See we a I a OI TESTS SETS 
 
 nie 3s SiH 3 
 SSeS Se ees 
 
 ssteagecess 
 
 
 

 
 
 ~ 
 SEP 16 1918 
 
 Ca ae ~ eh f ar 
 L"visioa [305 lo 
 
 Section - = 
 
 <I OF PRINCE 
 
 A 
 (] 
 S2ogiga: genre 
 
 
 
 
 ‘> 
 
 
 

 

 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/commentaryongreekepheOOeadi 
 

 
A 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE GREEK TEXT 
 _» 
 
 ent THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ‘TO 
 
 THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 BY R 
 
 S 
 JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, 
 REVISED THROUGHOUT AND ENLARGED. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS. 
 1861. 
 
 [The Author reserves the right of Translating this Book. | 
 
HATAOZ—6 rip oizovwévny oraditdous, xal TH regi wiartas deowa roy xdojor 
 pixeoy axogyves.—BASIA. SEAEYK. Orar. II. 
 
 "TYnrdiy cgoden yim riiy vonudtwy xual Urteoynuy’ & yue Kndujoy oxyedox 
 igléyZaro, ratre étvravbe dyro1.—TOT XPYTZOSTOMOT; ‘TIIOOEZIS cis ray 
 xeos 'Egecious txsororty. 
 
 Quantis difficultatibus et quam profundis questionibus involuta sit—Hinro- 
 nymus, 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; non gigno aliud 
 genus doctrine.— MELANcTHON, Epistole ad Rom. Enarratio, Prefat. 
 
PREFACE, TO FIRST EDITION. 
 
 Tue following pages are an attempt to give a con- 
 cise 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 annotation 
 upon the various words by themselves and in succes- 
 sion 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 inves- 
 tigation 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 pre- 
 positions 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 grammatical inquiry has been made 
 subservient to the development of idea and argument. 
 
lv 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 com- 
 mentators 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 originality 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 elucida- 
 tion, and what is attempted in the present volume. 
 Not that I have merely compiled a synopsis, for it 1s 
 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 
 
PREFACE. Vi 
 
 been either misunderstood or rejected, a few paragraphs 
 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 Chris- 
 tian 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 : 1 bh. Puss 
 + 7 Reakeitaly ae 
 
 os 
 
 Fad 
 
 eee Th o i Ri 
 7 “aA Lies 
 Sau”. Teh’ 
 
 7 * 
 
 care Sed 
 
 “ ae TT Se ws) 
 
 alice toate 
 cs PACT 
 
 4 
 
 SONGS eas | ee 
 en 
 
 1 DTO GEA [et 
 iF S719P tee F 
 in ae 
 
 
 
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 
 
 In preparing this second Edition, the entire matter of 
 the first has béen 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 CRESCENT, GLASGOW, 
 February, 1861. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 PO tha 
 
 espe 
 
 
 
THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, 
 
 
 
 
 
 I1.—EPHESUS AND THE PLANTING OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 IN IT. 
 
 EPHESUS, 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 part- 
 ing 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 
 
 : 
 1 Linquantur Phrygii—ad claras Asic volemus urbes. Catullus, Epig. xlvi. 
 ? Strabo, xiv. vol. iii. ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1848; Cellarius, Notitic, ii. 80. 
 
x THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 annual festival in honour of Diana. Ephesus had been visited 
 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 (Hp. 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 6 zuxpés, “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 
 
 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— 
 Ephesiaca: Scripsit Ernestus Guhl, Phil. Dr. Berolini, 1843 ; Smith’s Dictionary of 
 the Bible, Art. ‘‘ Ephesus.” 
 
THE APOSTLE’S SUCCESS. XI 
 
 honoured, hallowed, and blessed the nuptial bond! The famed 
 painter Parrhasius, another boast of the Ionian capital, has 
 indeed received the high praises of Pliny (fist. 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 dreamy 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 fe]t 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 
 
 1 For various opinions about Tyrannus, see Witsius, Meletemeta Leidensia, § viii. 8; 
 Suidas, swb voce; Neander, Pflanzung, i. 359; Vitringa, de Vet. Synag. p. 137. 
 
Xll THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 scene of daily instruction and argument, and amidst the bitter 
 railing and maledictions of the Jews, the masses of the heathen 
 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 T'molus, and up the valley 
 of the Meeander, 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—oyedov mdons 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—dvvdpeis od Tas TUyovcas. Surprising 
 results sprang from the slightest contact with the wonder- 
 worker; diseases fled at the approach of those light articles 
 of his 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 
 calculated 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—covddpia 7) cyuxivOca—were the easy and expe- 
 ditious vehicles of healing agency. The superstitious “ char- 
 acters "—’Edéova ypdupara, so famous as popular amulets in 
 the Eastern world and which the Megalobyzi (Hesychius, sub 
 voce) and Melisse, 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 a charm. But the demoniac 
 
THE GOSPEL IN CONFLICT WITH SUPERSTITION. Xi 
 
 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 
 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’”’—rd mwepiépya—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—dpyupiov 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” —rdpayos ovx 6déyos—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 vewxdpos, 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 vdos, yet Kphesus enjoyed the 
 special function of being the guardian or sacristan of the 
 edifice. The Ephesians were quite fanatical in their admira- 
 
XIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 tion and wardenship of the magnificent Ionic colonnades.* 
 ‘The quarries of Mount Prion had supplied the marble; the 
 art and wealth of Hphesian 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—rv dexarnv—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 ”’—tod dvo7re- 
 ; till further, a flourishing trade was carried on in the 
 manufacture of silver shrines—vao/—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—réywra, épyatac—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, 
 
 TOUS. 
 
 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 Tiberius 
 that city was heard by its delegates—/egati—before the Roman senate in defence of 
 the sacredness of the edifice.—Tacitus, Annai. iii. 61. 
 
 2 Toravucer7—multimammia, Jerome, Prowm. in Ep. ad Ephes. 
 
 3 Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. 113 ; Euripides, Iphig. in Taur., 977; Ovid, Fasizi iii. 372; 
 Dionys. Halicar. ii. 71. 
 
CIVIC UPROAR. XV 
 
 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, 
 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 emeute 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 receive 
 information of the cause and character of the outbreak. (Theat- 
 rum ubt consultare mos est. Tacitus, Hist. ii. 20.) Two of 
 Paul’s companions were seized by the crowd, and the apostle, 
 who had escaped, would himself have very willingly gone 
 in—els Tov Sjwov—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—damonoyetaGae t@ Syuw—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—ypappareds—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—dyopavos dyovtar—and that all 
 charges might be formally determined before the sitting tri- 
 bunal—“ and there are deputies—«ai av9v7raroe eiow ; while 
 other matters might be determined—év T@ évvdpw éxxrAnola— 
 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 
 
 1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p, 80, 81. 
 
XV1 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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. 
 
 II.—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 Mr. 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 — 
 év Tacn émecToAH—“ in the whole epistle,” he makes mention 
 of them. But 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. 
 
 1 Gude, Comment. de Eccles. Ephes. Statu, Leips. 1732. 
 2 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 404, note. 
 5 Tonatius von Antiochien und Seine Zeit, p. 23, Hamburg, 1847. 
 4 Corpus Ignatianum, &e., by William Cureton, M.A., F.R.S., London, 1849. 
 
AUTHORITIES, XVil 
 
 Irenzus, in the second century, has numerous references to 
 the epistle, and prefaces a quotation from Eph. v. 30 by these 
 words—xalas 0 paxapwos Iladd0os hyow, év TH pds ’Edeciovs 
 émiatoAn— as the blessed Paul says in his epistle to the 
 Ephesians.” Again, quoting Eph. i. 7, ii. 13-15, he begins 
 by aflirming—quomodo 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, todro dé Kal o 
 latinos Aéyer. Adversus Heres. 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—éid cal év TH mpos 
 "Edecious ypader; and in his Pedagogue he introduces a cita- 
 tion from Eph. iv. 13, 14, by a similar formula—’Edec/ous 
 ypagev. 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—rods IlavAov Adyous. Contra 
 Celsum, lib. iii. p. 122, ed. Spencer, Cantabrigiz, 1677. 
 Again, in his tract On Prayer, he expressly refers to a state- 
 ment—éev 77 Tpos ‘Edeciovs. 
 
 The witness of Tertullian is in perfect agreement. For 
 example, in his book De Monogamia, cap. v., he says—Dictt 
 apostolus, ad Ephesios scribens, quoting Eph. 1,40: . Agaim, 
 in the thirty-sixth chapter of his De Prescriptionibus, his 
 appeal is in the following terms—Age jam, qui voles curiosi- 
 tatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tue, percurre ecclesias 
 apostolicas, apud quas ipse adhue cathedre apostolorum suis 
 locis president, apud quas ipse authentice littere eorum rect- 
 tantur . . . . st potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. 
 Lastly, in lib. iv. cap. 5, of his work against Marcion, we find 
 him saying—Videamus, quid legant Philippenses, Thessaloni- 
 censes, Hphesit. 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 Test:monies, he uses 
 
XVlll THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 dilemit eccle- 
 siam ; v. 25. Opera, pp. 280 and 133, ed. Paris, 1836. 
 
 Such is the verdict of the ancient church. But though its 
 testimony is so decisive, it 1s 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 cor- 
 rect 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 genuinenesss of the words év ’Edéoq, 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 evi- 
 dent 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.? 
 
 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. 
 
 ® 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 
 qui h. 1. ¢v egeow supplevit, item ad finem evang. Lucae zou wvegec. eis rov ovenvov, totum 
 N. T. recensuit. Saeculo 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 aetate et scriptura et indole cog- 
 nati uno eodemque numero comprehendantur, nec nisi ubi certo distingui possunt 
 
ORIGEN AND BASIL. xix 
 
 Origen, as quoted in Cramer’s Catena, says—érl povwy 
 ‘ 
 
 "Edeciwy etpomev Keipevov, TO “Tots dyiows Tois oboL*” Kal 
 Cnrovpev et py TapéAKer TpocKelpevov TO “Tots dyloLs Tots 
 over,” Ti dtvaTat onwaivew Spa odv ei wn HoTrep ev TH EOS 
 svoua dnow éavtod 0 ypnuatitwv Mace 70 dv, ovTws ot 
 METEXOVTES TOU dVTOS, yivovTaL dVTES, KAaNOvLEVOL OlovEl ex TOD 
 py eivar eis TO civarr “ éferéEato yap 6 Oeds Ta pi dvTa,” 
 gyow o avtos Iladdos, “wa ta bvTa Katapynon.’— We 
 found the plirase ‘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 
 begotten €& ovx dvtwy, because he is dvtws ov; for while the 
 Gentiles who know Him not are called ov« dvta, his own 
 people are expressly named of dvres. The following is his 
 proof from Scripture, and he must have been sadly in lack of 
 argument when he could resort to it:1 AAA Kat Tots ’Edec tous 
 ETLOTEANOY OS YUnTins HVapévols TO GvTL SU eTLy~VOTEDS, 
 dvTas avTovs idialovTws @vopacery, eiTra@V* Tots GyloLs TOLs ODGL 
 Kal motos é€v Xpiot@ “Inood: ottw yap Kal ot mpo juav 
 TapaceooKacl, Kal nuels ev Tols TadaLois TOY avTiypadwv 
 evpyjxauev. “But also writing to the Ephesians, as being 
 truly united by knowledge to Him wuo 1s; he calls them in 
 a special sense THOSE WHO ARE, saying, To the saints tois 
 ovot 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 
 singulatim indicentur. Notitia Editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici, page 19, 
 
 Lipsie, 1860. ; 
 1 Contra Eunomium, lib. ii. cap. 19; Opera, ed. Garnier, tom. i. p. 254-55. 
 
xx THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 to?s; or whether, with 
 Wiggers, we regard him as discovering his mystical exegesis 
 in the participle odcw; or whether, with Michaelis and 
 Koppe, we hold that tots odc1 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—rols odou 
 kal mootots. 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 
 ot dvtes—they who are—that is, persons in actual posses- 
 sion of spiritual existence; and they receive this appellation 
 after Him wHo Is—o #yv—the Being of pure and underived 
 essence. The omission of the words év ’Edéo@ 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 "Ed¢éo@ 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 corroborative 
 assertion that 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 Ephesians i. 1, he says—Quzdam curiosius quam 
 necesse est, putant ex eo, quod Moysi dictum sit: Hac dices 
 
JEROME. xxi 
 
 filiis Israel, qui est misit me, etiam eos, qui Ephesi sunt, sancti 
 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 sanct? et fideles sunt, seriptum arbitrantur. Opera, 
 ed. Vallarsius, tom. vii. 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 wuo ts 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 
 een named THEY WHO ARE. Others, indeed, suppose that 
 the epistle was written not simply to those WHO ARE, but to 
 those WHO ARE AT EPHESUS, saints and faithful.” The lan- 
 guage 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 Béttger (Beitrdge, &c. il. p. 37) and Ols- 
 hausen 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 ovou a pregnant sense, 
 though it stood in connection with év ’Ed¢éow; but the origina- 
 tion 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 curdositas of the explanation 
 lay in the fact, that to? odcw had an evident and natural 
 connection with év ’E¢éow. Such a hypothesis appears to be 
 warranted by the order in which he arranges the words in his 
 Latin version—gui Ephest sunt sancti et fideles—as if in order 
 to give countenance to the alleged interpretation, the words 
 ev ’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—Illud quoque in prefatione comimoneo 
 
 
 
XXil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hane epistolam conscrip- 
 sisse, quem et nos ex parte sequutt sumus. 
 
 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—spos Aaodixéas. One of the most acute and 
 vigorous of the ancient fathers thus describes and brands the 
 forgery— Pretereo hic et de alid epistolé quam nos ad Ephesios 
 prescriptam habemus, heretici vero ad Laodicenos. : 
 Licclesice quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus 
 emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ec titulum aliquando 
 interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. 
 Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scrip- 
 serit, dum 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. ii. pp. 809, 323. We think it a strained 
 inference on the part of Meyer, that Tertuilian did not read 
 év ’Edéoe 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 loguendi, 
 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 ’Edéo@ into év 
 Aaodixeia. ‘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 
 
EPHESUS OR LAODICEA. XXilli 
 
 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 misdemeanors 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 
 copies the words ev ’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 
 
 1 Dissertatio de genuino titulo epistole D. P. que vulgo inscribitur ad Ephesios, 
 pp- 247-379. Franequere, 1731. 
 
 2 Hore Pauline, c. vi. 
 
 = Dissertations upon a Harmony of the Gospels, vol. iv. pp. 208, 217. Sec. Ed. 
 
 4 Epistola ex Laodicea in encyclica ad Ephesios asservata. Erlang. 1751. 
 
 5 De Christologia Paulina, p. 47. Vratislavie, 1852. 
 6 Essays Critical and Theological, p. 77. London, 1859. 
 
XXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 
 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, wépn, of an epistle to the 
 Laodiceans, he put into his canon as the seventh of Paul’s 
 epistles that to the Ephesians—éSdoun mpos ’Edecious. Heres. 
 xli. 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 Testament, under the year 64 
 A.D.— Ubi notandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus (ut ex 
 Basilii libro w. adverstis Hunomium, et Hieronymi in hune 
 Apostoli locum commentario, apparet) generatim inscriptam 
 “ieee hanc epistolam trois aryiois, Tots odat, Kal TLaTols ev XpioT@ 
 
 ~ 
 
 —~ 
 
THEORY OF USHER. XXV 
 
 "Inood, vel (ut in Litterarum encyclicarum descriptione fiert 
 solebat) sanctis qui sunt... . et fidelibus in Christo Jesu, 
 ac si Ephesum primo, ut precipuam Asie metropolim, missa ea 
 fuisset ; transmittenda inde ad reliquas (intersertis singularum 
 nominibus) ejusdem provincie ecclesias: ad quarum aliquas, 
 quas Paulus ipse nunquam viderat, illa ipsius verba potissimium 
 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,t and Schmid, by such 
 writers of “ Introductions’ as Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, 
 Credner, Schneckenburger, Hug, Feilmoser, Cellerier, Guerike, 
 Horne, Béttger, Schott, and Neudecker, also by Neander, 
 Hemsen, Schrader, Liinemann, Anger,’ Wiggers, Conybeare, 
 and Burton, and by the commentators Bengel, Harless, Boeh- 
 mer, Zachariae, Riickert, 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 
 ’Edéo@ 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 
 
 1 The treatises by the most of these authors are well known: some of them may 
 be noted. 
 
 2 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. 
 
 4 Vermischte Behandlungen, vol. ii. p. 81. 
 
 5 Uber den Laodicenerbrief, Leipz. 1843, replied to in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrbuch 
 for 1844, p. 199. 
 
 6 De epistola quam Paulus ad Ephesios dedisse perhibetur authentia, primis lec- 
 toribus, argumento summo ac consilio. Gétting. 1842. 
 
 7 Studien und Kritiken, 1841-42, p. 423. 
 
 8 History of the Apostolic Church, yol. ii. p. 380, Edinburgh, 1854- 
 
XXV1 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 apostle left a blank space—rois obow. . . kal motos, 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 Aaoduxeia. 
 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 
 ovow is joined to the preceding ayious or the following rreaTois. 
 Meier and Credner join ovow to mvotots, 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. 8,4. Credner propounds a worse view, and regards 
 muorors as signifying genuine Pauline Christians. Schnecken- 
 burger and Matthies connect odow with dyious, the latter giving 
 a sense—welche da sind—which Bengel had already advanced 
 —yqui presto sunt—that is, as he explains it, in the places 
 which Tychicus was under commission to visit. Schneck- 
 enburger 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 ’Edéow, 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 ‘Poy are left 
 
 't in several MSS. of the Epistle to the Romans, i. 7. 
 
NOT AN ENCYCLICAL LETTER. XXVIl 
 
 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 
 where the apostle 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 Lxposition, 
 refers to some who were led to suppose from such language 
 that Paul wrote this letter before he had visited the Ephesians 
 at all. Huthalius' 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 
 
 1 Zacagnii, Collectaneu Monumentorum Vet. Eccles. &c. p. 524. Paris, 1698. 
 
 2 Athanasius, Opera, tom. iii. p. 191, ed. Benedict. Paris, 1698. _ ae 
 
 var ott 
 
 ~~ ae 
 
XXVIll THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 apply to other passages commonly adduced to prove the 
 encyclical nature of the Ephesian epistle. In ii. 2 the 
 apostle says—eiye nKovcate, rendered by some—“if ye 
 have heard of the dispensation of grace committed to me for 
 you.” But the phraseology does not express doubt. Con- 
 stable maintains that eiye everywhere has the idea of doubt 
 attached to it. Hssays, 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 11. p. 808. 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 jis 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 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 distinct 
 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 reminis- 
 cences 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 
 ize church at Ephesus was composed principally of Jews, 
 
DESIGNED FOR EPHESUS. pba 
 
 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 
 jets he means himself and the Jewish converts; but when 
 he employs dpeis, 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 i. 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 solu- 
 tion 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, Crecius, Piscator, Cocceius, Witsius, Zanchius, 
 
XxX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Bodius, Rollock, Aretius, Van Til, Réell, Quandt, Fergusson, 
 Dickson, Chandler, Whitby, Lardner, and more recently of 
 Cramer, Morus, Meyer, Davidson, Stuart, Alexander,? Rinck,? 
 Wurm,* Wieseler,’ Alford, Newland, and Wordsworth. 
 
 III.—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 
 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 Apostolict, ed. Jacobson, vol. i. p. 487. 
 In the first chapter of the same letter there is a quotation from 
 Eph. ii. 8, 9—ér1 yapiti éote cecwopévot, ovK €& Epywv. Id. vol. 
 ii. p. 466. Besides the authorities already given, we might 
 refer to Origen, who, in his Commentary on John, says—I1és 
 6 latnros hyai trov, Kai HucOa Téxva pidoe opyns. Again, in 
 his Commentary on Matthew, he refers to Eph. v. 32, under 
 the same heading—as Iladios dyolvy. 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 
 ldid the Valentinians. Ireneus, 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 
 
 1 Notes to Fosdick’s English Translation of Hug’s Introduction, p. 757, Andover, 
 1836. 
 
 2 In Kitto’s Cyclopedia; Art. Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 
 3 Studien und Kritiken, 1849, p. 946—under the title Kann der Epheserbrief an 
 die Gemeinde zu Ephesus gerichtet seyn? von W. Fr. Rinck, Pfarrer Zu Grenzbach 
 im Badischen Oberlande. 
 
 4 Tiibin. Streitschriften, 1833, p. 97. 
 
 5 Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalt. p. 442, &e. 
 
OBJECTIONS OF DE WETTE. © 6.4 
 
 Schwegler, have risen up against this confronting host of 
 authorities, and cast suspicion on the Pauline origin. Ewald, 
 too, in his die Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus, &c., 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 hesitation. 
 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 
 Ireneus, 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 infalli- 
 ble sense, whether any composition ascribed to him be 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 zsthetical instincts. 
 
 De Wette adduces against the genuineness of this epistle, 
 its dependency (Abhangigkeit) 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 Unpauline colour and 
 complexion, both in doctrine and diction. Hinleit. in N. T. 
 § 146. Take a sample of the resemblances from the first 
 chapters of both epistles :— 
 
 EPHESIANS. COLOSSIANS. 
 1. 4—eivour nuntis cryious nal duwi- 1. 22—Tlupacrijous tmiis eyious 
 Mous xaTEvWTIOY BUTOU. HO) A[MU[LOUS HA) HYEYHANTOUG KATE- 
 
 VwrHOY HUTOU. 
 
