bution to historical literature. I think that there is no other work which equals it in
many important excellences,’—Rev. Prof. Fisner, D.D.

*In no other work of its kind with which I am acquainted will students and general
readers find so much to instruct and interest them.’—Kev. Prof. Hrrcucock, D.D.

Just published, in demy 4to, Third Edition, price 25s.,

BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL LEXICON OF NEW
TESTAMENT GREEK.

By HERMANN CREMER, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF THE SECOND EDITION
(WITH ADDITIONAL MATTER AND CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR)
By WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.

*Dr. Cremer’s work is highly and deservedly esteemed in Germany. It gives with
care and thoroughness a complete history, as far as it goes, of each word and phrase
that it deals with... . Dr. Cremer’s explanations are most lucidly set out.’—Guardian.

‘It is hardly possible to exaggerate the value of this work to the student of the Greek
Testament. .. . The translation is accurate and idiomatic, and the additions to the
later edition are considerable and important.’—Church Bells.

We cannot find an important word in our Greek New Testament which is not
discussed with a fulness and discrimination which leaves nothing to be desired,’—
Nonconformist.

‘This noble edition in — of Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon quite super-
sedes the translation of the first edition of the work. Many of the most important
articles have been re-written and re-arranged, ’—British Quarterly Review.

* A majestic volume, admirably printed and faultlessly edited, and will win gratitude
as well as renown for its learned and Christian Author, and prove a precious boon to
students and preachers who covet exact and exhaustive acquaintance with the literal
and theological teaching of the New Testament.’—Dickinson’s Theological Quarterly.

8 T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, Second Edition, in One Volume, 8vo, price 12s.,

FLAN AL. CAUSES:

By PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute, Paris.
Translated from the latest sfrench Evition bp William Aleck, B.D.

CONTENTS.—PrRE.uImMINARY CHAPTER—The Problem. Book I.—The Law of
Finality. Boox II.—The First Cause of Finality. APPENDIX.

‘This very learned, accurate, and, within its prescribed limits, exhaustive work. .. .
The book as a whole abounds in matter of the highest interest, and is a model of learn-
ing and judicious treatment.’ Guardian.

"j‘ llustrated and defended with an ability and learning which must command the
reader’s admiration.’—Dublin Review.

‘A great contribution to the literature of this subject. M. Janet has mastered tho
conditions of the problem, is at home in the literature of science and philosophy, and has
that faculty of felicitous expression which makes French books of the highest class such
delightful reading; . . . in clearness, vigour, and depth it has been seldom equalled, and
more seldom excelled, in philosophical literature.’—Spectator.

‘A wealth of scientific knowledge and a logical acumen which will win the admiration
of every reader.’-—Church Quarterly Review.

Fust published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,

THE BIBLE DOCTRINES “OF MAR:

(Sebenth Series of Cunningham Lectures.)

By JOHN LAIDLAW, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh.

‘An important and valuable contribution to the discussion of the anthropology of the
sacred writings, perhaps the most considerable that has appeared in our own language,’
—Iliterary Churchman.

‘The work is a thoughtful contribution to a subject which must always have deep
interest for the devout student of the Bible.’—British Quarterly Review.

‘Dr. Laidlaw’s work is scholarly, able, interesting, and valuable.... Thoughtful
and devout minds will find much to stimulate, and not a little to assist, their meditations
in this learned and, let us add, charmingly printed volume,.’—Record.

‘On the whole, we take this to be the most sensible and reasonable statement of th;
Biblical psychology of man we have met.’—£zpositor. b

“|
‘The book will give ample material for thought to the reflective reader; and it hold |
a position, as far as we know, which is unique.’-—Church Bells.

‘The Notes to the Lectures, which occupy not less than 130 pages, are exceedingly |
valuable. The style of the lecturer is clear and animated; the critical and analytical |

H

judgment predominates.’—English Independent. i

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 9

Just published, Second Edition, demy 8vo, 10s, 6d.,

(THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST,

IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND
OFFICIAL ASPECTS.

Sy A.B. BRUCE. DD,

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FREE CHUKCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW,

‘Dr, Bruce’s style is uniformly clear and vigorous, and this book of his, as a whole,
has the rare advantage of being at once stimulating and satisfying to the mind in a high
degree.'— British and Foreign Evangelical Review,

‘This work stands forth at once as an original, thoughtful, thorough piece of work in
the branch of scientific theology, such as we do not often meet in our language. . . . It
is really a work of exceptional value; and no one can read it without perceptible gain in

theological knowledge.’—Enylish Churchman,

‘We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as this of Pro-

fessor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English Universities for a
treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.’—English Independent,

By the same Author.