XXXi 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 i. T7—Ev @ eyowev riy aronur- 
 euow Oi Tov aiwaros adrod, ray 
 ADEOW TO) THPUTT ALTON. 
 
 1. 10—REi¢ ofxovouiay rou rAnpwi 
 [LnT0S TOY AOIPGY, cGVaKEDuAaIO- 
 Cuca ra TdhvTe ev TH Xpiorw, re& 
 vy TIS ovpavors nal ra ex) TIS nS, 
 ey ary. 
 
 i, 21—‘Yorepdvw dons apis 
 nal EEovoins nal Ouvdwews xal nupto- 
 THTOS HAI TaYTOS dvoMaATOS bvoLAaCO- 
 
 > 
 
 Z > , ~ 3~ U 
 (4EV0U OU fLOvOV EV TU) OsGVvl TOUT 
 
 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 i. L4—Ey & eyomev ryv doroAd- 
 TPUOW, THY LOEGW TOV CywOpTiai. 
 
 1. 20—Kail bf airod avonxaraa- 
 Ad&a: ra wavra sis adrdv, eipnvo- 
 TONKS O1 TOU AiMaTOS TOU OraUpOU 
 adrov, OF avrod, cite ra emi TIS YS 
 Eire Te ey TOI OUpavors. 
 
 i. 16-18 —"Or: ev airy) exriody 
 Th THVT Te eV TONS OUpaVols Hal Te 
 ET) FHS YNS, TO OpUrc nok Te KOpare, 
 ere Spovos eire xupiornres Eire apyai 
 
 GAG nal ev Tw WEAAOVTI. elre eSovoias. Ta THVTH O” aTOD Kal 
 eis adroy exrioras. “Kal adres éorw 
 Tpo TAVTOW Hod Th TavTa ev AUTH 
 ouveornuey. Kai adrés gor q xEQ- 
 AAI TOU CWMaTOS, TIS EXMANoIUS OS 
 OTIV APH, TPUTOTOHOS EX TGV VEXpPaY, 
 ivan yevnras ev who adris rpwredu. 
 
 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 
 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 description 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 re-capitulation 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 Cal. i. 16, 18 he represents Christ as Creator, and there- 
 fore Head or Governor by essential and personal right. In 
 both epistles Christ is xe@ady, and the church is c@ua; but 
 the accompanying illustration is different. 
 
 Other similar terms are selected by De Wette—rrjponua, 
 Eph. i. 23—Col. 1.19, 11.9; pueripvov, Eph. i. 9—Col. i. 26 ; 
 
OBJECTIONS OF DE WETTE. XXXiil 
 
 kal bas ovtas, Eph. ii. 1—Col.i. 13. Then come such phrases, 
 as TrepiToun yeLpoTrointos, Eph. ii. 11—epitopu2) ayetporroly- 
 tos, Col. ii. 11; dwndXotpiwpévor, Eph. ii. 12, and Col. i. 21; 
 év Séypacwv, Eph. ii. 15, and in Col. 1. 143 amoxatadrd€az, 
 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, iii. 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. iii. 5—iv. 4. ‘Still these and many other similarities 
 adduced by the objector are by no means close; some of them 
 are not even striking parallels, and they have no tame or ser- 
 vile 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 Verhaliniss zum 
 Colosserbrief steht, geht aus allem klar hervor, ob er aber viel 
 spiiter geschrieben ist und einem andern zum Verfasser hat 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. 1. 38-6; Eph. 
 iv. 82—Col. ii. 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. 1. 
 
 15, 23. Objections are also taken to the demonology, ii. 2, 
 c 
 
XXXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 1. 17, iii. 9, 15, &c. 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 allu- 
 sions 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 gene- 
 rally 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 pas- 
 sages in Colossians. It is like that to the Colossians, and yet 
 unlike it—not with the tawdry and dull similarity of imitation, 
 disguised by the artful sprinkling of a few discrepancies ; but 
 it has that likeness which springs from unity of contempo- 
 raneous 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 
 ie Colossians that it cannot be an original document; but it 
 }is also so unlike other Pauline letters, that it cannot be cated 
 \to Paul. “The statement need 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 
 
ITS PAULINE SPIRIT AND STYLE. XXXV 
 
 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 texms, 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 67s introducing a reason, and of ta pointing to a 
 high and final cause—the same culmination of an argument, 
 in the triumphant insertion of od pdvoy and paddov 6é—the 
 same favourite formula of a conclusion or deduction in dpa obv 
 —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 éy# or ¢yui—the same 
 irregular and inconsequent syntax, as if thought jostled thought 
 —the same rich and distinctive terminology that calls the 
 gospel puvotnpsov, and prefixes wAobtos to so many of its 
 blessings; that includes Sicavoctvn, miotis, KAHow, KaTAd- 
 ayy, and fw among its distinctive doctrines; that places 
 viobecia, oixodopy, avakatvwots, and mpocaywyy) among its 
 choicest privileges ; that gives Jesus the undivided honour of 
 caTIp, Keparr}, KUpLos, and KpeT7s; and in its ethics opposes 
 avedpa to odpé, finds its standard in vopos, its power in 
 ayarn, and its reward in édés with its rich and eternal 
 
 KAnpovouia. 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. 
 
 —— 
 
XXXv1 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 aa Xeyouéva 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 Colos- 
 sians.) The writer does use some peculiar terms, but why not ? 
 Might there not be mary 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 tols érrovpaviows, i. 3, 20, ii. 6, ili. 10, vi. 12 ; 
 Ta mvevpatixd, Vi. 12; dudBores, iv. 27, vi. 11; koopoxpatwp, 
 vi. 12; cwrnpiov, vi. 163 ofxovoyia, i. 10, iii. 2, 93 pvorn- 
 plov, V. 323 mAnpwpa, i. 23; edroyia, i. 3; aiwv, li. 23 Tepl- 
 moinows, 1.14; apOapcia, vi. 24; pavOavev, iv. 20; dotiver, 
 lil. 9; wAnpodcOa év, v. 18, and eis, iti. 19; Bacidela Tod 
 @cod Kai Xpuotod, v. 5; 1d Oédnpa Tod Kvpiov, v. 17. The 
 forms of construction excepted against are without any diffi- 
 culty, such as iva with the optative, i. 17, ill. 16, tore ywoo- 
 kovres, V. 5; and wa doPijra, 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- 
 larities. 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 
 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 
 —“T Paul” —“T Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ,” &e., &e. 
 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 
 
ANSWER TO DE WETTE. XXXVI 
 
 which say they are apostles and are not, but hast found them 
 liars.” Rev. 11. 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 guaged, but the advancing tide is beyond 
 measurement. 
 
 Therefore the attack of De Wette, faintly responded to by 
 Usteri in his preface to his Paulin. 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 eaaiae: | 
 We place in opposition to De Wette’s opinion the following 
 testimonies :— 
 
 Chrysostom, no mean judge of a Greek style, says in his 
 preface to his Commentary, that as Ephesus was a place of 
 intellectual eminence—tadra 6€ uty ody amAGs eipntat, adr’ 
 wate deiEat, OTL ToANHS Eder TS LLadN@ otrovdhs pods éxetvous 
 ypadpovte. Aéyeras dé kai Ta Babdtepa THY vonudtwv adTois 
 éumictetoas ate dn KaTHnXnmEvals. “Kote dé vonuatav jwEeoT) 
 H é€mioToAn wnrtov Kai Soywdtov . . . Kal oWnrav 
 opodpa yéuer TOV vonudtov Kal Urepoykov. “A yap uyndapod 
 axedov epbéyEato Tavta évTav0a Snrot. “ Paul would neces- 
 sarily take great pains and trouble in writing to the Christians 
 
th ee 
 
 XXXVIlil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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,” &c. 
 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 queestionibus involuta sit. 
 Erasmus testifies—IJdem 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—Jta vero universam 
 religionis Christiane summam divina hac epistola exponit, ut 
 exuberantem quandam non sermonis tantum Evangelict mappn- 
 ctav, sed et Spiritus Sancti vim et sensum, et charitatis Chris- 
 tianee flammam quandam ex electo illo pectore emicantem, et 
 lucis divinee fulgorem quendam adinirabilem inde elucentem, et 
 fontem aque vive inde scaturtentem, aut ebullientem potius, 
 animadvertere liceat : idque tanté copia, ut superabundans illa 
 cordis plenitudo, ipsa animi sensa intimosque conceptus, con- 
 ceptus autem verba prolata, verba denique priora queeque 
 subsequentia, premant, urgeant, obruant. Grotius, too, no enthu- 
 siast, thus describes it—Rerum sublimitatem adequans 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.” Table Talk, p. 82. London, 1851. 
 Similar testimonies might be taken from Hichhorn’s Hinleitung, 
 and from the prefaces of several of the commentators. 
 
 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 Corypheeus of the party, has openly maintained 
 
 1 Der Apostel Paulus, sein Leben und Wirken, &c., p. 420, &c., Stuttgart, 1845; 
 or his Kritische Miscellen zum Epheserbrief in Zeller’s Theolog. Jahrb. 1844, 
 p- 378. Baur died in December, 1860. 
 
OBJECTIONS OF BAUR. XXX1X 
 
 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 refu- 
 tation 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, &c., 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 theo- 
 sophy, and borrowed such materials to a 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 these critics hold, that the epistles to 
 Colosse and 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 
 
 1 Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, &c. ii. 325, 326. Tiibingen. 1846, passim. 
 
 2 Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, iii. p. 101. Berlin, 1852. 
 
 3 De Origine Ep. ad Coloss. et Eph. a criticis Tubingensibus e Gnosi eile orks 
 deducta. Reripatt Albertus Kloepper, Theol. Lic. Gryphiz, 1853. 
 
xd THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 m)rjpaya and its allied 
 , verb, and its doctrine of the re-capitulation of all things in 
 pics, as if such teaching and even diction were not common in 
 \ Paul’s Erlcholwledsed Bees addressed to European churches." 
 /Thus the Cureeleeyi is offensive to Baur, Eph. i. 20, though 
 ‘the idea is found in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Why should not ihe ae 
 
 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 eons—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 eons; the 
 
 former having, in fact, sent the latter as Saviour. The theo- 
 
 sophie speculations of the Valentinians are applied by Baur to 
 
 the term mxjpe@pa, in a way that is wholly unwarranted by 
 
 iis 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 illustration, v. 25, &e., there 
 
 is no reference to male and female eons, or to the Suzygies 
 
 of the Valentinian system—such as that of the Adyos with 
 
 Coy from whom were generated dvOpwros and éxxdyola, as if 
 
 the relation of Christ to His church were a similar relation 
 
 —absolute essence realizing and developing itself in a con- 
 
 crete Being, as the wife is the complement of the man— 
 
 kata ovtvylay. One may indeed wonder how Baur could 
 
 dream that in iti. i10—“ that now unto the principalities and 
 
 1 Rabiger, De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium. Vratislavie, 1852. 
 
REFUTATION OF BAUR. xh 
 
 powers in the heavenly places might be made known by 
 the church the manifold wisdom of God ”’—was contained the 
 Gnostic idea of the eon codéa struggling to be united with 
 Bv@os, and her final return to the wAjpwpa through the 
 cvtuvyla between Christ and His éxxAnola. Or who besides 
 Baur could imagine that in the phrases—xata tov aldva tod 
 KOGMOU TOUTOU ; Els grdcas TAS YEvEas TOD al@vOS TOV aidvewr ; 
 mpoleats THY atovwv—there is a reference to the relation which 
 the Gnostic «ons 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 that he 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—an ambassador in chains. What is this objec- 
 tion 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, 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 
 
 
 
xlu THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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, is a proof that it borrowed the 
 shadowy likeness, but no proof that out of it were manu- 
 factured 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. 
 
 IV.— 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 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 production. The 
 answer is one very much of critical taste, and therefore 
 different decisions have been given. A great host of names, 
 
 t Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. i. Pref. London, 1852. 
 
QUESTION OF PRIORITY. xh 
 
 which the reader will find in Davidson’s Introduction, are in 
 favour of the letter to Ephesus; but others, and these includ- 
 ing Meyer, Harless, Wieseler, and Olshausen, declare for that 
 to Colosse. 
 
 Neander says—Und daraus erhellt auch, das er den Brief 
 an die Colosser zuerst unter diesen beiden geschrieben hat ; 
 denn in demselben zeigen sich uns diese Gedanken in threr 
 urspriinglichen Enstehung und Bezichung, wie sie durch den 
 Gegensatz gegen jene in diesem Briefe von thin bekiimpfte Sekte 
 hervorgerufen wurden. Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c., vol. 1. 
 p. 524,4 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 calmness and peace it 
 discusses any ordinary and impersonal topic. Harless and 
 Wiggers have fixed upon Ephesians vi. 21, compared with 
 Colossians 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 contained 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 xa/, however, 
 may refer not to the Colossians, but to the apostle himself—as 
 Alford puts it— I have been going at length into the matters 
 concerning you, so if you also on your part wish to know my 
 matters,’ &c. 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 
 
xliv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 circumstance 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 Hpistle 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 imprison- 
 ment, 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 
 statements. The Ephesian church had preserved its faith 
 unsullied, for no reproof or warning is contained in the 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 
 
SIMILARITIES. xlv 
 
 threatened by a false system, which would corrupt the sim- 
 plicity 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 Chris- 
 tianity to a steadfast 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. 
 — i. 2, — —i.2 — iv.19, — —ii1,5d 
 — i.3, — —i.3 — iv.22, — — ii.8 
 — i.7, — —il4 — iv.25, — — ii8 
 — i. 10, — —i.20 — iv.29, — — iil. 8; iv. 6. 
 — 115-17, — —i.3,4 —iv.31, — —i8 
 — i. 18, — —i. 27. — iv.32, — — ii. 12 
 — i. 21, — —i.16. — v. 3, — — iid 
 — i. 22, — —i18 — y.4, — — iii. 8. 
 — i.1,12, — —i.21 — vy. 5, — — i 5. 
 — i. 5, — — i. 13 — y. 6, — — il. 6. 
 — i. 15, — — ii. 14 —v.1l5, — —iv.5. 
 — i 16, — —i.20 —v.19, — — ii. 16 
 — iii. 1, — — i. 24 —y.21, — — ii. 18 
 — iii. 2, — — i. 25. — y.25, — — iii. 19 
 — ii. 3, — —i. 26. — vi. l, — — iii. 20 
 — ii. 7, — — i. 23, 25 — vi. 4, — — iii. 21 
 — ii. 8, — — i, 27. — yi. 5, — — iii. 22 
 — iy. 1, — —i.l0. — vi. 9, — — iv.1 
 — iv. 2, — — iii. 12. — vi.18, — —iv.2 
 — iv.3, — — li. 14. — vye21, — —wW.7 
 
xlvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 Czesarea 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 Caesarea 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 “ Czsar’s household.”” We 
 cannot be brought. to believe by all Bottger’s reasoning, that 
 such an expression might apply to Herod’s royal dwelling in 
 Cesarea. -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 Czxsarea lay 
 stress on the distance of Asia Minor from Rome, and on the 
 omission of the name of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, as if, setting out from Cesarea, 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 
 
 1 Geschichte d. Heil. Schrift. Novi Testamenti, § 114. 
 2 Die Kirche in Apostolischen Zeitalter, &c., p. 17. Frankfurt, 1852. 
 
PLACE AND DATE. xlvii 
 
 Ephesus. But there were peculiar 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, rpos @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 Caesarea 
 than Rome. But, as has been answered, the phrase qualifies 
 éywpicOn, 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 62.1 From the metropolis of 
 the world, where luxury was added to ambition, and licen- 
 tiousness 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 presenti- 
 ment 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 Hymenaeus and Philetus is referred to, while Phy- 
 gellus and Hermogenes are said to have deserted the apostle 
 
 1 Graul, De Sententia scripsisse Paulum suas ad Ephes. Coloss. Philem. Epistolas, 
 in Cesareensi Captivitate. Lipsiz, 1836. 
 
xlvili THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 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 prophy- 
 lactic, more than corrective in its nature. What the imme- 
 diate occasion was, we know not; possibly it was gratifying 
 intelligence from Ephesus. It seems-as if the heart of the 
 apostle, fatigued and 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. IT. 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. Spe- 
 cial injunctions variously enjoined, and bearing upon ordinary 
 life, iv. 17-32, y. 1-33, vi. 1210), Vil Tie tage yor 
 spiritual warfare, mission of Tychicus, and valedictory bless- 
 ing. vi. 11-24. The paragraphs of this epistle could be sent 
 to no church partialiy 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 
 
DESOLATION OF EPHESUS. xlix 
 
 provision of salvation and the organization and blessing of the 
 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. J'ragments 
 of columns, arches, and porticos are strewn about, and the 
 wreck and rubbish of the great temple can scarcely be dis- 
 tinguished. 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 wan- 
 dering flocks of goats. The best of the ruins—columns of 
 green jasper—were transplanted by Justinian to Constan- 
 tinople, 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.’ 
 
 VIIL—WORKS ON THE EPISTLE. 
 The principal writers on the literature of the epistle have 
 already been mentioned in the course of the previous pages. 
 
 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. 
 
1 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Several ancient expositions of the epistle have been lost ; for 
 Jerome makes mention of one by Origen, of another by Apol- 
 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, 
 (icumenius, 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, Réell, 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, &c.—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 at 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 
 
 1 An unknown vriter, 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. 
 
COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. li 
 
 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 Commentaries of the 
 Socinian Crellius and Slichtingius are contained in the Fratres 
 Polont. We have also the eloquent French work of Du Bose 
 on a portion of the epistle, and a similar and smaller Médita- 
 tion by Gauthey, published in 1852. Lardner mentions an 
 exposition by a Dutch minister of Rotterdam, Peter Dinant, 
 of which a flattermg 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, Doughtzus, and Cameron, pronounced by Bishop 
 Hall, the most learned man that Scotland ever produced. 
 We have not space to characterize Hammond, Chandler, 
 Whitby, Callander, Locke, Doddridge, 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 expositions on this epistle. Simply men- 
 tioning 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 follow- 
 ing: Cramer, neue Ucbersetzung des Briefes an die Epheser nebst 
 einer Auslegung desselben. Kiel, 1782. Holzhausen, der Brief 
 des Apostels Paulus an die Epheser tibersetzt und erklirt. Han- 
 nover, 1833. Riickert, der Brief Pauli an die Epheser erliutert 
 und vertherdigt. 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 tiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 
 Erlangen, 2d ed. 1860. Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar, 
 vol. iv. Konigsberg, 1840. Meyer, Kritisch exegetischer Com- 
 
hi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 mentar tiber das N. T.; Achte Abtheilung Kritisch Exegetisches 
 Handbuch iiber den Brief an-die Epheser. Gottingen, 1859. 
 De Wette, Exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. vol. 11. Leipzig, 
 1843. Passavant, Versuch einer praktischen Auslequng des 
 Briefes Pauli an die Ephesier. Basel, 1836. Catene in Sancti 
 Pauli Epist. in Gal. Ephesios, &c. ed. Cramer. Oxon. 1842. 
 Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser, von L. F. O. 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, ed. Kimmel and Schauer. Jena, 1847. 
 Stier, Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. Berlin, 1848.4 
 Bisping, Erklarung der Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, &c. 
 Minster, 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. 111. London, 1856. Hodge, A Com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. New York, 1856. 
 Ellicott, A Critical 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthiae, 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, &c.), 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. 
 
COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS. 
 
 _* 
 
 
 
 CHAP «tf. 
 
 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.) Ilatnros, arroatodos Xpictod “Incov.— Paul, an 
 apostle of Christ Jesus.”” The signification of the term azéc- 
 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 xxvil. 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 ofti- 
 cial 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; Titusi. 1. See under Col. i. 1; and especially 
 under Phil. i. 1:— 
 
 dua Oerxnpatos Oecod— by the will of God.” The prepo- 
 sition ésa points out the efficient cause. The apostle is fond 
 of recurring to the truth expressed in this clause, 1 and 2 Cor. 
 1.1; Col. i. 1; 2 Tim.i.1. Sometimes the idea is varied, as 
 Kat éritayiv Ocod, in 1 Tim.i. 1; and to give it intensity 
 other adjuncts are occasionally employed, such as «AyTOs in 
 
 Aeraioy tBos ro exiororuis reorriBives +o yaieeiv.—Suidas. 
 
 B 
 
2 EPHESIANS I. 1. 
 
 Rom. i.1; 1 Cor. i.1. The notion of Alford, hinted at by 
 Bengel in his reference to verses 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—eis ods éyw ce arooTehw, 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 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. 11-18. 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— 
 
 roils aylous Tols vow ev Edéom— to the saints that are 
 in Ephesus.’ “Aysos, 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 dyvés, is allied to afouas and ayayat, and signifies 
 one devoted or set apart to God. Porson, Adversaria, p. 139 ; 
 Buttmann, Lewvilogus, sub voce. This radical meaning is 
 clearly seen in the related dy/afw, in such passages as Matt. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 1. 3 
 
 xxi. 17; John x. 36, xvii. 17. It is not, however, to classic 
 usage that we are to trace the special meaning of dycos 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 éyvos, is not got from the word, 
 but from our knowledge of the essence of that Christian com- 
 munity to which such a éyos belongs, he seems to confound 
 source and result; for one may reply that it is the ayvot who, 
 as such, originate the character of the Christian community, 
 and not it which gives a character to them. The appel- 
 lation @ycot 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, 
 asin Act ix. 32, xxvi.10; Rom. xv. 25. The words trois 
 otew ev ’Edéow, which simply indicate locality, have been 
 already analyzed in the Prolegomena. ‘The saints are further 
 characterized— 
 
 Kat miorois év Xpiotd "Inood—“ and believers in Christ 
 
 
 
4 EPHESIANS I. 1. 
 
 Jesus.’ These words contain an additional element of 
 
 description, and the two clauses mark out the same society 
 in two special characteristics. But the meaning of mvuaros 
 in this connection must first be determined. There are two 
 classes of interpreters:—1. Such as give the adjective the 
 sense of fidelis, “ 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 aysor were faithful? Or among the 
 dyvou 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 muords in 
 the sense of faithful—fidel’s—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—dyarnrtov cab muctov év xvpio, 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— 
 motos being equivalent to muctevwv, save that the adjective 
 points to condition rather than act. Many old interpreters, 
 such as Réell, Cocceius, Vatablus, Crellius, and Calovius, with 
 the majority of modern interpreters, take the word in this sig- 
 nification. Jor a like use of the word in classical writers—a 
 use common to similar verbal adjectives—see Kiihner, § 409, 
 3. The term mtorés 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, vo16,, vu 2.) 1 should 
 have been so translated in other places, as Gal. 11. 9; Acts 
 xvi. 15; Titus i. 6. The Syriac version also renders it by 
 the participle Lta,o1s6—believing. Hesychius defines it 
 
EPHESIANS LI. 1. 5 
 
 Ly ev7revO7j5. 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 
 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 conegive that the full foree 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. Ivars is here , 
 followed by év referring to the object in which faith terminates — 
 and reposes; eés is sometimes employed, but év is found with 
 the noun in this chapter, ver. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Col. 1.4; see 
 also Mark 1.15. The same usage is found in the Septuagint, 
 Ps. Ixxvii. 22; Jer. xi. 6, based perhaps on the Hebrew for- 
 mula “a post”? Though the verbal adjective be used here in its 
 active sense, it may therefore be followed by this preposition. 
 If, when eds is employed, faith is usually represented as going 
 out and leaning on its object, and if ésr/ expresses the additional 
 idea of the trustworthiness of him whom we credit, then éy in 
 
 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 
 ziozos is never used in an active sense, and never seems to signify one qui fidem habet, 
 aut etiam qui credulus est. N. Fuller in his Miscellanea Sacra, lib. i. ch, 19, main- 
 tains, 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, gui 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 jidelis—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. 1. 
 
 the formula before us gives prominence to the notion of placid 
 exercise, especially as év is not so closely attached to the adjec- 
 tive 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 perma- 
 nent repose. It was not a mere external 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 sx» 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 immovable confidence in the Son of God. 
 
 But does év Xpiord "Inood simply qualify mucrots? or does 
 it not also qualify dysous? Storr renders it— Qui Christo saert 
 sunt et in eum credunt. (Opuscula, 11. 121). The phrase 
 s 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 
 Baumegarten-Crusius, to restrict the words év Xpior@ “Inood 
 to muctois. 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 odow 
 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 pervad- 
 ing 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 
 
EPHESIANS. I. 2. © 7 
 
 purchased with His own blood,” then the more cordial, entire, 
 and unreserved will be the consecration. 
 
 (Ver. 2.) Xdpis tuiv Kat eipnvn—“ Grace to you and 
 peace.” ‘The apostolical salutation is cordial and comprehen- 
 sive. “Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor, 
 greeting ” lang, “orace and peace, CS all 
 is far more expressive than the byaivew, yalpev, or eb mpdt- 
 tew of the ancient classic formula. The same or similar 
 phraseology occurs in the beginning of most of the epistles. 
 Xadpus, 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 vic- 
 tory to them under assault, and of final triumph to them in 
 the hour of death. And so the the apostle calls it ydpw eis 
 evKatpov Bonfevav—grace in order to well-timed assistance. 
 Hebei. 16: 
 
 *Exvpyjvn—Peace, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 
 pbixi—a term of familiar and beautiful significance. It includes 
 every blessing—being and well-being. 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 ydpis. Stier distin- 
 guishes these two blessings, as if they corresponded to the 
 previous epithets dyous Kat muorots, 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 confi- 
 dence in God. But “ grace and peace’”’ are often employed in 
 salutations 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, 
 
 
 
8 EPHESIANS I. 2. 
 
 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 
 possession of the divine favour can alone create and sustain 
 mental tranquillity. To use an impressive figure of Scripture, 
 the unsanctified heart resembles “ the troubled sea,” in con- 
 stant 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 @eov Tatpos jpov Kat Kupiov Incod Xpiotod—“ from 
 God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The source of 
 these spiritual blessings is now stated. rasmus, Morus, and 
 some Socinian interpreters, would understand the connection 
 as if xupiov were governed by zratpds, 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—zev. 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. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 2. 9 
 
 The Saviour is characterized as Lord Jesus Christ ; ‘ Lord,” 
 Master, or Proprietor. ‘O xvpsos is often applied to Jesus in the 
 Pauline writings. It corresponds to the theocratic intimations 
 of a king—a great king—to preside over the spiritual Sion. 
 Ps. ex. 1. Gabler, in his New Theological Journal, iv. p. 11, 
 has affirmed, that in the New Testament «vpvos, without 
 the article, refers to God, and that 6 xdpuos is the uniform 
 appellation of Christ—a distinction which cannot be main- 
 tained, as may be seen by a reference to Rom. xv. 11; 1 Cor. 
 x. 26; Heb. vi. 2; for in all those passages the reference is 
 to God, and yet the article is prefixed. Winer, § 19, 1. Like 
 eos 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, xdpsos 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 Godt 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. 1. 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 ovaia, but to 
 é€oucia. 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 Lorp. 
 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. 
 
 1 Stuart’s Essay, Biblical Repository, vol. iv. 
 
10 EPHESIANS I. 3. 
 
 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 eter- 
 nal 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.) Evroyntds 0 Oeds Kat tatnp tod Kupiov npev 
 "Incod Xprctod— 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 inva-’ 
 riable usage in the Old Testament—not God is blessed, but, 
 from the position of the words—Blessed be God, mim ya 
 At least thirty times does the formula occur. Ps. Ixviii. 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 evAoynpuévos and not 
 evroyntos which is employed, and there is a shade of differ- 
 ence between the participle and the adjective—for while in 
 
EPHESIANS I. 3. iT 
 
 the Septuagint edrAoynuévos is applied to God, edroynrtds is 
 never applied toman. Thus in 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, 
 which are parallel passages—yévorro being employed in the 
 first instance, and éstw in the second; and in Job i. 21, 
 Ps. exii. 2, in both of which dvowa xupiouv with en occurs, 
 the verbs, as might be expected, are followed immediately 
 by their nominatives. Evdoynros in the New Testament is 
 applied only to God—His is perpetual and unchanging blessed- 
 ness, perpetual and unchanging claim on the homage of His 
 creatures. Eddoynévos is used of such as are blessed of God, 
 and on whom blessing is invoked from Him. Matt. xxi. 9; 
 Luke i. 28. 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. 1. 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 @eds and wratyp 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—disjoiming @eds from xvpfov— 
 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, Theophylact, 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 evdAoynTds 
 ®eos 0 tatyp. Theodoret capriciously inserts the adjective 
 nov in his note upon @cds. He represents the apostle as 
 showing—éyrAav, os fywav péy éote Ocds, Tod dé Kuplov 
 npav Tatyp, as if Paul meant to describe the Divine Being 
 as our God and Christ’s Father. To say with Meyer that 
 only zrat7p requires a genitive and not eos, is mere asser- 
 
ips EPHESIANS I. 3. 
 
 tion. The statement of Harless, too, that re should have been - 
 inserted before cai, if @eds governed xupiov, 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. 1. 125. Compare 1 Peter 
 i. 25. Had the article occurred before zatyp, this particle 
 might have been necessary ; but its omission shows that the 
 relation of @eds and watHp is one of peculiar unity. Dis- 
 tinct and independent prominence is not assigned to each 
 term. Winer, § 19, 3, note. Nor is there any impropriety of 
 thought in joining eds with xvpiov—the God of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. ©@eds pév, says Theophylact, os capxwbévtos, 
 matTnp 6€ ws Oeod Noyov. The diction of the Greek Father, 
 in the last clause, is not strictly correct, for the correlative 
 terms are Father, Son, warp, vios: God, Word, eds, 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.” “TJ ascend,” said He 
 to Mary, “to my God and your God.” Rev. ii. 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 verse 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 recipro- 
 cal 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 prerogative to dispense the blessings so secured— 
 
 1 For a spirited view of the doctrine of the @zév4ar0s 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, &e., § 41 (1857). 
 
EPHESIANS I. 3. 13 
 
 6 eddroyiras *yuds—“ who blessed us ”—* us,’ not the 
 apostle simply, as Koppe supposes from the contrast of tes 
 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 edroyjcas stands in 
 ideal contrast to the evAoyntés—God blessed us, and we bless 
 God; but His blessing 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 parti- 
 ciple here, as in many places, has virtually a causal signi- 
 ficance. Kiihner, § 667. We bless Him because He has 
 blessed us. As the word expresses that divine beneficence 
 which excites our gratitude, it must in a doxology have its 
 widest significance. The enraptured mind selects in such a 
 case the most powerful and intensive 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 :— 
 
 ev Tacn evroyia Tvevpatich—“ with all spiritual blessing.’ 
 Ey is used in an instrumental sense, and similar phraseology 
 in reference to God occurs in Tobit viii. 15, James iii. 9, 
 "EvAoyia is not verbal wish expressed, but actual blessing 
 conferred. The reader will notice the peculiar collocation of 
 the three allied terms, ev-AoynTos-Noyijoas-hoyla, a repetition 
 not uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures, and found occasion- 
 ally 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, 
 
 1 Winer, Grammatik, § 40-5, b. i., denies that the aorist bears the meaning of 
 repeated action in the New Testament, but Stuart, § 136, on the other hand, 
 
 expressly affirms it, referring to James i. 11 and John iv. 12, in both of which 
 passages, however, the tense may have its ordinary meaning of an indefinite past. 
 
 . 
 
14 EPHESIANS I. 3. 
 
 and a flourishing household. It is fruc that such gifts are 
 not now bestowed as the immediate fruits of Christ’s media- 
 tion, 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 believ ers, but under the new dispensation their 
 lustre is altogether dimmed and absorbed by ratnge 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 ; iil Koppe, Riickert, and Baum ioarinPlenasais 
 express a doubtful acquiescence in this opinion. This inter- 
 pretation yields a good meaning, inasmuch as these gifts are 
 adapted to our inner or higher nature, and it is upon our 
 spirit that the Holy Ghost operates. But this is not the rul- 
 ing sense of the epithet in the New Testament. It is, indeed, 
 in a generic sense opposed to capxixds in 1 Cor. ix. 11, and 
 in Rom. xy. 27, while in 1 Cor. xv. 44-46, it is employed 
 in contrast with yruyexds—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 
 Eiph; vi. 12; 1. Pet. n. 55 d@oreas 3p Saat aga 
 other passages where, as in this clause, the word is used to 
 qualify Christian men, or Christian blessings, its ruling refer- 
 ence is plainly to the Holy Spirit. Thus—spiritual gifts, 
 Rom. i. 11; a special endowment of the Spirit, 1 Cor. xu. 1, 
 xiv. 1, &c.; 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. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 3. 15 
 
 In this opinion we have the authority of the old Syriac version, 
 which reads w639—“ of the Spirit;”’ and the concurrence of 
 Cocceius, Harless, De Wette, Olshausen, Meier, Meyer, and 
 Stier. The Pauline wsus loquendi is decidedly in its favour. 
 
 Iléon—“ 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 pertec- 
 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 Weils 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 
 ago said, that in addition to such endowments, éwxe Tv 
 ekrrida Tis avactdcews, Tas Ths alavacias émayyeNias, 
 Ty UTocyeoW THs Pacirelas TOV cipaVOY, TO THS vioVEclas 
 a&lopwa—the blessings referred to here are, the hope of 
 the resurrection, the promises of immortality, the kingdom of 
 heaven in reversion, and the dignity of adoption.”” The bless- 
 ings are stated by the apostle in the subsequent verses, and 
 neither gifts, tongues, nor prophecy, occupy a place in the 
 succinct and glowing enumeration :— 
 
 €v Tols €rroupaviols é€v ypiot@—“‘ in the heavenly places, in 
 Christ ”’—a peculiar idiom, the meaning of which has been 
 greatly disputed. What shall be supplied—payyacr or 
 Toros, things or places? The translation, ‘“ In heavenly 
 things,” is supported by Chrysostom, Theodoret, (Xcumenius, 
 Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Holzhausen, Matthies, and 
 Meier. This view makes the phrase a more definite charac- 
 terization of the spiritual blessings. But the construction is 
 against it, for the insertion of tofs seems to show that it 
 is neither a mere prolonged specification, nor, as in Hom- 
 berg’s view, a mere parallel definition to év maon evdoryia. 
 
16 EPHESIANS I.-3. 
 
 The sentence, with such an explanation, even though the 
 article should be supposed to designate a class, appears con- 
 fused 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, tozrous, appears preferable, and such is 
 the opinion of the Syriac translator--who renders it simply 
 fae9, in heaven—of Jerome, Drusius, Beza, Bengel, 
 Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Stier, and 
 Bisping. The phrase occurs four times besides—i. 20; 11. 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 éi 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 
 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 éxrovpaviows—ratione et originis, qualitatis, 
 tatis et finis. The opinion of Slichtingius, Zanchius, and 
 
 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 ra txovgavia zal 4 dfn ray eyyéawy, the heavenly 
 regions and the glory of the angels. Ep. ad. Smyrn. vi. and also Ep. ad Trall.— 
 ru txovecvian xui ris roroleolas ries dyytkizes—where rorolecia stands in apposition to 
 
 ve Emoveuvic. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 3. 17 
 
 Olshausen, is almost identical. The latter calls it ‘ the 
 spiritual blessing 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 Tots érovpavious. 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 Mediatorial 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 bene- 
 faction are “ heavenly places;”’ for wherever the light and 
 love of God’s presence are so 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 atmo- 
 sphere 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 blessings 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 ra 
 érroupavia. The phrase may have been suggested, as Stier 
 observes, by the region of Old Testament blessing—Canaan 
 
 1“ Der geistliche Segen welcher in Himmel ist, also auch himmlische Natur an 
 
 sich triigt. 
 C 
 
18 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 being given to the chosen people of God as the God of 
 Abraham. 
 
 The words év Xpiot® might be viewed as connected with 
 Ta érovpavia, 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 caeles- 
 tibus, and Schoettgen erroneously takes the noun for the dativus 
 commodi—in laudem Christ’. 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”’ 
 —éey; and if it be, How? the last words show it, “ in Christ ” 
 —ép, 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 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&eré£Earo jas ev adt@—“ According as 
 He chose us in Him.” The adverb cafés defines the con- 
 nection of this verse with the preceding. ‘That connection is 
 modal rather than causal; xaOeés, like xafors, may signify 
 sometimes ‘ because,’ but the cause specified involves the 
 idea of manner. Ka@os, in classic Greek xa@d, is the later 
 form (Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 426), and denotes, as its 
 
EPHESIANS I. 4. 19 
 
 composition indicates, “according as.” These spiritual bless- 
 ings 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 ful- 
 ness, with the shape and the mode of their bestowment, are 
 all in exact unison with God’s pretemporal and gracious 
 resolution; they are given after the model of that pure and 
 eternal archetype which was formed in the Divine mind— 
 
 efeXéEaro. 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 3 
 of the Old Testament, which is applied so often to God’s 
 selection of Abraham’s seed to be His peculiar people. Deut. 
 Ierotnrvile Oe Os) Isat 8 3% Pay xxx) 12, \selviigy A) 
 &e. 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 and the world around them. What- 
 ever the precise nature of this choice may be, the general 
 doctrine is, that the change of relation is not of man’s achieve- 
 ment, 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 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 bestow- 
 ment, as is indicated by the composition of the verb and by 
 the following pronoun, x)as—“ 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 (Schrifth. p. 223, &e., 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 Joshua 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, 
 
20 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 but chosen for a certain end—/iir etwas. The supposition is 
 ingenious, but it is contrary to the meaning of the compound 
 verb, even in the passages selected by him, as Exodus 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 of éxdXexTod 
 ayyerou in 1 Tim. v. 21, may, for aught we know, have a 
 meaning quite in harmony with the literal signification, or 
 €xhextos may bear a secondary sense, based on its primary 
 meaning, such as Hofmann finds in Luke xxiii. 35, and aecord- 
 ing 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 con- 
 trast, the apostle describes by é&eXéEaTo. On the other hand, 
 Ebrard—Christliche Dogmatik, § 560, vol. ii. p. 695, 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 multi- 
 - tude out of the profane world into the church, so that éxXexros 
 is synonymous with dyos. lection 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 indivi- 
 dual 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—Gv 6 déwxé por, 
 John vi. 39; wav 0 déwxas aito, John xvii. 2—a totality 
 viewed by Omniscience as one; but on the human side, the 
 elect are the whole company of believers, but thus individual- 
 ized—ras 6 OewpOv Tov vidv Kal muctevV@v—John vi. 40 :— 
 *Ev avto—“‘ in Him,” for such is the genuine reading, not 
 éavT®, 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—éva ris 
 els avtov aiotews, and he capriciously ascribes the elective 
 
EPHESIANS I. 4. 2t 
 
 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. ’Ey at7é 
 seems to point out the position of the audas. 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— 
 
 m™po KataBorhs Kocopov,— 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— po Tv aiwvwv, 1 Cor. ii. 73 po 
 xpovev aiwviov, 2 Tim. i.9. KataBonr} is also used in the 
 same sense in the classics, and by Philo. Loesner, Odservat. 
 p- 8388; Passow, sub voce. Chrysostom, alluding to the 
 composition of the noun xata-Bons, 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.”’1 The phrase itself declares that this election is no 
 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 Zettlosigheit, 
 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 ékXexToi, are brought out of 
 the world into the church, and so become xAnrol, dyior, Kal 
 
 1 Kal xards xoraPorry cixey, ds dnb rives tous zara BeBanuévoy Meycroy xiroy dermyis, mot 
 yee iva noel eguroy 7d inbos rod Oecd, ob rH cord, &AAw TG avaxtywonxori tis gictws. It is 
 marvellous that Adam Clarke should find any allusion in the phrase to “the com- 
 mencement of the religious system of the Jews,” and that Barrington should render 
 it, “ Before the foundation of the Jewish state.’ 
 
22 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 miotol. 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— 
 
 eivat Huds aylous Kal apopous KaTevatrioy avToo — “in 
 order that we should be holy, and without blame before 
 Him.” KEivaz is the infinitive of design—“ that we should 
 be.” Winer, §.44, 4; Col. i. 22. The two adjectives 
 express the same idea, with a slight shade of variation. Deut. 
 vil. 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 this 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 righteous- 
 ness of believers to which the apostle alludes in Rom. iu. 21, 
 22, v.1, &e., viii. 1, &e.; 1 Cor. vi.11. But the terms found 
 here are different from those used by the apostle iu 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 
 holiness is the end of our election, our calling, our pardon and 
 accceptance. 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 apostacy. 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 4. 23 
 
 state. We would not say apologetically, with Calixtus-- 
 Quantum fiert potest, per Det ipsius gratiam et carnis nostre 
 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; Titus ii. 14. Jerome says, Hoc est, gui 
 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 sui. 
 
 Kateveroy avtov— before Him,” rx. No good end is 
 gained by reading avrov, with Harless and Scholz, as the sub- 
 ject 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&eXé£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 “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 
 
24 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 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 objects 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 citi- 
 zens 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 post- 
 poned. 
 
 And the same difficulties are involved in this choice to 
 external blessing, as are found in the election of men to per- 
 sonal 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 exclu- 
 sion 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 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 4. 25 
 
 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 oppor- 
 tunities, 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-know- 
 ledge 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.” ecles. Pol., lib. i., chap. ii. 3. The 
 question of the number of the saved is no element of the 
 doctrine we are illustrating. There have, alas! been men, 
 Calvino Calviniores, who have rashly, heartlessly, and unscrip- 
 turally spoken of the éxXex7o0/ 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-felicita- 
 tion in their possession of holiness and hope, as if with their 
 own hand they had inscribed their names in the Book of Life. 
 
 1 Discussions on Philosophy, Literature, &c., p. 600. Edin, 1852. 
 
26 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 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 0 Oeds—Kabeas 
 é€enéEaTo. 
 
 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 apostacy. 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 Christianity 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. Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c., ii. 
 443. But to represent this as the main object of the apostle 
 is to dethrone the principal idea, and to exalt a mere inferen- 
 tial lesson into its place. 
 
 Before proceeding to the words év dydmn, 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 guia futurt 
 eramus, sed ut essemus sancti et immaculati. There is no 
 
EPHESIANS I. 4. AT A 
 
 = 
 
 room for the conditional interjection of Grotius, Sz 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 Irenzus, 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 
 Calistus 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 diffi- 
 culty by denying one phase of the doctrine, have only 
 achieved the feat of shifting that difficulty into another posi- 
 tion. 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.2, Dr. Whately has, with character- 
 teristic candour, admitted that the difficulty which relates to 
 the character and moral government of God, presses as hard 
 
 1 The Chevalier Ramsay and Dr. Adam Clarke deny that God knows the free 
 actions of moral agents before they take place. 
 