Just published, Third Edition, demy 8vo, 10s, 6d.,

THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE;

oR,

Exposition of Passages in the Gespels
exhibiting the Twelbe Disciples of Jesus under Discipline
for the Apostleship.

‘Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject—a
book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian
faith and practice.’— British and Foreign Evangelical Review,

*It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and now that a
_econd edition has been called for, the Author has taken the opportunity to make some

'terations which are likely to render it still more acceptable, Substantially, however,
fie book remains the same, and the hearty commendation with which we noted its first
_* sue applies to it at least as much now,'—Zock,
~ *The value, the beauty of this volume is that it is a unique contribution to, because a

loving and cultured study of, the life of Christ, in the relation of the Master of the
"welve,’—Edinburgh Daily Review,

‘ 62 ) 6 0 T. and T. Clark's Publecations.

PROFESSOR GODET’S WORKS.

In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d.,
A COMMENTARY ON

Pe E EGOs Pele OFS TL 23:0 H-N,

By F..GODET,, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL. '

‘ This work forms one of the battle-fields of modern inquiry, and is itself so rich in)
spiritual truth that it is impossible to examine it too closely ; and we welcome this treatise |
from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more competent exegete, and this new volume )
shows all the learning and vivacity for which the Author is distinguished.’-— Freeman.

In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,

T ee GOS cP EL OLR 35.1. eae

Translated from the Second French Cvition.
‘Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and interest as
one. the most recent and copious works specially designed to illustrate this Gospel,’—
rdian.

In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,

oT, PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

‘ We have looked through it with great care, and have been charmed not less by the
clearness and fervour of its evangelical principles than by the carefulness of its exegesis,
its fine touches of spiritual intuition, and its appositeness of historical illustration.’—
Baptist Magazine.

In crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 6s.,

DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

TRANSLATED BY THE

Hon. AND REv. Canon LYTTELTON, M.A.,
RECTOR OF HAGLEY,

‘This volume is not unworthy of the great reputation which Professor Godet enjoys.
It shows the same breadth of reading and extent of learning as his previous works, and
the same power of eloquent utterance,’ —Church Bells,

‘Professor Godet is at once so devoutly evangelical in his spirit and so profoundly
intelligent in his apprehension of truth, that we shall all welcome these contributions to
the study of much debated subjects with the utmost satisfaction.’"—Christian World,

In demy 8vo, Fourth Edition, price 10s. 6d.,

MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF.

A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest _
Seekers after Truth.

By THEODORE CHRISTLIEB, D.D.,

UNIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BONN, :

Translated, with the Author’s sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. WEITBRECHT,
Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kinassury, M.A.

‘We recommend the volume as one of the most valuable and important among recen
contributions to our apologetic literature. ... We are heartily thankful both to th
learned Author and to his translators.’—Guardian.

‘We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, and o
the spirit of deep piety which pervades it; and whilst we commend it to the caref
perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that in those days of reproach and blasphem
so able a champion has come forward to contend earnestly for the faith which was on
delivered to the saints.’—Christian Observer.

3
4
i,

r

DATE DUE

i Odo wh

Jsiut

SRA poke a ince

™T-2T 0? oo, ae

Ear Ag 8 ne ees i ee .
» = =, ae ante, a aaa peter eS pee pranens Le ae ed
Sonia nian chap A aecph len andt es? ae, adiemeete ke a eh
= ] ee - nye as

: : = Bacon!
wey . ‘ a > a Se
esas en antes 2 :
Sy ee AD

oa a= Geriay
swe See
9 Se

26 eS Py Pena ery 9 act ave A igigs ©" . : pe 4 i Desh aeadeke oe ere =
eS oe abe ae Sop. 8 i 3 ef ee : pe nt. yaaa Es ae eat : :
‘ ~s ; oA Fo ae “J “F AP % 4 je Nang ‘ae “rl > “ te aos le allots " » Pe ae oe
<on ERk pond obra tege me © Fade 3 ° ke a eee) S Carnes nee Net ra te :
nr vee Tem tel Barts eS Sy “ ent eadne eee Ee bates ee ee ar Rip yg PA

La ee tt Dai My