 2 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 foreknow- 
 ledge, 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 St. 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 ex- 
 pressed even better by St. Bernard :—‘ Abolish free will and there is nothing to be 
 saved; abolish free grace, and there is nothing wherewithal to save.’ (De Gratia 
 et Libero Arbitrio. ¢. ii—Discussions, &c. p. 598.)” 
 
28 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 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.t 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 irre- 
 spective choice, but foreseen merit and goodness; or as to its 
 subjects, and they be affirmed to be not individuals, but com- 
 munities ; 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 Arch- 
 bishops Bramhall,’ Sancroft,t King,> Lawrence,’ Sumner,’ and 
 
 Whately, and by Milton,? Molina,” Faber," Nitzsch,” Hase,¥ 
 
 1 Miscellaneous Works, p, 139. 
 
 * Origen, Philoc. cap. xxv.; Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. § 141; Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. vi. See also Wiggers, Versuch einer pragmatischer Darstellung des 
 Augustinismus und Pelagianismus. Berlin, 1821. 
 
 3 Controversy with Hobbes on Liberty and Necessity, Work, tome iii. Dublin, 1677. 
 
 4 Fur Predestinatus, &c., a satire which Lord Macaulay justly styles ‘a hideous 
 caricature.” —History of England, vol. ii. p. 389, 8th ed. 
 
 6 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. 
 
 6 Bampton Lecture “On the Articles of the Church of England improperly con- 
 sidered Calvinistical.” 1826. 
 
 7 Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostolical Preaching Considered. 1826, 
 
 8 Essays on Some Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, p. 91. 
 
 9 Tn his treatise De Doctrind Christiana, printed first in 1825, by Dr. Sumner, 
 now Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 10 A Spanish Jesuit of the University of Eyora in Portugal, who, in his advocacy 
 of semipelagian views, first gave currency to the term scientia media, in his treatise 
 Liberi arbitrii concordia cum gratie donis, Divina prescientia, providentia, predesti- 
 natione, et reprobatione. Lisbon, 1588. 
 
 11 On the Primitive Doctrine of Election. London, 1842. 
 
 12 System der Christ]. Lehre, § 141, 5th Auflage. 1844. 
 
 13 Hutterus Redivivus, § 91, 6th Auflage. Leipzig, 1845. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 4. 29 
 
 Lange,! Copleston,? Chandler, Locke, Watson,? and many 
 others—such hypotheses leave the central difficulty still 
 unsolved, and throw us back on the unconditioned and undi- 
 vided 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 sail incomprehensible solitudes of 
 His own eternity. "T can only say, in conclusion, with the 
 martyr Ridley, when he wrote on this high theme to Bradford 
 —“Jn these matters I am so fearful, that I dare not speak 
 further; yea, almost none otherwise than the text does, as it 
 were, lead me by the hand.” 
 
 The position of the words év ayaryn 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 éeé£ato, and others to the 
 adjectives immediately preceding them. That é aydmn at 
 the end of the verse should refer to é€edé£aro at the beginning, 
 is highly improbable. The construction would be so awkward, 
 that we wonder how Cicumenius, Flacius, Olearius, Bucer, 
 and Flatt could have adopted it. The entire verse would 
 intervene 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, 
 
 
 
 1 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. 
 
 3 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 Theologie Chret. &c., vol. ii. 13 2: Stras- 
 bourg, 1852. Schmidt’s Dogmatik, part iii. § 30. Dritte Auflage, Frankfort, 1853. 
 Messner die Lehre der Apostel, &c., 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 pro- 
 positions 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, 2d ed. 
 
30 EPHESIANS I. 4. 
 
 Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 and Alford, join the words to the adjectives ayvor Kai auopor, 
 as if love were represented as the consummation of Christian 
 virtue. The doctrine itself is a glorious truth—all the Chris- 
 tian graces at length disappear in love, as the flower is lost in 
 the fruit. Those who refer the adjectives to justifying right- 
 eousness—justitia tmputata—object to this view that it is not 
 Pauline, but that €» wiores would be the words employed. 
 3. Though we are not hampered by such a false exegesis, 
 we prefer to join év aydmn to the following verse, and for 
 these reasons:— Where d@yos is used along with auepos, as in 
 Eph. v. 27, and even in Col. 1. 22, where a third epithet, 
 aveykXHTOS, is also employed, there is no such supplementary 
 phrase as év aydrrn. Alford tries to get rid of this objection 
 by saying that év aydan refers not to the epithets alone, but 
 to the entire last clause. Yet the plea does not avail him, 
 for his exegesis really makes év @ydmn 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 ayaddidoes qualifies not awepos, but the entire pre- 
 ceding clause—the presentation of the saved to God. When 
 synonymous epithets are used, a qualifying formula is some- 
 times added, as in dpéumrous, 1 Thess. iii. 13, but blameless 
 in what? the adjective is proleptic, and év ayiwovvn is added. 
 Koch, Comment., p. 272. 'The words év efpyvy occur also in 
 2 Pet. ii. 14, in the same clause with auepntes, but they 
 belong not, as Olshausen supposes, to the adjective; they 
 rather qualify the verb edpeAjvac— found in peace.” If ép 
 ayarn belonged to the preceding adjectives, we should expect 
 it to follow them immediately; but the words xatev@zov 
 avtov 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 quali- 
 fying clauses: for we demur to the correctness of the state- 
 ment. 1. We interpret the 8th verse differently, and make 
 év Tacn copig Kai Ppovyces qualify the following yvwpicas. 
 2. The other qualifying clauses following the verbs and par- 
 
EPHESIANS I. 5. al 
 
 ticiples in this paragraph are of a different nature from this, 
 four of them being introduced by «atdé—vreferring to rule or 
 measurement, and not to motive in itself or its elements, 
 8. It is more natural, besides, to join the words to the fol- 
 lowing 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 év ayamn precedes the participle. Love is implied in pre- 
 destination. Di-lectié presupponitur -lectioni, 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 ayarn 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, Holz- 
 hausen, Stier, Turner, and Ellicott; and by the editors 
 Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. 
 
 (Ver. 5.) "Ev ayarn tmpoopicas jpas eis viobeciav dia’ Inood 
 Xpiotod eis adtov—“ In love having predestinated us for the 
 adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself.” Still 
 another or third ground of praise. "Ev ayary, dynci, tpoopicas, 
 says Chrysostom,and Jerome renders in charitate praedestinans. 
 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, 23, ix. 45 2 Cor. 
 vi, 18; Gal. ii. 7, 26, iv. 5, 6, 7; Heb. 1. 10, xii. 5-8, 
 &e. 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. 11.19; Hos.i.10. Tiobecia— 
 Oerov viov Toveic@ac—conveys a similar idea, with this dis- 
 tinction, that the sonship is not a natural but a constituted 
 relationship, for the @ercs was quite distinct from the yv7jovos. 
 
a2 EPHESIANS I. 5. 
 
 The idea here is not merely that of sonship, as Usteri ima- 
 gines, 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 linea- 
 ments 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 pos- 
 session—1 Cor. ii. 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. 
 IIpoopicas—The signification of the verb is, “ to mark out 
 beforehand,” and it is the act of God. We were marked out 
 for adoption—zrpé ; not before others, but before time. The 
 mpo 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&edé£aro, though there is a specific 
 distinction. ‘The end preappointed—~zpé, 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. Tpoopicas may 
 indicate an action prior to é&exé€ato—“ Having foreappointed 
 us to the adoption of children, He chose us in Christ Jesus.” 
 Donaldson, § 574; Winer, § 451. Homberg—Parerga, p. 
 286—thus paraphrases, Postguam nos preedestinaret adoptan- 
 dos, eligit etiam nos, ut simus sanctt. 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 a sub- 
 ject too high for us, as we can neither grasp infinitude nor 
 span eternity, yet we may say that there is oneness and not 
 succession of thought in God’s mind, simultaneous idea and 
 
EPHESIANS I. 5. ao 
 
 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 pros- 
 pects 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 apostacy 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.” 
 
 Sia “Incod Xpeotod—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. 
 
 els avtov—“ to Himself.” It matters not much whether 
 the reading be avrév or avrov. The former, coming so closely 
 after dua 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 
 av7ov. Other editors, such as Erasmus, Wetstein, Lachmann, 
 and Tischendorf, prefer avrdv, and they are supported by 
 Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. The reference of the word, 
 however, is plainly to God. To 8€é eds avdrov Tov Tatépa Néyer 
 —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, 
 combines 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, who join the words with zpoopicas, 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 
 
 D 
 
34 EPHESIANS I. 5. 
 
 exegesis is a capricious and unwarranted construction of es 
 with its accusative. Others, again, take it as a dativus com- 
 modi for éavr@, 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 avroo 
 in the genitive—‘ He has predestined us to His own adoption.” 
 The apostle does not use a preposition where a simple dative 
 or a genitive would have sufficed. Others, retaining the 
 undoubted meaning of the accusative, would render it in 
 various ways. Piscator translates—Ad gloriam gratie sue. 
 Theophylact, with Gicumenius, explains, 77y ets avtov avd- 
 youcav—adoption leading to Him. Olshausen’s notion is not 
 dissimilar. De Wette renders simply fiir thn; that is, for 
 Him whose glory is the ultimate end of the great work of 
 redemption. Theodore of Mopsuestia thus expounds it, wa 
 avTov viol AeyoliweOa Te KaL XpnuaTifopev. Something of the 
 truth lies in all those modes of explanation, with the exception 
 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, eés indicates a relation 
 different from the simple dative, and one often found in the 
 theology of the apostle. Winer, § 49, § 51-4. Adoption has 
 its medium in Christ: but it has its ultimate enjoyment and 
 blessing in God. Himself is our Father—H1s household we 
 enter—His welcome we are saluted with—His name and 
 dignity we wear—HIs image we possess—HzIs 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 evdoKlayv Tod Cedjpatos av’tToo—“ according to the 
 good pleasure of His will.” ‘Kard, as usual, denotes rule 
 or measure. Winer, § 49. 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- 
 
EPHESIANS I. 5. 5) 
 
 volence or goodwill. The former meaning is held by Chry- 
 sostom (rd ohodpov GéXnwa), 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, Olshau- 
 sen, and Baumgarten-Crusius. Such is its prevailing accepta- 
 tion in the Septuagint, as representing the Hebrew jix. 
 The translators gave this rendering on purpose and with 
 discrimination, for when jz) signifies will or decree, as it 
 sometimes does, they render it by 0énua. Compare Ps. 
 xix. 15, li. 19, Ixxxix. 18, ev. 4, with Esther i. 8; Ps. 
 xxix. 5, xl. 8; Dan. viii. 4, xi. 3, 16, &. The Seventy 
 render the proper name mz. (Delight), Cant. vi. 4, by eddox/a, 
 Symmachus by evdoxn7yn. In the New Testament the mean- 
 ing is not different. Luke ii. 14; Rom. x. 1; Philip. i. 15, 
 ii. 13. Matt. xi. 26, and the parallel passage, Luke x. 21, 
 may admit of the other meaning, and yet, as Harless sug- 
 gests, the context, with its verb %ya\\doarto, seems to 
 support the more common signification. Fritzsche ad Rom. 
 ii. 369—note. Lllicott 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 eddoxéa is to be sought, not in the mpowpic- 
 pévot, but in mpoopicas; 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 evAoynrds. Cicu- 
 menius well defines it, 7) é’ evapyecia Bovrxnows. Theodoret 
 says, that the Sacred Scripture understands by evdoxia,—ro 
 ayabov tod ©. Onpa. The Gérnuwa—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 
 
36 EPHESIANS I. 6. 
 
 unfallen progeny, and His glory would not have been unseen, 
 nor His praises unsung, though this fallen world had sunk 
 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 every- 
 thing 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 cata tiv 
 evdoxiay after év ayamn is no tautology, Olshausen says, that 
 ayarn refers to the proper essence of God, and that eddoxia 
 brings out the prominent benevolence of the individual act of 
 His will. The opinion of Harless is similar, that ayd7n is 
 the general emotion, and that its special expression as the 
 result of will is contained in evdoxia. 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—zrpoopisas—xara. There 
 is “ wll,” 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 
 gocd 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 érawov dons ths xapitos avtod—“ To the 
 praise of the glory of His grace.” vs 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, dif- 
 ferent indeed, yet closely united. Ad£&ns has not the article, 
 being defined by the following genitive, which with its pro- 
 noun 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 mpoopiopos. 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; 
 Philip. i. 11, i. 11. It was natural in an ascription of 
 
 ——~ Se 
 
EPHESIANS I. 6. — 37 
 
 praise to introduce this idea, the apostle’s offering of praise 
 -—evAoynTos 6 Oeds—being at that moment a realization of 
 this very purpose, and therefore acceptable to Him. Some 
 critical editors read avrov, 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 Kstius, resolve it into eds érawvov evdoEov 
 —to the glorious praise of His grace. Others, as Beza, Koppe, 
 Winer, Holzhausen, and Meier, construe it as ydpis évdo£os. 
 But itis not generally His glorious grace, but this one special 
 element of that grace which is to be praised. Winer, § 30, 31; 
 Bernhardy, p. 53. Xdpus 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 farther: 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. 
 
 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. 
 
38 EPHESIANS I. 6. 
 
 év 4, or Hs exapitacev nyas.—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- 
 teristic modes of translation in such places. For 75 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 7 is well supported, 7s 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 § 241; Eph. iv. 1; 2 Cor. i. 45 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 CGicumenius ; 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 gratiosi 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 7s €yapicato aN éexapitwcev judas, 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 xai érepdatous éroujoev— 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 
 
 
 
 : 
 
EPHESIANS L. 6. 39 
 
 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 xvii. 17, 
 where avijp xeyapit@pévos is aman full of grace and bland- 
 ness; and the same book, ix. 8, according to the Codex A and 
 Clement’s quotation, has the same participle, as if it were 
 synonymous with edwopdos—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 Mébler, in his Symboltk, § 13, 14, uses the 
 clause as an argument for the justdtia inherens of the Romish 
 church. 
 
 2. The verb yapirow, 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, 
 Réell, and most modern ones. Verbs in d signify to give 
 action or existence to the thing or quality specified by the 
 correlate noun, have what Kiihner appropriately calls ein 
 
 ~ factitive Bedeutung, § 368. Thus, wupéw—I set on fire, 
 Gavarow—I put to death, that is, I give action to wip and 
 Gdvaros. Buttmann, § 119. Xapitéw will thus indicate 
 the communication or bestowment of the ydpus. 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 
 SSaf5—which He has poured out. Xdpis has an objecm 
 tive meaning here, as it usually has in the Pauline writings, 
 and Keyapitwpévn, applied to the Virgin (Luke 1. 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. 
 i. 3, 19, 20; 11.4; iv. 1; Donaldson, § 466; Winer, § 24, 1. 
 The spirit of the declaration 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 
 
 - 
 
AO EPHESIANS T. 6. 
 
 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 
 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— 
 
 ev TO nyaTnév~— in the Beloved.” Some MSS., such 
 as Di, K, F, G, add vid avrod, an evident gloss followed by 
 the Vulgate and Latin fathers. The Syriac adds the pronoun, 
 in his Beloved—. O12. The reference is undoubtedly to 
 Christ. Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5; John, iii. 16; 1 John, iv. 9, 
 10, 11; or Col. 1. 13—0 vids THs aydrrns ad’tod. 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 yapis we enjoy is different 
 from this aydn. Still the apostle affirms that we share in 
 love as well as grace. 3. The following verse tells us that 
 redemption comes to us sa tod aiwatos—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 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS I. 7. 41 
 
 has proved and sustained its fervour in the agonies of a violent 
 and vicarious death! Tor the next thought is— 
 
 (Ver. 7.) “Ev & €yowev tiv arorttpwow Sia Tod aipatos 
 avtoo—‘‘ In whom we have redemption by His blood.” The 
 apostle now specifies some fruits of that grace—illustrates 
 éyapitwcev. 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 symbo- 
 lized 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 Rémer ausgelegt, p. 261: Gotha, 1856. Azro- 
 AUTpwors, as its origin intimates, signifies deliverance by the 
 payment of a price or ransom—)vtpov. 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 apostacy, in the other, the destruction of the Jewish 
 state, which is the ideal price. We have the simple noun in 
 Luke i. 68; 1.38; Heb. ix. 12; and Avtpodv 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—éua tod atwatos adtod ; as in Acts xx. 28, 
 where we have zrepsetroujcarto, and 1 Cor. vi. 20, where we have, 
 under a different aspect jryopdcOnre, and similarly in Gal. i. 
 13. Blood is the material of expiation. The death of Jesus 
 was one of blood, for it was a violent death ; and that blood— 
 
A? EPHESIANS I. 7. 
 
 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 
 sin—it was To AUTpov—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 Theologie Chretienne au Siecle Apostolique, tome ii. p. 182. 
 
 ev @—“ in whom;”’ not as Koppe, Flatt, and others would 
 have it, “on account of whom.’ The ova points to the instru- 
 mental connection which the death of Christ has with our 
 redemption, but év to the method in which that redemption 
 becomes ours. Rom. i. 24. Aca regards the means of pro- 
 vision, év 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. vii. 1, 33. 
 
 The apostle places the forgiveness of sins in apposition with 
 redemption, not as its only element, but as a blessing imme- 
 diate, characteristic, and prominent— 
 
 Ti apecw TOV TapaTToyaTov— the forgiveness of sins.” 
 Col. i.14. Odaparrwpa—talling aside, offence, differs from 
 apaptia, not exactly, as Jerome affirms, that the first term 
 
 1“ Quand done vous entendez ici parler de son sang, ne vous representez ni 
 celui de la Circoncisicn, quand le couteau de la Loi lui en sit perdre quelques 
 gouttes, huit jours aprés sa naissance; ni celui de son agonie, quand l’excés du 
 trouble qu'il ressentoit en son esprit, lui en sit 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 Pretoire. C’est celui de sa mort méme.”—Sermons sur 
 VEpitre de St. Paul aux Ephesiens, par feu M. Du Bose, tome i. p. 277. 1699. 
 
 ——— 
 
EPHESIANS L. 7. 43 
 
 means the lapse toward sin, and the second the completed act 
 in itself, for tapdwr@pa is expressly applied by Paul in Rom. 
 v. 15, &c., to the first sin of the first man—that offence of 
 which duaprtia, 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- 
 tions of our sinful condition. "Adeots—sometimes standing 
 by itself, but generally with awaptiwy—is release from some- 
 thing which binds, from the chain which fetters—Luke iv. 19 
 —or the debt or tribute which oppresses. Esther 1. 18. It 
 frees from the dde/Anua—from 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 dgecwy coextensive with dovvtpwow. In the 
 New Testament the noun does not signify “ all riddance from 
 the practice and consequences of our transgression,” but defi- 
 nitely and specially remission of the penalty. Mark ii. 29; 
 Acts, ii. 88 (the gift of the Spirit there succeeding that of 
 forgiveness); Acts xi. 38, 39; xxvi. 18; Heb. x. 18. But 
 amonvTpwots 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 
 aeows of this verse is not, therefore, “equipollent”’ with 
 aTonvTp@ots, but the following paragraph is; for the dodv- 
 Tp@ats contains the series of blessings described in it, and 
 among them forgiveness of sins has a first and prominent 
 place. “Adeous differs from mdpeous (Rom. iii. 25), for the latter 
 is praetermission, not remission; the suspension of the penalty, 
 or the forbearing to inflict it, but not its entire abrogation. 
 Fritzsche Ad Rom., vol. i., 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, (év &,) 
 secures continued forgiveness. ‘That forgiveness also is free, 
 because it is the result of His sacrifice—&d afwatos ; and it 
 is irreversible, since it is God that justifies, and who shall 
 
 
 
44 EPHESIANS I. 7. 
 
 impeach His equity ? or shall He revoke His own sentence of 
 absolution ? 
 
 And the apostle says, éyowev—in the present time ; not like 
 evdoyjoas, é&ehéEaTo, Tpoopicas, éyapitwoev—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,” 
 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 wapartopyata 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 ThOUTOS THs yapttos avToD—“ according to the 
 riches of His grace. With Riickert, Lachmann, and Tischen- 
 dorf, on the authority of A, B, D', F, G, we prefer the neuter 
 TO TAovTOS, a form which occurs, according to the best MSS., 
 in Hph. ni. 7, mi. 8,16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. i, 27, i. 2; Winer, 
 § 9,2, 2. I\odros 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,” &ec. 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 adrod evidently 
 refers to God, and some MSS. read atrod. Xdpus—see under 
 i. 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 par- 
 doned, often pardoned, and- frankly pardoned, but infinite 
 wealth of grace remains behind. It is also to be remarked, 
 that yapis and aiua are really not opposed. Atonement is 
 
EPHESIANS I. 8. 45 
 
 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 un- 
 merited provision of such an atonement, so perfect and glo- 
 rious in its relation to God and man, as the blood of the 
 “ Beloved One.” 
 
 (Ver. 8.) “Hs émepiocevoey eis juas.—* Which He has 
 made to abound toward us.” ‘Hs is the result of attraction. 
 If it stand for 4, then the verb will have a transitive significa- 
 tion— Which he hath made, or caused to abound.” But if 
 fis stand for the dative, as Calvin, Camerarius, and Schmi< 
 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 que 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 75 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. i. 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 wepsscevw, may 
 have an appended accusative elicited from the verb, “make 
 an abundance of’’—so the principle of attraction need not be 
 applied to fs. 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: ab0ovws é&éyeev— He hath poured it upon us 
 unsparingly.” And the apostle, having spoken of forgiveness 
 as an immediate blessing, adds— 
 
 év rdon codla cat ppovijcec— in all wisdom and pru- 
 
46 EPHESIANS I. 8. 
 
 dence.” The preliminary question refers to the position of 
 this clause. Should it be joined to the preceding ézepic- 
 cevoer, or does it belong to the following verse, and qualify 
 the participle yvwpicas ? 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 
 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 wepiccevcey is 
 evinced and realized.” But the clause so interpreted may be 
 either logically connected with évepiccevoer or yvwpicas, 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 Gicu- 
 menius,, who joins the words with the following verse—aogovs 
 Kal ppovipous Troujoas oUTwS éyvapicev TO uoTyptov. 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 8. 47 
 
 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, yywpioas 
 — 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 €v ayarn, 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 
 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, 
 
48 EPHESIANS I. 8. 
 
 and Olshausen. Harless boldly affirms that dpovnois cannot 
 be predicated 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. vill. 14, exclaims, é€4) dpevnows— intelligence is 
 mine.” Why should dpovnais be less applicable than yrdous 
 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 
 him in perfect analogy with the common anthropomorphism 
 of Scripture. But ¢povnovs may not signify prudence in its 
 usual acceptation. It is the action of the py or mind. 
 Wisdom is often ascribed to God, and dpévnacs is the action 
 of His wise mind—its intuitive formation of purposes and 
 resolutions in His infinite wisdom. To refer @pdvyncis always 
 to practical discretion, as Estius, Bengel, and Krebs do, is 
 unwarranted. Lodéa is not simply and always sctentia theo- 
 retica, nor povnots scientia practica. The words are so 
 explained, indeed, by Cicero—d¢povnats, 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. 
 Lopia is the attribute of wisdom, and dpovnars is its special 
 aspect, or the sphere of operation in which it developes itself. 
 
 1 Observationes in Novum Test. ¢ Fl. Josepho, p. 825. 
 2 Observationes in Novum Test. e Philone Alexandrino, p. 838. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 8. 49 
 
 Thus, in Prov. x. 23, 7) 8€ copia avdpi tikres ppdvncw. 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 fpovnois—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 wacy, added to 
 cob. kat dpov. forbids the application of the terms to God. 
 Meyer admits that ¢pov. may be applied to God, but denies 
 that raca dpovnors can be so applied. We can say of God, 
 Harless remarks, “in Him is all wisdom, but not He has done 
 this or that in all wisdom.” Olshausen homologates the state- - 
 ment, his argument being, that God possesses all attributes 
 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 serviceable 
 means, appears not as absolute, but only as relative, and he 
 explains the clause, 7 aller dazu dienlicher Weisheit und Ein- 
 sicht. But what hinders that the word should be rendered 
 “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 ex- 
 amples suffice for our purpose:—Matt. xxviii. 18, taca éEovcla 
 —all power—absolute power; Acts v. 23, the prison was 
 shut, év maon aogpadeia— with all safety,” in their opinion, 
 with absolute security ; 1 Tim. 1.15, waons atrodoyijs a&tos 
 —worthy of all or of absolute credit and welcome; and in 
 many other places. Nor is this sense unknown to the classics: 
 mavT’ ériatHuns—absolute knowledge;! raca avayxn—utmost 
 or absolute necessity ;? és wav xkaxov—into extreme distress ;? 
 eis TavTa Kivduyov—into extreme danger ;* els macav atopiav 
 —to the utmost embarrassment.> So that in ws the idea of 
 
 
 
 1 Sophocles, Antig. 721. 3 Herod. vii. 118; ix. 118. 
 2 Plato, Phedr. 235. # Xenophon, Cyr. vii. 2, 22. 
 ° Polybius, iii. 77, 4. See also Pape and Passow in their respective Lexicons. 
 E 
 
50 EPHESIANS I. 9. 
 
 intension is at least inferentially bound up with that of exten- 
 sion. Such appear to us sufficient reasons for connecting the 
 words with yvwpicas, and regarding them as qualifying it, 
 or defining the method in which the mystery has been dis- 
 closed. 
 
 But among those who connect the words with yvwpicas, 
 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 éoTL TO puaTHpPLOY TO TaoNS codias TE Yé“oV Kal 
 dpovnoews— 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: To puoTtyHpiov 
 copwtatov kal dpoviyotatov. ‘These interpretations are not 
 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 évepiccevoev. It contains one of the 
 elements of the ydpus, 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 dzrodvtpwors, 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 jyiv 76 wvotypiov Tod Oedjpatos avTod 
 —“Fiaving in all wisdom and prudence made known to us 
 the mystery of His will.” Tvawpicas stands to érepiccevoey 
 much in the same way as 7poopicas did to é&edéEato. Bern- 
 hardy, p. 883. 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 prin- 
 cipalities and powers. The essential idea of wvorypiov, what- 
 ever may be the application, is, something into the knowledge 
 
EPHESIANS I. 10. 51 
 
 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” 
 — Tod Oedknparos—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— 
 
 Kata THY evdokiav avtov— according to His good pleasure.”’ 
 Evdoxia 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 
 the phrase with the following clause and verse, but the similar 
 use of cata and its modal clause in ver. 5 induces us, with 
 Meyer, Riickert, and Olshausen, to connect it with yuwpicas:— 
 
 nv mpoéGero év avt@—“ which He purposed in Himself.” 
 The verb occurs only in two other places, Rom. i. 13, iii. 
 25—and there may be here a quasi-temporal sense in 7rpo. 
 The meaning implied in the reflexive form airo, 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 avaxedadaiecacbat to be connected with 
 yvopioas, and others unite it with mpoéGero, but it stands out 
 as the object to which the whole previous verse points, and of 
 which it is an explanation. 
 
 (Ver. 10.) Eis otxovoyiav tod mAnpdpatros TOV Katlpav— 
 “Tn reference to the dispensation of the fulness of the times.” 
 Winer, § 49, a. The article is absent before oixovoylav, as 
 the term is so well defined by the following genitives. Winer, 
 § 19, 2 b. Eis does not signify “until,” as Bullinger, 
 
Syd EPHESIANS I. 10. 
 
 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 7poé@er0, which 
 the word cannot well bear. Nor can eis 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. 
 Kis is “in reference to.”’ Ocixovoyia signifies house-arrangement, 
 or dispensation, and is rendered by Theophylact, dsolknors, 
 Kkataotacls. 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, oixovomos, 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 
 of the apostles as its “stewards.” 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, ix. 17; 
 Hpk, m2 Cole i255 -Tit. 1.73. Pet. av. 10.5) Ether, 
 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. 1.2, 9; 1 Tim. 
 1,4. 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 adapta- 
 tions. 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 isa 
 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 mAnpepatos 
 Tov Katpov—the genitive having its characterizing sense. 
 Scheuerlein, § 16,3. Into the sense of wAxjpaua 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 eorum que restant 
 
EPHESIANS I. 10. 3 
 
 or 
 
 tempora, as Storr supposes, taking 77pewpa 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 peyiod 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 capav presents a temporal idea, and 
 TAnp@matos may be that of characterization. Winer, § 35, 2; 
 or as in Jude, xplow peyadrns yuépas. It is an economy charac- 
 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 wAjpwpa. ‘True, there are under the gospel xarpoi é6var, 
 Luke xxi. 24; xaspot avaWvéews, Acts ii. 193 Kaspois idious, 
 1 Tim. ui. 6—each of these phrases having a special and 
 absolute reference. But Anp@ya 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 Té\n TOV aiwvev 
 (1 Cor. x. 11), éx’ é€cydtav trav tyepov (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 7A7pwua in its passive sense. 
 The wArjpwpa is regarded as a vast receptacle into which 
 centuries and millenniums had been falling, but it was now 
 filled. Thus, Herodotus ili. 22, S6ns wAjpwoua paxporatov 
 —the longest fulness of life-—the sense of the clause being, 
 
54. EPHESIANS I. 10. 
 
 The longest period for a person to live is eighty years. Schott, 
 in Ep. ad Galatas, chap. iv. 4, p.488; Winer, ibid. ; 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 vod 
 xpovov, as in Gal. iv. 4—in which past time is regarded as 
 a unity — but tay capav, time being imaged under succes- 
 sive periods.! Theodoret has somewhat vaguely—rov opic- 
 Oévta Tapa Tod Qcod Karpov. ‘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 
 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 best 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 civilized 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 
 
 1 The noun zaieés is allied to e/ex, and is often a synonym of éreov.—Donald- 
 son’s New Cratylus, § 191. 
 2 Der Kreislauf, in welchem sich die Bestimmung und Idee der Heidenthums, 
 
EPHESIANS I. 10. 55 
 
 this thought virtually in 1 Cor. i. 21. The world was allowed 
 full time to discover by prolonged experiment the insufti- 
 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 
 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— 
 dvaxeharaiocacba Ta TavTa év T@ XpicotS—“ 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 wetaBadrew, and 
 refers to this change—Tav avOpoTarv 1 pias avictataL Kat 
 TV abGapoiav évdvérat. Tertullian renders it—ad initiwn 
 reciprocare—(De Monogam. 5), and the Syriac and Vulgate 
 correspond. And this was a general opinion in the ancient 
 church. Augustine, Enchiridion, 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—xedarauor, or kepary. Such 
 
 and Judenthums vyollendete, musste erst sein Ziel erreicht haben.—Usteri, Paulin. 
 Lenrbegriff, p. 85. 
 
56 EPHESIANS I. 10. 
 
 is the general critical opinion of Chrysostom, Cicumenius, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, H. Stephens, Piscator, Calovius, 
 Bengel, Matthies, Meier, De Wette, Olshausen, and Stier. 
 “ What,” asks Chrysostom, “is the meaning of the word 
 avaxep.? It is, to knit together, ovvawar. It has another 
 signification—T’o set over one and all the same Head, Christ, 
 according to the flesh—piav xepadnv érvbetvar.” Beza insists 
 against this meaning, that the word comes from xepa)avov, not 
 from «edad. Besides the Headship of Christ is not formally 
 introduced till the 22nd verse. The meaning of ava in com- 
 position 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 sup- 
 posed to signify, as in our version, “to gather together in 
 one;’’ so Beza, Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Harless, and 
 others. Rom. xii. 9. The summing up of the data, rerum 
 repetitio et congregatio, was called, as Quintilian avers, ava- 
 keparaiwats. De Instit. Orator. vi. 1. The simple verb is 
 found with such a meaning in Thucydides, vi. 91; vi. 53; 
 and compounded with ovy it occurs in Polybius ii. 3, 1. 
 Xen. Cyr. vi. 1, 15. Such a 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 €v Tois ovpavois Kal Ta ert THS yAs—‘ 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 7é after the 
 ra of the first clause, and B, D, E, L, read émé for év in the 
 same clause, a reading which cannot be sustained. Critical 
 opinions on the meaning of the phrase are very varied. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 10. 
 
 Cn 
 
 7 
 
 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 Tes- 
 tament 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—dvaxefaraiwow Kadhei—rthv éus plav 
 Keharny &vwow, @ TOV ayyérov Sia Xpiotod trois avOparrois 
 cuvapbévrwv. With these interpretations we agree, so far 
 as they contain truth. But they have the truth in frag- 
 ments, like broken pieces of a mirror. We take the ta 
 mavra 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 7a wavta 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—ta mdvta, including, according 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 meaning. Winer, 
 § 27, 5; Poppo, Thucydides, i. 104. It cannot be sup- 
 posed to be used for the masculine, as no masculine is 
 implied in the verse. Hodge limits ta advta to the church 
 in heaven and earth—because, 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 
 
58 EPHESIANS I. 10. 
 
 Creator was rightfully the Governor of all things, and till 
 the introduction of sin, that government was one and undi- 
 vided. But rebellion produced disorder, the unity of the 
 kingdom was broken. arth was morally severed from 
 heaven, and from the worlds which 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 uni- 
 verse 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. Rey. 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 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 know- 
 ledge 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 appre- 
 ciated; 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 11. 59 
 
 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 perpetuum 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 possi- 
 bility of their apostacy; or that their pure and susceptible 
 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 avt®—a solemn and emphatic reas- 
 sertion. 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 gréat empire. 
 But & av7é is the connecting link also with the following 
 verse. Kiihner, § 630-5. See also Col. 1. 19, 20. 
 
 (Ver. 11.) “Ev 6 cal exrnpoOnwev. For ékrAnpoePnwev some 
 read éxA7Onwev, supported by A, D, EH, I, G, and the vetus 
 ftala. Uachmann, following Griesbach, prefers the latter ; 
 but Tischendorf rightly advocates the former reading, on 
 what we reckon preponderant authority. Still is the connec- 
 tion marked, as usual, “in Christ,” and by the ever-recurring 
 formula év 6. “ExAnp@Onpev has its foundation in the usage 
 of the Old Testament, in the theocratic inheritance—nm, as 
 in Deut. iv. 20, and in numerous other places. The «dJAjpos, 
 KAnpovopmos, and KAnpovouia 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 
 
60 ; EPHESIANS I. 11. 
 
 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 
 “lian 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—dnpov yevopévov nuads é&eréEaTo. 
 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 «rj pos— 
 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 Colossians 
 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, 
 xxx. 9. The verb may certainly bear this meaning ; «Axjpow 
 —] assign an inheritance to some one;’’ in the passive 
 —‘“] 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, 
 
EPHESIANS I. 11. 61 
 
 p. 341; Rom. ii. 2; Gal. 11. 7, iv. 20. We see no force 
 in Stier’s objection that such a meaning should be followed 
 by els To éyew suas, whereas it is followed by ets 76 eivac 
 yas, 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 not as 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— 
 
 mpoopicGévtes Kata mpodecw Tod Ta TdvTa évEepyovvToOS 
 Kata THv BovAnv TOD OeXnpaTos avToD— being predestinated 
 according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after 
 the counsel of His will.” The general significance of these 
 terms has been already given under previous verses. PovAz} 
 and 6édnpa are here connected—* the counsel of His will.” 
 The correspondent verbs, SovAouar and é0édo, 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 (Lewxilogus, p. 35); while 
 Tittmann adds, that 0é\yya is an expression of. will, but 
 Bound 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, Oérer év signifies ‘‘ he has pleasure in ;” while in ver. 25, 
 BovreTas év denotes desire consequent upon a previous reso- 
 lution. Compare also 2 Sam. xxiv. 3; 1 Chron. xxviii. 4._ 
 
62 EPHESIANS I. 12. 
 
 @npua, therefore, is will, the result of desire — voluntas ; 
 Sovvdy is counsel, the result of a formal decision—propositum. 
 Donaldson’s New Cratylus, §§ 463, 464. Here Bovdry 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 #é\nwa—will; and that will is 
 not a lethargic velleity, for it has formed a defined purpose, 
 Bova, 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 eivae judas eis érrawov S0€ns adtod, tods 
 TponrTriKOTas €v 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 
 the preceding one, are very contradictory. Meyer and Ellicott 
 join it to ékrAnpoOnuev—“ we have been brought into the 
 inheritance, in order that we should be to the praise of His 
 glory.” Others, as Calovius, Flatt, and Harless, take eds éz. 
 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 u.s.w., diegenigen zu seyn zum Ruhme seiner Herrlichkett, 
 die schon vorher anf 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 12. 63 
 
 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 
 érawov THs So&ns is therefore not the proximate purpose, but 
 the ultimate result. 
 
 The main struggle has been to determine who are meant by 
 the jas tods rponAmuKoTas. 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 preceded 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 sels, so 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 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 wpondmuxétes eis 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 po 
 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. ili. 3, ca@as mpoéypayra—as 
 I have already written; Col. i. 5, édsiéa tv tponxovcate— 
 the hope of which ye have already heard; Acts xxvi. 5, mpo- 
 
64. EPHESIANS I. 13. 
 
 yweokovtes—who have already known; Gal. v. 21, & rporéyo 
 —which I have already told you; Rom. iii. 25, tév apo- 
 yeyovoTwv aapTnudrwv—of sins already committed ; 1 Thess. 
 ll. 2, d\Aa rpoTabovtes—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 tpets 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 
 ehriCw 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 difficul- 
 ties 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 7uds 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 wyets of the following verse forms a sharp contrast to the 
 expressed suas and the tobs mpondmixétas, which is a limit- 
 ing 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 Luke, ii. 34. The 
 article t4s before d0€ys is omitted by many MSS. and is 
 justly cancelled by Tischendorf and Lachmann. The clause 
 itself has been explained under ver. 6. 
 
 (Ver. 13.) “Ev @ cai tpets. This clause is variously con- 
 strued. Morus harshly renders év ¢—“ therefore,” making it 
 to correspond to the Hebrew rw. 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 #Amixate with Beza, Calvin, and 
 Kstius; or é«dnpéOnte, with Zanchius, a-Lapide, Bodius, 
 Koppe, Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. But the clause pre- 
 sents only one compacted sentence-—“ In whom also ye, having 
 
EPHESIANS I. 13. 65 
 
 heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in 
 whom (I repeat) ye, having believed, were sealed.” "Ev ¢ 
 kal bets refers to the verb éofpayicOnre—in Christ ye too 
 have been sealed; and the second év @ «ai resumes and 
 intensifies the declaration, for it refers to Christ, as Harless, 
 Olshausen, and Stier rightly think, and not—as Piscator, 
 Grotius, ail Rosenmiiller affirm—to doyos, or—as Caailes: 
 Calvin, Beza, and Mey er aver—to evayyédov. ‘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 haying heard 
 the gospel, and then he cannot but refer to their faith; and 
 this second reference, so important, suspends the construction 
 fora moment. The apostle describes their privilege— 
 axovoavtTes TOV OYov THS AadAnOeias—“‘ having heard the 
 word of 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 fami- 
 liar to the mind of Paul, Rom. 1. 18,11. 8; Col. i. 5—) avy- 
 Geta ; 2 Thess. 11.12. ‘This special truth is adapted to man’s 
 spiritual state. It isa truth that there is a 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 isa kind and faithful oracle. 
 
 It is further characterized as To evayyédtov THs caTnplas 
 tpov— the gospel of your salvation.” But what is the pre- 
 cise 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, 
 F 
 
66 EPHESIANS I. 13. 
 
 Rom. i. 16. For the occurrence of dxovcavtes, 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 b. 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 gos- 
 pel 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 TicTevcavTes— in whom also having believed.” 
 The pronoun has Xpioros for its antecedent, and it is in close 
 connection with the verb. The verb wiotedw is found with 
 év in Mark i. 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 Ivevpate ths erayyerias TO cylo— ye 
 were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.’ The dative is 
 that of instrument, and the position of Té ayl@ gives a signal 
 solemnity to the epithet. This Divine being is termed [vedya, 
 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 érayyedias 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 13. 67 
 
 which was promised. The genitive is almost that of ablation, 
 as Theophylact in his first explanation gives it—érv é& éray- 
 yertas 6660n. ‘The Spirit is a prominent and pervading pro- 
 mise in the Old Testament. Isa. xxxil. 15; xliv. 3; Ezek. 
 mei OP ocx xix! 2953) Joel u. 28! Zech: xii, / 10... |The 
 ‘Spirit was also the leading promise which Christ left to His 
 disciples, as recordedyin 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 
 vu. 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 vouch- 
 safed.”” 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 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. 11.19. 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. =payis 
 
 Baoiduxy eixodv éori'—the Divine image in the possession of 
 
 1 Polyeenus, p. 763. 
 
68 EPHESIANS I. 14. 
 
 the Spirit is impressed on the heart, and the conscious enjoy- 
 ment of it assures the believer of perfection and glory—Rom. 
 viii. 16—or, as Theodore of Mopsuestia says, tiv BeBalwouy 
 é5éEace. 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 Chrysos- 
 tom—xadarrep yap el Tus Tos NayOvTAs aVTO O1)Nous Troujoevey, 
 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 converted men. Baptism 
 was named “a seal” in early times, oppayis—sitgnaculum. 
 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 Ths KAnpovopias jnywav— 
 “‘ 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 wvedua, for it only assumes 
 the gender of the following definitive predicate. So Mark 
 xv. 16; Gal. iii. 16: 1 Tim. i. 13, &e. Winer, § 243; 
 Kiihner, § 786, 3; Madvig,§ 98. From not perceiving this 
 idiom, some refer to Christ as the antecedent. “AppaPdv—— 
 earnest, is but the Oriental jz 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 i. 189; Suicer, 
 sub voce. The master gives the servant a small coin when the 
 paction is agreed on, and this handgelt, or earnest, mpodopa, 
 
EPHESIANS I. 14. 69 
 
 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, 
 pépos Tod Tavtds. Irenzeus also says—‘ Quod et pignus dixit 
 Apostolus, hoe est partem ejus honoris qui a Deo nobis pro- 
 missus est, in epistoka que ad Ephesios est.”—Adv. Heres. 
 lib. v. cap. 11. The inheritance, «rypovopia, 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 vioGecia ; 
 and sev 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—ea 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 
 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 
 
70 EPHESIANS I. 14. 
 
 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 atroNUTpwoW THs TeptiTromoews, eis Erawov THs SdEns 
 avroo—“ till the redemption of the purchased possession, to 
 the praise of His glory.” The expression is idiomatic and 
 somewhat difficult.” 1. Some suppose zrepuoinous 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 els dmron. Kal mepiroinow. 2. Others take the noun in 
 the sense of possession. In 2 Chron. xiv. 13, the noun seems 
 to signify ‘‘a remnant preserved,” kai émecov AiOlotres ore 
 pn eivat év avTots Trepimroinow. 3. Some connect the two sub- 
 stantives as cause and effect. Luther renders zu unserer Erli- 
 sung, 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- 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 14. 71 
 
 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 one’s self: Gen. xxxvi. 6; 
 xxxi. 18; Prov. vil. 4; Isa. xliii. 21, Xads pov dv reprerroun- 
 cdunv; Acts xx. 28, ékxAnola, iy mepitroujocato Sia Tod 
 aijpatos Tod ioiov; 1'Tim. ill. 13., BaOuov éavtots Karov Trept- 
 movovvrat. Similar instances occur in the Apocrypha, and the 
 same meaning is found in the classics. Didymus defines it, 
 TepiT. yap TO Kat’ e€aipetov év Tepiovaia Kal KTNMATL NENOYLT- 
 pévor, that is wepe7r., which is emphatically reckoned as portion 
 of our substance and possession. Theophylact explains the 
 words by the same terms, and Cicumenius defines it by itself, 
 TeplT. ads Kael Sud TO TrEpLTroLncacOat Hwas Tov Oeov.t In 
 this way the noun is used in 1 Thess. v. 9, eds qrepum. cwTn- 
 plas; 2 Thess. 11. 14, ets mepim. d0Ens; Heb. x. 39, ets reper. 
 auyxijs. In all these cases, there is the idea of acquisition for 
 one’s self, and the noun followed by a genitive has an active 
 significance, which it cannot have here, and Meyer’s connec- 
 tion with avrod 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 rn, and on which some exegets 
 lay such stress, is evidently a secondary use. The central 
 idea is to preserve for one’s self, and as life is the most valu- 
 able of possessions, so the word was employed, car’ é£oynv— 
 to preserve it. The great majority of critics understand zepu- 
 moinows in the abstract—the possession, 7.e., the people pos- 
 sessed—repitroinOévtes. As a collective noun to denote a 
 body of people, zepetoun is employed in Phil. iii. 38, and so 
 éxdoyn stands in Rom. xi. 7 for of ékXextot. The word thus 
 corresponds to the Hebrew 7p, often rendered by a similar 
 term—repiovowos. Compare Exodus xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, 
 xiv. 2, xxvi. 18; Isaiah xliii. 21; or Mal. ii. 17, écovrai poe 
 eis mepitrotnow. The zepiroinars in the Old Testament refers 
 
 1 Such a meaning belongs to the verb in the Greek classics. Of éveASavres wregs~ 
 txorhouveo ro yweiov. Thucyd. 3, 102. Tas puxes regirosiour9e. Xenoph. Cyrop. 4, 
 4.8. ‘Ht sign xa) 6 daluav weeierdinct. Herodian, 8, 8.12. See the Lexicons of 
 Passow, Pape, and Liddell and Scott, sub voce. 
 
72 EPHESIANS TI. 14. 
 
 not to any possession held by the people, but to the people 
 themselves held in possession by God. Titus 11. 14; and rads 
 els trepitroinow ; 1 Peter ii. 9. The collective people of God 
 are His zreperroinows—the body of the faithful whom He has 
 taken to be His xAfpos. ‘They are His by the blood paid for 
 their ransom. Oltwves, says Theophylact, écpev mrepimrotnots 
 kal KdHows Kal Treptovoia Heod. 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 eds 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 éogpayicOnre 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—ecs implying a future 
 purpose and period, when both shall be superseded. The 
 earnest is enjoyed up till the inheritance be received, then 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 dmodvtpwois is our absolute redemption, as 
 Chrysostom terms it, Wilke understands by aroA’tpwacus— 
 the liberation of the minor on his majority, comparing this 
 passage with one somewhat similar in Galatians. But azronv- 
 Tp@ats 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 15. 73 
 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 arodvTpwots. 
 
 And all issues, eis érawvov tis d0&ns adtodD—“ to the praise 
 of His glory’ —His grace having now done its work. As in 
 verses fifth and sixth, eés with the proximate end is followed 
 by eds with the ultimate purpose. The mepumoinow— the 
 Lorp’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 mapovaia. 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: so that the period 
 of perfection in blessing harmonizes with that of perfection in 
 numbers. As long as the process of redemption is incom- 
 plete, 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 kingdom,” is an appropriate petition on the part of all 
 saints. 
 
 (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, 
 
74 EPHESIANS I. 15. 
 
 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. 
 
 Ava todro—* 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, Gicumenius, and Harless, to 
 give them a reference to the whole previous section. It is 
 better, with Theophylact and Meyer, to jom them to the 13th 
 and 14th verses. or 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 
 “ vou,’ and for you, because ye heard and believed, and were 
 sealed. 
 
 Kayo, rendered “‘Talso.” 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 1?” or 
 is it, ““Ye thank God yourselves, I do it also for you?” 
 thus, as Meyer says, zwsammenwirkt—co-operated with them. 
 These suppositions 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; 
 iQor! vill8; 4051x.33, xtc is Get. el 6eGal: wes 
 Phil. ii. 19; 1 Thess. iii. 5. The word would thus mean 
 ‘“‘ Wherefore I indeed’’—the apostle who first preached to 
 you, and who has never ceased to yearn over you— 
 
 1 Buttmann pronounces it to be an error to write xz; with iota subscribed, § 29 
 n. 2; Jelf, § 14. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 16. 75 
 
 axovoas THY KAO bas Tictw év TO Kuplo ’Inood—* 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, as undérw Ocacdpevos adtovs.1 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 steadfastness 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, § 135, 6, Obs. 5. But this 
 frequentative sense, however, is denied to aorists in the New 
 Testament. Winer, § 40, 5,1. The verb zavowa:, connected 
 with this aorist, is in the present tense, as if the apostle 
 meant to say, that such tidings from Ephesus were so satis- 
 factory, that he could not cease to thank God for them. His 
 thanksgiving 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— 
 
 Thy Kal vas mictw. The expression is peculiar. Winer, 
 § 22, 7, renders it jidem que ad vos pertinet, but in such a 
 version the phrase expresses no other than the common form 
 of the pronoun—vopérepa mictis. Harless and Riickert trans- 
 late, den glauben bet euch—* the faith which is among you; ” 
 Riickert-holding that a species of local meaning is implied in 
 
 1 The criticism of Hammond upon ézeicus is ingenious, but not satisfactory. He 
 renders it here cum sciverim, for 2zot#, he adds, often signifies to know or to under- 
 stand. Gen. xi. 7, xliii. 24; 1 Cor. xiv.2. He that speaketh in an unknown 
 tongue speaketh not to man—ovd<is yxe &zoves—for no one understands him. The 
 use of the verb is similarly idiomatic in the other places cited. It signifies, to hear 
 so as to understand. 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, is to help him. With us in 
 Scotland the order is inverted. One says to his friend, ‘ Speak for a moment,” 
 which means, “‘ Hear me speak for a moment.” 
 
76 EPHESIANS I. 15. 
 
 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 xvi. 28, twes Trav Ka? 
 tpas TonTav— 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,” voyov tod caf’ tbuds—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 asa people. So 
 
 
 
 in Acts xxvi. 8—tov kata “lovéaiovs €OGv—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) 7éotis buoy is used seventeen times, and this 
 form seems to denote not simply possession, as the genitive 
 vpa@v or pronoun vyérepa 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 wicroé 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 vill. 17, 7@ 
 voum TO UueTep@ 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 qoro/ already; and 
 will xara with the partitive meaning imply that some might 
 not have this faith? That faith reposed— 
 
 év T® Kupip “Incod. The usage and meaning of xupios 
 are fully referred to under ver. 2. Such a characteristic faith — 
 
EPHESIANS I. 15. 77 
 
 was in Christ. Winzer! indeed proposes to connect tuds 
 with this clause—fidem, que, vobis Domino Jesu veluti insitis, 
 tnest. The position of the words excludes such a connection. 
 Their faith lay immovable in Jesus, and the same idea, 
 expressed by év, is very frequent in the preceding verses. 
 See under ver. 1. Ivars followed by év is not common ; yet 
 els, Tpos, emi, occur»often in such connection in the Septua- 
 gint ; Ps. lxxyii/ 22; Jer. xu. 6;. Gal. ii. 26; Col. i. 4; 
 1, Tum. i. 14; -i1..13; 2 Tim. 1, 13, iii. 15. | See under the 
 first verse. The miotis, so well defined by xa@ studs, and 
 so closely allied to xupios, 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— 
 
 Kal THY ayaTny THY eis TaVTas Tovs aylovs;— and your 
 love to all the saints.” Some MSS. such as A, B, &c., omit 
 Tv ayarnv, and Lachmann, true to his critical principles, 
 leaves them out in his edition. But the omission is an evi- 
 dent 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—Oavuactyny twa Evvwpida :— 
 
 ayvos is explained under ver. 1. Faith and love are often 
 associated by the apostle. Col. i. 4; Phil. 5; 1 Thess.i. 3. 
 The article is repeated after aydmnv, because the relation 
 expressed by eds is not so intimate as that denoted by é, 
 because it has not the well understood foundation of miotus, 
 and it may also signalize the difference of allusion—dya7n, not 
 to Christ, but—rip e’s mavtas Tovs ayiovs. ‘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 brotker-love is an instinctive emotion, as well as an 
 earnest obligation. In that spiritual temple which the Spirit 
 
 1 Commentatio in Eph. cap. i., v.19. Pfingstprogramm, Leipzig, 1836. 
 
78 EPHESIANS I. 16. 
 
 is rearing in the sanctified bosom, faith and love are the 
 Jachin and Boaz, the twin pillars that grace and support the 
 structure. 
 
 (Ver. 16.) Ov travopat ebyapicTav vrép tbwav—* I cease 
 not giving thanks for you.” ‘Tvrép is thus used, v. 20; 1 Tim. 
 ii. 1. *"Evyapsorety, in the sense of “to give thanks,” belongs 
 to the later Greek, for, prior to the age of Polybius, it signi- 
 fied 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 evyapiorety would mean, 
 “T cease not from a supposed period to give thanks.” Winer, 
 § 45; 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 
 —unsveibands 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. 
 
 pvelav bpov Trovovpevos él TAY Tpocevya@v wou— making 
 mention of you in my prayers.” Rom. i. 9; Phil. 1. 3; 
 1 Thess. i. 23. Some MSS., as A, B, and D, omit tuav, 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 tuev so close upon it, for A and B have the same 
 omission in 1 Thess. i. 2. F and G place the pronoun after 
 the participle. The terms evyapiotay 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 ; zrovovpevos in the middle voice implying—“ for 
 
 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. 79 
 
 himself ’—ézi trav mpocevyav ov. The preposition has a 
 temporal meaning with a sub-local reference. Bernhardy, p. 
 246; Winer, § 47,9; 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 whenever 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 0 @eds tod Kupiou juav Incod Xpictod den 
 —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, &c. 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 Harless, Olshausen, Winer, Robinson, Riickert, and 
 others, in denying the proper telic use of iva in such a con- 
 nection, or after verbs of entreaty. Lllicott also gives it a 
 sub-final meaning—the purport of the prayer being blended 
 with the purpose. Winer, § 44, 8. On the other hand, to 
 deny with Fritzsche the ecbatic sense of fa, is an extreme 
 quite opposed to many passages of the New Testament, and 
 as wrong as to give it too often this softened meaning. Har- 
 less says, that the optative is here used for distinctness, because 
 a 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—iva. Lllicott’s statement is after all but 
 a truism: 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 iva, pointing out the first, 
 also of necessity introduces the last. But the va 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 
 
80 EPHESIANS I. 17. 
 
 intention which he had, when he began to offer the petitions 
 which he was still continuing. Jelf, § 887, y; Devarius-Klotz, 
 p. 622. Had the wish that God would confer blessing begun 
 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. Ady is a later form for 
 doin. Phrynichus ed-Lobeck, pp. 345, 846; Sturz, De dialecto 
 Alexandrino, p. 52. Lachmann, however, reads d#y in the 
 Tonic 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 cds tot Kupiou jpav *Inood Xpucrod—* 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, swb 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 os avOpdérov, Ttatépa S€ ws Oeov. The reader 
 will find an explanation of the phrase under the first clause of 
 the third 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, 
 
EPHESIANS I. 17. 81 
 
 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 Peteri.21. Especially, as Har- 
 less 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,1 
 and adopted by such acute defenders as Cudworth? and Bull.? 
 To admit the divinity of the Son, and yet to deny Him 
 to be avrofeos 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 tllam 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 Réell, Drew, Moses Stuart, Adam Clarke, and 
 others, are, with all their show of argument, without founda- 
 
 1 De Trinitate, i. 5. 2 Intellectual System, vol. ii. 406, ed. 1845, London. 
 
 3 Defensio Fidei Nicene. Works, vol, v. ed. 1827, Oxford. 
 G 
 
82 EPHESIANS I. 17. 
 
 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 devTepos @eds—a secondary Deity. 
 Not only is the Son owoovcvos 7H matpi—of the same essence 
 with the Father, but He is also av7o@cos—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.? 
 
 6 Ilatip ris do&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 vil. 2; Ilatip trav dotwv, James 
 1.17; 0 llathp rap oixtippar, 2 Cor. 1.33 and yepouBelv d0Ens, 
 Heb. ix. 5. Adé&ns is the genitive of characterizing quality. 
 Winer § 34, 2. The notion of Theodoret is, that d0€a 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—xal d0£av pév Tov wovoyeviy 
 Kanet, referring to the phrase in John 1. 14, “the glory of the 
 only-begotten of the Father’”—an idea also repeated by Alford. 
 Theophylact quotes Gregory of Nazianzum as giving the same 
 view—xal cov xai Ilatépa ; Xpictov pev iyouv Tov avOpo- 
 mivov, Oedv: ris Se S0Ens, Hryouv Ths OedrnTos, Hatépa. Cyril 
 also (De Adoratione, lib. xi.), Jerome, and Bengel adopt the 
 same hypothesis. Suicer, Thesaurus, 1. 944, 5. ‘These views 
 
 1 See also Schleiermacher, der Christl. Glaube, § 170-190; Twesten, Vorlesungen 
 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 Calyin— 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 Spiritum Filium, sed proprietate quadam esse distinctos.”— /nstitutio 
 Christ. Religionis, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Berolini, 1834. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 17. 83 
 
 are strained and moulded by polemical feelings, and the use 
 of dd&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 Ilatjp évdofos. De Wette 
 renders—The Father with whom glory is ever present; refer- 
 ring to the last clause of ver. 18—the glory of the inherit- 
 ance. Others find in 7vratyp 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 d0€a 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 dofa as meaning 
 glorious gifts conferred upon us, then such a notion would not 
 be in harmony with the context. That Iat#p may signify 
 originator is plain, though Harless expressly denies it. What 
 is Hlatyp Tév mvevpdtwv but their Creator? (Heb. xii. 9); or 
 Ilatip tév dorov (James i. 17) but their Producer? or Ilarip 
 Tov oiktipyov (2 Cor. 1. 3) but their Originator? Harless 
 refers the 60£a 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, dd£a 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—eés évrauvov 
 do&ns ; enlightened, enfeoffed in an inheritance according to 
 eternal purpose—eis €rrawov d50&ns avtod; and they hear, 
 believe, are sealed, and enjoy the earnest of the Spirit—eis 
 érawov ths S0&ns avtod. The three preceding paragraphs 
 are thus each wound up with a declaration of the final result 
 and purpose—the glory of God. And now, when the apostle 
 refers to God, what more natural than to ascribe to Him that 
 
 1 Adversaria Sacra, i. 350. 
 
84 EPHESIANS I. 17. 
 
 glory which is His own chief end, and His own prime harvest 
 in man’s redemption. Here stand,as repeated and leading ideas, 
 ver. 6, 50&ns—ver. 12, d0&ns—ver. 14, d0Ens ; so that in ver. 17 
 He is saluted with the title, Harp rs d0&ns. This glory is 
 not His essential glory as Jehovah, but the glory which He 
 has gathered for Himself as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 The clause is in close union with the preceding one. This 
 Saviour-God, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, is in this very 
 character the possessor and thus the exhibiter of glory. It is 
 then wholly—spos 76 mpoxeiwevov, as Cicumenius says, that 
 such a title as this is given to God, that is, because of the con- 
 textual 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”—vwpiv 
 —Trvedpa copias Kal atroKkadvews év érvyvooes avtov— the 
 Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.” 
 Though wvevpa 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.1 
 Thus, Matt. xii. 28, év mvevpatr Ocod—“ by the Spirit of 
 God;” Rom. i. 4, cata rvedua aywotvns ; 1 Pet. 1. 2, & 
 aylacpwe mvevuatos ; and in Mark 1.8; Luke 1. 15, 35, 41, 
 67, The reference in these cases is plainly to the Holy Spirit, 
 in some peculiar phases and manifestations of His divine in- 
 fluence. ‘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. Rom. 
 vill. 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 codia mvevwatexj—spiritual 
 wisdom—in explanation of mvetwa codias, but Chrysostom 
 
 1 Compare Gersdorf, Beitrage zur Sprach-Characteristik der Schriftsteller des neuen 
 Test., Kap, iy. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 17. 85 
 
 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—date Ova Tod mrvevpatos pwotic Ohvat.” 
 The Reformers supposed that the Spirit of grace and revela- 
 tion is taken for the grace itself, as Calvin explains—spiritus 
 sapientiv et revelationis pro ipsa gratia capitur. We prefer a 
 clear and formal reference to the Holy Spirit—the gift of God 
 through Christ. odéa and aroxddvis 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 dzroxaddvis 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. Lodia is wisdom, higher intelligence, rising at 
 length into the “riches of the full assurance of understanding.” 
 It is connected with dzoxddvwis, 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, codia, 
 however, being, according to him, the subjective condition, 
 and doxddvis, 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 copia is the general and 
 
86 EPHESIANS I. 17. 
 
 atroxarvyis 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 velicle of 
 its bestowment. 
 
 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 
 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 ériuyveécet avtod. The avrod 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 ewm in dies 
 magis magisque 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 17. 87 
 
 open to you the knowledge of him silfe.” Meyer, Harless, and 
 Matthies suppose that év marks out the sphere of operation— 
 die Geistige Thiitige-sphére. Connecting the words especially 
 with doxadt ews, we suppose them, while they formally 
 denote the sphere, virtually to indicate the material of the reve- 
 lation. 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? Itis as a Spirit of wisdom. Tow is this 
 wisdom communicated by Him? By revelation. What is 
 the central sphere, and the characteristic type, of this revela- 
 tion? It is the knowledge of God, not agnitio, as the Vul- 
 gate 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.! ’Emiyvwots Oecod is the 
 science, and codia is the result induced by the Spirit of reve- 
 lation. The preposition é7ré, in ézi-yveots, contains probably 
 the idea of the “ additional” as the image of intensive. Such 
 a preposition sometimes loses its full original force in compo- 
 sition, but it would be wrong to say with Olshausen, that here 
 such a meaning is wholly obliterated. Tittmann, De Syno- 
 nymis, &e., p. 217; Wilke, Appendix, p. 560. *Emiyvwots 
 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 7 
 METH THY TPOTHY yvoow TOV TmpdywaTtos Kata Sivamw Trav- 
 TeAns Katavonows. The simple verb and its compound are 
 used with beautiful distinction in 1 Cor. xiii. 12, dpte ywookw 
 Ex pépous, TOTe € eruyveoouat. ‘That knowledge of God in 
 
 1 Stier quotes a remark “sehr naiv” from one of Francke’s Fast-Sermons, illus- 
 trating 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.” 
 
88 EPHESIANS I. 18. 
 
 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 éviyveors signifies the knowledge of experience, because 
 dvvamus stands as its object. This view, however, is defective, 
 for dtvapyis is not the only object—there is also the ‘ inher- 
 itance,” which is future, and therefore so far external to 
 believers. 
 
 Some, however, join the clause with the following verse— 
 “Tn 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 copia and amoxdduvis 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 ¢w7ifw is nowhere accompanied by év ; in Rev. 
 xviii. 1, itis followed by éx. The Syriac renders, “ And would 
 enlighten the eyes of your hearts to know what is,” &c. 
 
 (Ver. 18.) Ilepwricpévous tors ofpOarpors ths Kxapdias 
 tpav—< The eyes of your heart having been enlightened ;” 
 that is, by the gifts or process just described. Kapédias is 
 now generally preferred to dvavoias, as it has preponderant 
 authority, such as MSS. A, B, D, E, F, G, &c., with the 
 Syriac, Coptic, and Vulgate, &c. Thus, too, Clemens Ro- 
 manus—oi df0arpol ths Kapdias. Hp. ad Corinth. § 36. 
 Various forms of construction have been proposed. 1. Some 
 understand the clause to be the accusative governed by den. 
 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 ofOadpovs is against such a 
 
EPHESIANS I. 18. 89 
 
 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 df@adpovs 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. Ilepatucuévouvs may 
 be supposed to agree by anticipation with the following buds 
 — “that you, enlightened as to the eyes of your heart.” 3. 
 Ellicott,takes it as a lax construction of the participle repwtic- 
 pévous referring to buiv, with rods opOarwovs as the accusative 
 of limiting reference. But in a broken construction the par- 
 ticiple usually reverts to the nominative. See Buttmann, Gram. 
 der Neutest. Sprach. § 145-46. 4. 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 eivaz understood, and 
 that the formula is then equivalent to dwtifecOa. 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. Seelenlehre, § 26. 
 The verb dwrigw, 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 i. 4, viii. 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 gas. 
 Matt. xiii. 15; Mark vi. 52; John xii. 40.1. The figure is 
 
 1 Olshausen’s virtual denial of any reference in the phrase to the perceptive 
 faculty, is contrary to the passages quoted. See also his Opuscula, p. 159. 
 
90 EPHESIANS I. 18. 
 
 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— 
 
 els TO eldévat Umas, Tis €oTW 1) EXTris THS KANTEWS avTOD— 
 “that ye may know what is the hope of His calling’”’—the 
 infinitive of aim with eds 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. K)Ajjous 
 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 insures 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 
 KAjows is the incipient realization of the ékAoy7. Calovius 
 and Goodwin take €Azis wrongly as the ground of hope. 
 Zanchius, Calovius, Flatt, Meyer, Harless, and Baumgarten- 
 Crusius maintain it to be the subjective hope which His 
 calling creates, but the reference seems rather to be to the 
 object of that hope—the inheritance of the following clause. 
 *Exrris 18 TO €XriGopevov—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. 11.13. 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 
 
 ~~. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 18. 91 
 
 mean gualis vel cujusnam nature, with Harless; nor quanta, 
 mwotary, 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 calling? 
 Abraham’s calling had hope, and not immediate possession 
 attached to it, for notehe, but his seed, were to inherit in future 
 years. Salvation is partially enjoyed by “the called” on 
 earth, but snuch of it is in reserve for them in heaven. There- 
 fore all that lies over for us creates hope, and this rich rever- 
 sion 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 to the influence 
 of the truth and the Spirit. The apostle also specifies a 
 second design— 
 
 Kal Tis 0 WRODTOS THS SoEns THs KAnpovomwlas avTod év Tots 
 aylows—* and what the wealth of the glory of His inheritance 
 among the saints.” The «ai is omitted by some MSS., such 
 as A, B, Dt, K, G, and by Lachmann; but it is found in the 
 majority of MSS., and is rightly retained by Tischendorf. 
 The repetition of «aé in the next verse might have led to its 
 omission. Tis 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 ke enjoyed in the future, the genitives being those of 
 possession. KAnpovoyia has been already explained under 
 ver. 11, in connection with the verb ékAnpoOnper. 
 
 The phrase év tots ayiows is attended with some difficulty. 
 1. Winer and others insert the verb éo7z, 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 
 
92 EPHESIANS I. 18. 
 
 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 év in the sense of “among,’—“ among the 
 saints.” Job. xlii. 15. Of Job’s daughters it is said, their 
 father gave them «Anpovoyiav év Tois adeXpots— among their 
 brethren.” So Acts xx. 32, cAnpovouilav év tots yryvacpévors 
 —‘ inheritance among the sanctified.” Also Acts xxvi. 18. 
 Perhaps the full formula may be seen in Numb. xviii. 23, év 
 péow viov “lopanr Kdrnpovouiav. There seems no need to 
 supply écrwy, as is done by Ellicott after Meyer—nor does the 
 article need to be repeated. “Aros has been explained under 
 the first verse, and means here, those possessed of completed 
 holiness, or as Cameron—tovs tetererwpévous. 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 inci- 
 pient heritage, but not in its full fruition. It is not here pre- 
 sented 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 18. 93 
 
 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 enjoy- 
 ments, 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 har- 
 mony 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 communion with God must be a happy spirit; 
 but there are likewise “riches of glory,” since that blessed- 
 ness is unchanging, 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 wroughf 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 
 
94 EPHESIANS I. 19. 
 
 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 ri 7d trrepBardrAov péyeOos Ths Suvvdpews 
 avToD éls Huds Tvs MLaTeVovTas—‘ And what is the exceed- 
 ing greatness of His power to us-ward who believe.” 2 Cor. 
 xii. 4. The apostle writes tis . . Tis . . Téi—repeating 
 the adjective in his emphatic and distinct enumeration. Eis 
 7was— in the direction of us’”’—is most naturally connected 
 with dvvdwews, and not with an understood éot1—power exer- 
 cised upon us believers. Winer, § 49, ed. 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 
 brép 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 of dy.or, 
 but those on whom rests this power in the meantime are only 
 oi mecTevovtes ; and while in recording his prayer he naturally 
 says “you,” he now as naturally includes himself—ras. 
 
 The connection of this with the following clause is im- 
 portant—kata tiv évépyecav. Some join the words with the 
 immediately preceding mictevovras —an exegesis followed 
 by Chrysostom, Meier, Matthies, and Hodge. On the other 
 hand, the words are joined to dvvdwews 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. i. 12. But the adoption of 
 such a meaning, advocated also by Crellius, Griesbach,! and 
 
 1 Opuscula, ii. 9; Brevis Commentatio in Ephes. i. 19. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 19. 95 
 
 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 cata 
 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 wucrevw 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 ; «atd—after the model of that 
 power which operated in Christ. 
 
 It weakens the point of the apostle’s argument to take the 
 clause followed by card merely as an amplification, as Chry- 
 sostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Hstius, Grotius, Meier, and Winzer 
 have done. It is not the apostle’s design to illustrate the 
 mere v7zrepBadddov—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 édaris and «dnpovomla, and regarding the paragraph as a 
 general illustration of the nature of the hope, and the wealth 
 and glory of the inheritance. hus Ambrosiaster :—Hxemplum 
 salutis credentium et glorie in resurrectione Salvatoris consistere 
 profitetur, ut ex ea cognoscant fideles quid eis promissum est. 
 This explanation is too vague, for évépyeca and the allied words 
 are connected with dvvaws naturally, but not with the hopes 
 or the inheritance. The exegesis of Harless would imply, 
 that the blessings described in the paragraph are future bless- 
 ings, 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 hereajter quicken us even as it did 
 Christ.” What he calls primary the context places as secon- 
 
96 EPHESIANS I. 19. 
 
 dary, 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 card, 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, catd—after the model of that energy 
 which God wrought in Christ. icumenius has the right idea 
 to some extent when he compares the two acts—70 dvachvat 
 nas ToD WuytKod Oavdtouv Kal TO avacThvat TOV cwpaTLKOD 
 tov Xpiotov. 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 duiv, as he has said év 7@ Xpioro, is without foun- _ 
 dation, 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 1)uas Tods meotevovtas. 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 exceed- 
 ing 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 évépyeLay TOD KpadTous THs icxvos avtov— 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 20. 97 
 
 mere accumulation of synonymes, would indeed be a slovenly 
 exegesis. Nor is it better to reduce the phrase to a Hebraism, 
 connecting tod xpdtovs, as Peile proposes, with évépyecar, 
 as if it were equivalent to tiv xpatodcay ; or, on the other 
 hand, resolving it either into xpdtos icyupov, or ioyds Kpa- 
 Tepd, as is recommended by Koppe and the lexicographers 
 Bretschneider, Robinson, and Wahl. “Ioyvs, connected with 
 icy@, another form of éyw, 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 Peter ii. 11. 
 Kpdros, from xpds, the head, is that power excited into action 
 —might. Luke 1.51; Acts xix. 20; Heb. ii. 14. “Ioyus, 
 viewed or evinced in relation to result, is xpdtos. Hence it 
 is used with the verb zroveiv. 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 opera- 
 tion. “Ioyvs, to take a familiar illustration, is the power lodged 
 in the arm, «pdtos is that arm stretched out or uplifted with 
 conscious aim, while évépyeca is the same arm at actual work, 
 accomplishing the designed result. Calvin compares them 
 thus: doyvs—radix ; kpatos—arbor ; évépyeva—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 analyti- 
 cally; first in actual operation—évépyeva; then he looks beyond 
 that working and sees the motive power—xpértos ; and still 
 beneath this he discerns the original unexhausted might— 
 tcyvs. 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 con- 
 template 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.) “Hy évipyncev ev TO Xpict@, eyeipas avrov ék 
 vexpov— Which He wrought in Christ, having raised Him 
 
 H 
 
98 EPHESIANS I. 20. 
 
 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, 2. The use of a 
 verb with its correlate noun has been noticed already, chap. 1. 
 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 accep- 
 tance 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—vzepBadrov 
 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 vivity 
 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 vertebrae 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 
 
 a ee 
 
 ois. 
 
 | eee gin A emer 
 
EPHESIANS I. 20. 99 
 
 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 resto- 
 ration of spiritual life to the dead soul results immediately 
 from the working ofthe 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 
 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. i. 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 cata 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 tterum fiert potest. 
 Chrysostom, on the first verse of the next chapter, says—6ru 
 Tovs vexpors avicTay TO Wuyiy vevexpopméevyny tdcacOat TOAXRO 
 pecbov €ots-—‘ to heal a dead soul is a far greater thing than to 
 raise the dead.”” But when God raised His Son—the repre- 
 
100 EPHESIANS I. 20. 
 
 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 cove- 
 nanted blessings. Olshausen makes the general resurrection 
 of believers from the dead the principal 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— 
 kai éxdOioev év Se€ta adtod év Tots érrovpaviows— and He 
 set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places.” 
 Lachmann reads xa@icas, 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 évyp- 
 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, 2,2. The 
 transition is sometimes marked by 6é. 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. 44—rapBavovtes—xal ov Enretre ; 2 John 2—r7v pévoveav 
 —kai €orat. So in the present passage. The sense is com- 
 plete—éyelpas avdtov éx vexpov ; 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 xai kaOicas, but é«d@vcev—his mind fondly 
 
EPHESIANS I. 20. 101 
 
 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 honotr 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 év tots évovpavious, 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@icev 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 rein), wants 
 the personal pronoun as its accusative in 1 Sam. ii. 8. 
 
 év dc&a adrov—“ at His own right hand.” Mark xvi. 19; 
 Heb. vii. 1; x.12; xii.2. The language refers us to Ps. ex. 
 
 év Tois éevroupaviows. ‘The phrase has been explained under 
 ver. 8. Lachmann reads—éy tots 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 caelestis. 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 ra érrovpavia 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 il. 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 
 
102 EPHESIANS I. 21. 
 
 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 évwous caW broctacw, 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) 
 —Cavendum est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut 
 veritatem corporis auferamus. 
 
 (Ver. 21.) ‘Yrepdvw raons apyis cat eEovaolas Kai Suvapews 
 Kal KupioTntos—“ 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, 
 
 1Jn the Formula Concordie, ii. 8, De Persona Christi, ubiquity is without hesi- 
 tation claimed for Christ’s humanity—-“ Ut videlicet etiam secundam illam suam 
 assumtam naturam, et cum ed prasens esse possit, et quidem presens sit, ubicunque 
 velit.’—Die symbolischen Biicher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, ed. Miiller, 
 Stuttgart, 1848, p. 674, et seg. THase, Hutterus Redivivus, § 105. Schmidt, Dog- 
 matik der Evang.-Luth. Kirche, p. 243, &e. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 21. 103 
 
 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: dpyai are defined by Diony- 
 slus—@s éxeivnv THY apxiv avahaivovoa ; Svvamers are pro- 
 nounced by Theodoret—os wAnpobv Ta KedXevopeva Suvapevot ; 
 and the xcupuorntes are stated by Phavorinus to be—éduvdpers 
 arytat NecToupytKai 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. 1. 22. Jesus is described 
 as at the right hand of the Father—eév to7s évrovpavious, 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 
 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, weuld 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 
 
104 EPHESIANS TI. 21. 
 
 Chrysostom, that the names are to us donua Kal od yvapito- 
 Heva; 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. 1. 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, xcupsorntes, 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 apy enjoys and displays éfovcia; and 
 whoever is invested with the dvvayis, wields it in his ap- 
 pointed xvpioTns. Speculations on the angelic world, its 
 number, rank, and gradations, were frequent in the earlier 
 centuries. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzum set the example, 
 but the pseudo-Dionysius mustered the whole angelic band 
 under his review, and arranged them in trinary divisions :— 
 
 I. ©pévor, XepouRiu, Sepadiw. 
 II. Kupsérnres, “Eovcral, Auydjeis. 
 TID. *Apyai,’Apyayyero,” Ayyero. 
 
 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 
 
 1 Enchiridion, cap. 58, 2 Mierarchia Ceelestis, cap. vi. 
 3 Eisenmenger, Hntdecktes Judenthum, ii. p. 374; Boehmer, Isugoge in Ep. ad Col. 
 p. 292; Petavius, Dogmata Theol.tom. iii. p. 101; Twesten, Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 305. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 21. 105 
 
 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.” 
 
 ‘uTepdva— 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 dvw. 
 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, xxviii. 1; 
 Pigerks 1.025, 'x. 19. x1. 22. 
 
 The second clause expands and rivets the idea of the first, 
 and corresponds, as Stier well remarks, to the ovre tls xriots 
 érépa, in Rom. viii. 89. For the apostle subjoims— 
 
 Kal TavTos dvopaTos ovowafouévov—“ and every name that 
 is named.” Ka 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 
 Bloomfield, take dvowa here as a name or title of honour, 
 referring to Phil. 11.9; 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, dévowa 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 exalta- 
 tion, 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-—mdav évoya is 
 
106 EPHESIANS I. 22. 
 
 simply for wav ; Beza renders—quicquid existit. Cicumenius 
 makes it equivalent to may pytov Kat ovowactov—which is 
 preferable. 
 
 ov povoy év TO ai@ve TOUT@, GAA Kal ev TA pwéeArOVTL— 
 “ not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” 
 This clause does not belong to the preceding éxadOucev, 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 dvowafouévov-— every name named, not only 
 in this world, but also in that which fs to come.”’” What, then, 
 is meant by ai@y obtos and ai@y wéAXwv? 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 
 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. Nihil est, says 
 Calvin, tam sublime aut excellens quocungue 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.) Kai ravta vrétatev td Tovs Twédas adbTodD— 
 “ And put all things under His feet.” The allusion is clearly 
 
 1 Vide Koppe, Excursus I.; Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra, vol. i. 618. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 22. 107 
 
 to the language of the 8th Psalm. In the 110th Psalm the 
 enemies of Messiah are specially referred to, and their subju- 
 gation 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 quo- 
 tation from the Psalms Theodoret names 77)v tpodytixiy 
 paptupiay, 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 &dmxe Kehadynv UTrép TavTa TH exxrnoia—“ and 
 gave Him to be Head over all things to the church.” There 
 is no reason for changing the ordinary meaning of é@xe, and 
 rendering it “ appointed ’”—é@yxe—as is suggested by Calvin, 
 Beza, Harless, Meier, and Olshausen. In chap. iv. 11, we 
 have the same verb. His occupancy of this exalted position 
 is a divine benefaction to the church; His appointment is the 
 result of love, which gives with wise and willing generosity. 
 Nay more, and with emphasis—«at avrov é@xe—“ and Him 
 he gave.” The natural meaning of édwxe is thus sustained 
 by the prefixing of the pronoun, and it governs the dative, 
 éxxdyoia, after it. This repetition of the pronoun intensifies 
 the idea, and its position in this clause is emphatic—“ and 
 Him, so exalted and invested, so rich in glory and power— 
 even Him and none other, has He given as Head.” 
 
108 EPHESIANS I. 22. 
 
 The most difficult phrase is ceharyv trép mavta. The 
 Vulgate merely evades the difficulty by its translation—supra 
 -omnem ecclesiam. The Syriac rendering is preferable :— 
 “Him who is over all hath He given to be Head,” trans- 
 posing the order of the words, a rendering followed by Chry- 
 ‘sostom—tov évta vTép mavta Xpictov ; and the same idea is 
 adopted by Erasmus, Camerarius, Estius, and a-Lapide. The 
 position of the words shows that vzrép wravta qualifies cepadip. 
 But in‘what sense? Not— 
 
 1. In the vague sense of “special.” Eri &ov—in “ pre- 
 ference to all,” as it is explained by Bodius and Baumgarten. 
 Bodius thus paraphrases— Super omnia, nempe cetera supertus 
 enumerata, hoc est, pre aliis omnibus creaturis. Nor— 
 
 2. In the general sense of “‘ Supreme Head,” as is advo- 
 cated by Beza, Riickert, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ols- 
 hausen, Conybeare, Bisping, and De Wette. This exegesis 
 gives u7ép the sense of “above,” as the highest head is the 
 Head above all other heads. Koppe resolves it by trrepéyouca 
 ravtwv— overtopping all;’’ but no comparison 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—xehars trep mdavra. But the 
 advra 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 
 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 xepady 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, § 8302. Christ is already declared by the apostle to 
 be above all in position and power, iaép mdvra ; but besides, 
 
EPHESIANS I. 22. 109 
 
 He is by the Father’s gift xefpary to the church. The wavra 
 are not connected with Him as their cedand7, their relation to 
 Him being merely denoted by b7ép; but the church claims 
 Him as its Biot, yea, claims as its Head Him who is over 
 all. Were the b7ép to be taken in the active sense of super- 
 intendence, the genitive would be employed, as Harless inti- 
 mates; but it denotes here, above or beyond all in honour and 
 prerogative, for d7ép in the New Testament with the accusa- 
 tive, has always this tropical meaning. Matt. x. 24; Luke 
 xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 133; Phil. 11.9; Philem. 16. The signi- 
 fication, 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 wdvra refers not to 
 members of the church, as Jerome and Wahl argue and as 
 Harless favours, but to things beyond the church, being equi- 
 valent to 7dvra in the preceding clauses; nor is the word to 
 be restricted to good angels, as gees and Cicumenius 
 seem. to suppose. 
 
 The noun éxxAnoia is the name of the holy and believing 
 community under the New Testament. Its meaning is obvious 
 —the one comp m, 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, Nésselt, 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 dat/vus commodi, nor is it connected with 
 the cehadyv immediately preceding as its complement, but 
 it belongs naturally to the verb é6wxev. The relation of Christ 
 to the church is not that of austere government, or lofty and 
 distant patronage. He is not to it merely trép mrdavta— 
 a 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 wdavra will “ work together for good.” Under 
 His “ over all’? Headship, everything that happens benefits 
 His people-—discoveries in science, inventions in art, and revo- 
 
 
 
—_—_ 
 
 110 EPHESIANS I. 23. 
 
 lutions 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 
 remarkable words— 
 
 (Ver. 23.) “Hrus éoriv 76 Ga abtob—“ Which indeed is 
 Hlis body.” “Htus—welche ja, as it is rendered by De Wette. 
 Kiihner, § 781, 4,5. Of this meaning of éo7us there are many 
 examples in the New Testament, though it has also other sig- 
 nifications. ‘‘ Head over all things to the church, which in 
 truth is His body.” The mode of expression is not uncommon. 
 Chap. ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 16, v. 23, 30; 1 Cor. xii. 155 Col. 1, 
 18, 24, ii. 19, iii. 15, &c. Head and body are correlative, 
 and are organically connected. The body is no dull lump of 
 clay, 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” 
 with symmetry and grace to serve the one design; there 
 being organization, and not merely juxtaposition. There is 
 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 
 
 -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 prin- 
 ciple 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 23, 111 
 
 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 
 cognizance 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-operation, 
 and support, are anticipated and provided for. No organ is 
 superfluous, and none can defy or challenge its fellow. Simi- 
 lar fulness and adjustment reign in the church. See under 
 iv. 15,16. Not only is the church His body, but also— 
 
 TO TANPOUa TOU TA TavVTA év Tact TAHPOUpEVOU— the 
 fulness of Him that filleth all in all.” 
 
 1. The term 7jpwpa is in apposition to cdma, and is not 
 governed by édexe, as is the strange view of Homberg, Cas- 
 talio, and Erasmus, who says—7o mAxjpwpa videtur accusandi 
 casu legendum, ut referatur ad Christum. Meier holds a 
 similar view, making the words #jrus éotl TO o@pa adtod a 
 parenthesis, and supposing that wAjp@ya stands in apposition 
 to avrév. This arrangement not only does violence to the 
 natural and obvious syntax, but, as Olshausen well observes, 
 God cannot make Christ to be the wAjpwya, 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 7Anpwpa as neither referring to the church, nor as 
 governed by éd@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 that 
 it signifies that “ which is in God abundantly,” and that it is 
 employed as a species of nominative in apposition to 0 Oeds 
 TAoVCLOS, li. 4. 
 
 2. Many understand the noun in the general sense of mul- 
 titude— copia, cetus numerosus, making 7Ajpwpa equivalent to 
 mAHGos. Such is the view which Storr calls probable, and it is 
 that of Wetstein, Koppe, Kiittner, Wahl, and even Fritzsche. 
 
 
 
 1 Comment. in Rom. vol. ii. 469, 
 
112 EPHESIANS I. 23. 
 
 Hesychius and Phavorinus define wAnpaya by 7AjPos, and 
 Schoettgen renders, Multitudo cui Christus preest. This notion 
 is plainly unwarranted by the philology of the term. I)j@os 
 has always a reference to abundance, but such an idea is only 
 secondary in wA7jpaua—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 wAnpoupévov? Besides, the idea of unity in 
 capa would ill correspond with that of multiplicity given to 
 mdjpopa. Cameron and Bos render rAjpopa “ the full body,” 
 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 ny2¢!—the divine glory, or visible manifestation of 
 God, which some, such as Harless, identify with wAjpeopa. 
 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 
 of the divine radiance fell upon it. 
 
 4, Allied to this last view is the more general one of those 
 who regard the wAjpe@ua in the light of a temple in which 
 the glory of God resides, and who refer it in this sense to the 
 church. Michaelis and Bretschneider espouse this notion, the 
 latter of whom paraphrases 7A1jpaua—quasi templum, in quo 
 habitat, quod occupat et regit, ut anima corpus. ‘The idea of 
 Harless, found originally in Hackspann, is very similar. As,” 
 says he, “the apostle employs the same term to denote the 
 church, which he uses to represent the richness of that glory 
 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 Al/—in all places—‘ The whole 
 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. p. 2394; Wageuseil, Sota, p. 83. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 23. 118 
 
 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 asense, 
 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 wAnpwpa 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—coparixds, 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 yds embody the intransitive notion of 
 the verb, while those in ovs have an active, and those in wa 
 have a passive sense, or express the result of the transitive 
 idea contained in the verb. Kiihner, § 870. The theory, 
 however, is often modified by usage. According to it—and 
 in this case it is verified by many examples—mAnpoya will 
 be equivalent to ro wemAjpwpevov—the thing filled, just as 
 Tpayua 18 TO Tempayywévov—the thing done; or the word may be 
 taken in an abstract sense, as «Adoa—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 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 
 I 
 
114 EPHESIANS I. 23. 
 
 then of the contained, or the reverse. ‘Thus, Ps. xxiv. 13 
 1 Cor. x. 26, 7 yA Kal 70 TANpwMa adTAs— the earth and its 
 fulness.” So the noun is used of the inhabitants 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 comple- 
 ment, 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—Ajpwais, but they are looked upon simply as being 
 already filled up. 
 
 The great question has been, whether 7A/jpwya has an active 
 or a passive sense. Critics are divided. Hazrless? 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 some- 
 times occurs in the so-called active sense, denoting that which 
 fills up (Matt. ix. 16), where wA7pwpa is equivalent to ési- 
 AAnwa—the piece of new cloth designed to fill up the rent. 
 Mark 1. 21. But it is often used in a passive sense to denote 
 fulness—the state of fulness: Mark viii. 20, Iocwv orupisav 
 TAnpoeywata— “the fulnesses of how many baskets ”-—“ how 
 many filled baskets of fragments?” So Rom. xii. 10, wA7- 
 powa vowouv— fulfilment or full obedience of the law.”’ The 
 idea of amplitude is sometimes involved, as Rom. xv. 29, év 
 TANPOLaTL evLoyias—“ in the fulness of the blessing ;’’ and in 
 Rom. x1. 25, tAjpwpa Tov eOvdv-— the fulness of the Gen- 
 tiles,’ where it is opposed to amd pépous, and in the 12th 
 verse 18 contrasted with #77rnwa. As applied to time (Gal. 
 iv. 4; Eph. 1. 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- 
 
 1 Robinson, Passow, Liddell and Scott, sub voce. 
 
 ? Ich betrachte es nun mit Bihr als ein unzweifelhaftes Resultat der geftihrten 
 Untersuchung, dass es im N. T. nur im activen Sinne gebraucht werde, &e. p. 122. : 
 
 3 Gewiss aber hat ra%eaue auch in N. T., wie in dem gesammten Sprachgebrauche 
 purchaus passive Bedeutung, nur den Schein activer Bedeutung nimmt es, &e.— 
 p. 50. 
 
EPHESIANS I. 23. 115 
 
 tom, (icumenius, Ambrosiaster, Theophylact, Anselm, Thomas 
 Aquinas, Calvin,! Beza,? Rollock, Zanchius, Hammond, Cro- 
 clus, Zegerus, Calovius, Estius, Bodius, Passavant, Richter, 
 von Gerlach, Bisping, and Hofmann. The words of Chrysos- 
 tom are—“ The head is in a 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.’’3 
 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 wA7jpeaua in the New 
 Testament, and it stretches the figure to an undue extent. 
 Besides, where wAnpeépma has such an active sense, it is 
 followed by the genitive of what it fills up, as wAnpépata 
 kKkacpatwv. 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 supplement 
 is required. We are not warranted to use language as to the 
 person of Christ, as if either absolute or relative imperfection 
 marked it. According to this hypothesis also, that 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 in a 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 
 
 1 Hic vero, says Calvin, summus honor est Ecclesiz, quod se Filius Dei quodam- 
 modo imperfectum reputat, nisi nobis sit conjunctus. 
 
 ? 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 TlAjewux guot, rourioriv, ony xEQury TAveovTar Taee TOU ThecTOs’ Dik yee TevTmY [LEeaiy 
 70 oBlnn cuvicrnze zak Evos Exerrov yences. “Oow xais edtov xowh rdvrov yenlovre ticayes. 
 "Ay yee (en Gtney Torro zal 6 ely yele, 6 D2 Tous, 6 D2 HAAG Th Lieos, OD TANCOU THI OAoY TO CHLLn. 
 Ale wdveoy ody rAveddros 76 cape airod. Tore sAneovras i xeQuds, rors TiAtioy can yivera, 
 
 . ee: > , y a 
 OTHY OLLOU TAYTES WLLEY TUYYILLLE VOL ZOLk TUYHEXOAANLLEVOL. 
 
116 EPHESIANS I. 23. 
 
 from Christ to us. We need scarcely allude to the view of 
 Riickert, that wAjpwpa is the means by which the wAnpodv 
 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 toGod. But ta wavra can- 
 not be restricted to the Divine plan of that redemption, which 
 the church is Christ’s means of working out, neither can 
 TAnpoua 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 Theodo- 
 ret,’ Cocceius, Grotius, Réell, 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 
 TAHpwua is employed, Lucian, Rerum Hist. ii. 37, Azo dvo 
 TAnpowaToVv éuayovro—they fought from two filled vessels ; 
 and so, 38—évte yap eiyov TAnp@ywata—the ship being*named 
 TAnpwua from its full equipment. So the church is named 
 mAnp@ya, 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 7Anpwpa, for He ascended—iva 
 TAnp@cn Ta TavtTa. Again, Col. ii. 10—«Kai éote ev adT@ 
 meTAnpwpévoc— in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily, and in Him ye are filled,’—ye have become His 
 TAnpopa or fulness. John i. 16—‘ Of His fulness have all 
 we received, and so we become His fulness.” Believers are 
 filled unto all the fulness of God—that fulness which dwells 
 in Him, i. 19. 
 
 The rod which follows wAnpwua 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 
 
 1 Theodoret thus explains it—izzanoiay...... xeornyoetvot ToD pety Xeiorod ctima, rou dE 
 Tareas tAhewpen Exrieurt ying wirhy ravrodardy yreircray, zc) olnes bv ceUTH, zoel Emmegimores 
 nore viv xeogutiziy goviy, This interpretation is wrong in one particular, but it 
 
 rightly explains z/euue. 
 
EPHESIANS TI. 23. 117 
 
 spoken of; the church is His body, and the next clause 
 stands in apposition—‘“‘ which is also His fulness ’’— 
 
 Ta TavTa ev Tadow TAnpovpévov. Td is not found in the 
 Textus Receptus, but on the testimony of A, B, D, E, F, G, 
 J, K—the majority of minuscules, &c., and the Greek fathers, 
 it is rightly received into the text. Many take wAnpoupévou 
 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 qu efficiat omnia in 
 omnibus reverd. If the participle be taken as a passive form, 
 the words ta maya év raat 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. 
 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 usfulljandins— 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—rravta and wao.—seem to be neuter, and are 
 therefore to be taken in their broadest significance— who fills 
 the universe with all blessings.” In Col. 1. 16, ra maya is 
 used as the appellation of the universe which the Son of God 
 has created. 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. ii. 9. It narrows the sense 
 of the idiom to give 7a@ov a masculine 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 
 
 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 
 provinciz, et populorum multitudo succrescat, ita et Christus in eo quod sibi credunt 
 omnia—ipse adimpletur in omnibus. 
 
 3 Hellen. 6, 2, 14. 4 Gorg. 493. 5 Onomast. 164-175. 
 
118 EPHESIANS I. 23. 
 
 Cramer, to interpret it as meaning, that religious blessings 
 are no longer nationally restricted, but may be enjoyed by 
 all!! The preposition is instrumental, v. 18. Winer, § 48, 
 2, d. The true meaning is—“in all things,” as Fritzsche 
 rightly maintains. Comment. in Rom., xi. 12. The idiom 
 Gecursyia@or xv. 285 '2 Corsa. 65 D/P. ny dls) Dit, a9) 
 Macknight, preceded by Whitby, takes wdvra as a masculine 
 —“who fills all his members with all blessings.” But why 
 should the adjective dwindle in meaning? Why should 
 ta wavra be less comprehensive here than the repeated 
 indefinite mdvra 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, 
 do. § 176, &. But see also Thomasius, Christi Person und 
 Werk, vol. 11. § 45; Schmid, Die Dogmatik der Evang. Luth. 
 Kirche, §§ 31, 32, 33. 
 
 The church, then, is the 7A7pawa—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 storehouse, “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 
 overflowing, “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 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS I. 23. 119 
 
 upon the church and enjoyed by it, constitute it a filled 
 church, and being so filled by Christ, it is aptly and emphati- 
 eally 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 mavta, as gathered together in Him. As 
 all ranks of unfallen* beings are beneath Him, they receive 
 their means of happiness from Him; and as ail 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. 
 
Ol eUsU cee Go 
 
 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.) Kai twas dvtas vexpodvs toils maparT@pyace Kat 
 Tats awaptiars— 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 tuas is not tméraker, 
 nor €7Aynpwce mentally supplied, nor the wAnpoupévov 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 cuveSworoince 
 in ver. 5, as Jerome and (cumenius rightly affirm, though 
 the former blames Paul for a loose construction there—conjunc- 
 tionem vero causalem arbitramur, aut ab indoctis scriptoribus 
 additum et vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso Paulo, qui 
 erat imperitus sermone sed non scientia superflue, usurpatam. 
 The thought is again interrupted between ver. 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 6é in ver. 4. Bengel, 
 Lachmann, and Harless separate the two chapters only by a 
 
EPHESIANS II. 1. 121 
 
 comma, but the sense is complete at the termination of the 
 first chapter, and the «ai—giving emphasis, however, to the 
 following }44s—continues the discourse, signifying not “even,” 
 but simply “and.” 
 
 The MSS. B, D, E, F, G, &c. the Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, 
 and Latin versions, with Jerome, Theodoret, and Ambrosi- 
 aster, place dudy 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 éavtév, showing 
 emendation at work. It is long since attempts were made to 
 show a distinction between mapartouata and dpapria. 
 Augustine, in his twentieth question on Leviticus, says— 
 Potest etiam videri illud esse delictum, quod imprudenter, illud 
 peccatum quod ab sciente committitur. Jerome says that the 
 former is—quasi initia peccatorum, and the latter—eum quid 
 opere consummatum pervenit ad finem. ‘These definitions are 
 visionary and unsupported. On the other hand, Olshausen 
 regards TapavT@pmara as denoting sinful actions, and duaptiat 
 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 tapamtopata as spi- 
 ritual errors and obscurations;and daptiéac as moral sins and 
 faults. ‘littmann says that the first substantive refers to sin 
 as if rashly committed, and is, therefore, a milder term than 
 apaptiat, which denotes a willing act. De Synonymis, &c. 
 p.45. Lastly, Harless gives it as his view, that tapdaTwpa 
 denotes the concrete lapse—the act, while the term dpuapriat, 
 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. 
 (Ilapam7tepa 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 
 
122 EPHESIANS Ii 1. 
 
 all kinds of sin, all forms and developments of a sinful nature. 
 Thus trapartoparta, wider the image of “ falling,” may carry 
 an allusion to the desires of the flesh, open, gross, and palp- 
 able, while duapriat, under the image of “ missing the mark,” 
 may designate more the desires of the mind, sins of thought 
 and idea, of purpose and inclination. Miiller, Lehre von der 
 Siinde, vol. i. p. 118; Buttmann, Lexil. p. 79, ed. Fishlake ; 
 Fritsche, in Rom. v.12. The two werds 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—zaparTopata Tis cvvjce, and 
 then xalapicOjnoouat amo dpaptias pweyddns. ‘The article 
 before each of the nouns has, according to Olshkausen 
 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. 1. 13, & precedes the 
 substantives, and denotes the state or condition of death. Com- 
 pare also, for the use and omission of év in a similar clause, 
 Eph. ii. 15, with Col. u, 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, Elli- 
 cott, and Harless maintain, but they are descriptive also’ of 
 the state of death. They represent not simply the instru- 
 ment, 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 im 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—éy«rAnua eye, 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 fo trespasses and 
 sins. Appeals to clauses and modes of expression in the 
 
EPHESIANS IL. 1. 123 
 
 epistle to the Romans are out of place here, the object of 
 illustration being so different in the two epistles. Such a 
 sense, moreover, would not harmonize with the vivification 
 described in ver. 5. 
 
 The participle évtas points to their previous state—that 
 state in which they were when God quickened them—and is 
 repeated emphaticallyrin ver. 5. The adjective vexpés is usually 
 and rightly taken in a spiritual sense. 1. But Meyer contends 
 for a physical sense, as if it were equivalent to certo morituri, 
 and Bretschneider vaguely renders it by morté obnoxti. This 
 exegesis not only does violence to the terms, but it is plainly 
 contradicted by the past tense of the verb—ouvefwortroince. 
 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, miserable— 
 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 em- 
 ployed 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 ona 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— 
 véxpwows vuyixn, 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 disobedient heart, and it 
 
 1 Talmud, 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, tkat in 
 the barbaric philosophy, apostates were called dead vezgods zarodicr rods ixaeootvras 
 Tay doyuerav—Strom. v.p.574. Jamblichus (De Vita Pythag. xxxiv.) says, that for 
 rejected apostates a cenotaph was built by their former fellew-pupils. Origen, 
 Contra Celsum, lib. iii. See also Brucker, Dissertat. Exeget. in loc, in the Tempe 
 Helvetica, ii. 58. 
 
124 EPHESIANS II. 2. 
 
 died in being severed from God. 2. It implies insensibility. 
 The dead, which are as insusceptible as their kindred clay, 
 can be neither wooed nor won back to existence. The 
 beauties of holiness do not attract man in his spiritual insensi- 
 bility, 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. Nexpo/, says Photius, 
 dcov Tpos évépyecav aya0od 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.) ’Ep ais roré mepreraticate—“ In which ye once 
 walked.” This use of the verb originated in the similar 
 employment of the Hebrew ya, especially in its hithpahel 
 conjugation, in which it denotes “ course of life.” The ais 
 agrees in gender with the nearest antecedent—dapaprias, but 
 refers, at the same time, to both substantives. Kiihner, 
 § 786, 2; Matthiae, § 441, 2, c. The év 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 zrepuratety has been supposed to disappear and 
 leave only the general sense of vivere, as Fritzsche maintains 
 on Rom. xiii. 12, 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—srvevware tepirarteire is different plainly 
 from Comey rvevpatr. 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, 
 
EPHESIANS II. 2. 125 
 
 vivamus.’? But this sad period of death-walking was past— 
 moré. Their previous conduct is next described as being— 
 KaTa& TOV aid@va Tod KOcpwov TovTov—“ according to the 
 course of this world ”’—xard, as usual, expressing conformity. 
 Semler, Beausobre, Brucker, Michaelis, and Baur (Paulus, p. 
 433) take the aiéy 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 aioy and xocwos as synonymous, 
 and understand the phrase as a species of pleonasm. The 
 translation of the Syriac is alliterative — Lo Liss, 
 O12OsON\— “the worldliness of this world,” or the 
 “secularity of this seculum.” But the aidéy defines some 
 quality, element, or character of the xdopuos. It is a rash 
 and useless disturbance of the phraseology which Riickert 
 on the one hand suggests—«xata Tov ai@va TovTov Tov Koc- 
 fod; or which is proposed by Bretschneider on the other 
 —0 Kocpos Tod aidvos TovTov, meaning—homines pravi, ut 
 nunc sunt. Aiwv 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— Weléleben in geistiger, 
 ethischer Beziehung— 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”—r1v tapodcav Cwnv, as Theodoret 
 explains it. The word has not essentially, and in itself, a bad 
 sense, though the context plainly and frequently gives it one. 
 Kéocpos, especially as here, and followed by odtos, means the 
 world as fallen away from God—unholy and opposed to God. 
 John xii. 31, xviii. 36; 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 19, v.10; Gal. iv. 3. 
 
 1“ Nori vero in peccatis, est peccutis vivere.’—Rollock, in loc. 
 
126 EPHESIANS II. 2. 
 
 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 obros confines the special reference to the 
 time then current. The meaning therefore is, that the Kphe- 
 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 ito 
 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 ths éEovolas Tob aépos— According to 
 the prince of the power of the air””—xard being emphatically 
 repeated. The prince of darkness is not only called apyov, 
 but 6 Oeds Tod ai@vos TovTov, 2 Cor. iv. 4; and his éfoveia is 
 mentioned Acts xxvi. 18. Again, he is styled 0 dpyov rod 
 xéopouv TovTov. 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 é£ovcdas in apposition with épyovta 
 —-qui est princeps, or, as Clarius and Rosenmiiller render it— 
 princeps potentissimus. There is no occasion to resort to this 
 syntactic violence. *E£ovela 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, 
 
EPHESIANS LL. 2. 127 
 
 because they collectively form the principality of Satan, as 
 Zanchius and Baumgarten-Crusius imagine—a meaning which 
 nouns similarly formed, as dovAeia, cuppayia, 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. 
 
 "Anp does not denote that which the é£ovo/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 amp of 
 itself should signify darkness, is an opinion which cannot be 
 sustained. Heinsius,! Estius, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Bisping, 
 and Hodge identify the term with oxétos, 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, 
 anyu— I breathe or blow,” and is used in opposition to atOyp 
 —‘“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 aerial powers” 
 —acopatot duvvapnes. Thus Chrysostom—Todto0 radu pyot 
 
 
 
 OTL TOV UToUpdvioy EXEL TOTTOV, Kal TVEtpaTa TarAW Gépla ai 
 ac@pato. Ouvapets eioly avTov evepyovvtos—“ Again he says 
 this, that Satan possesses the sub-celestial places, and again, 
 that the aerial spirits are bodiless powers, under his cperation.”’ 
 (Xicumenius quaintly reasons of this mysterious dpywy, “ that 
 his dpyn 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 aerial nature.” With 
 more exactness, Cajetan describes this host as having subtile 
 
 1 Exercitat. sac. p. 459. 2? Damm, Lewicon, sub voce; Buttmann, Lewilogus, do. 
 
128 EPHESIANS II. 2. 
 
 corpus nostris sensibus ignotum, corpus simplex ac incorruptibile. 
 Ignatius, in his epistle to the Ephesians, refers also to the 
 aéptov Tvevjatov. 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 of 
 (Ecumenius, 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 somewhat 
 mystically expressed. The view of a-Lapide and Calixtus, 
 that those ‘aerial’? 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, aeris hujus. Others, 
 not satisfied with these fanciful opinions, give the epithet 
 “aerial” 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. SBucer says indeed, that the apostle describes the air 
 as the habitation of fallen and wicked spirits—ex peculiar? 
 revelatione. But, 2. There are others who argue, that the 
 apostle borrowed the notion either from the Pythagorean or 
 Gnostic demonology. Wetstein affirms—FPaulus ita loquitur, 
 ex principiis philosophic 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—dtraOpov aépa Kai tov vTroupdviov 
 _ dvta Kai Ocdy Kal Saipovev pectrov.2 Diogenes Laertius 
 records, that according to Pythagoras, the air was full of 
 1 Bibliotheca Sacra, 1843, p.140; Maimonides, Moreh Nevochim. iii. c. 51; Bux- 
 
 torf, Lexic. Talmud. sub voce, 2ND. 
 2 Quest. Rom. i. p. 274, also in his De Jside et Osiride, p. 361. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 2. 129 
 
 spirits—rravta Tov aépa Wuyav Eu7reov. Apuleius, Maximus 
 Tyrius, Manilius, Chalcidius, and others, make similar avowals, 
 as may be found at length in the quotations adduced by Wet- 
 stein, Elsner,! and Dougteus.2. The same sentiments are also 
 found in Philo, in his treatises De Gigantibus* and De Plan- 
 tatione.t Nay, Augustine held that the demons were penally 
 confined to the air—damnatum ad aerem tanquam ad carcerem. 
 Comment. on Ps. exliii. And Boyd (Bodius), as if dreaming 
 of a Scottish fairy-land, thinks that the devil got the princi- 
 pality 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.’ 
 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. Sczendum, 
 says the Munus Novum, as quoted by Drusius, a terra usque 
 ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et preefectis, omnesque 
 stare et volitare in aere. ‘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 dp occurs 
 
 1 Observat, p. 206. 2 Analecta, p. 127. 
 3 Opera, cura Pfeiffer, ii. p. 359. *% Do. iii. p. 93. 
 6 Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Juden. p. 437. 
 
 ® Bartolocci, i. p. 320. Testament. xii. Patr. p. 729. 
 
130 EPHESIANS II. 2. 
 
 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.1_ When fiends move 
 from place to place, they need not make the atmosphere the 
 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, there- 
 fore, that the ap and xdcpos must correspond in relation. 
 Just as there is an atmosphere round the physical globe, so 
 an anp envelopes this xoopos. Now, the xécpos 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 xoopos 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 toit. That same world may be an ideal sphere, comprehend- 
 ing 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 atmo- 
 sphere in which it breathes and moves. All that animates it, 
 gives it community of sentiment, contributes 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, 
 
 But see Cudworth. Jntellectual System, vol. ii. p. 664, ed. Lond. 1845, 
 
EPHESIANS II. 2. 138i 
 
 whose inhabitants are vexpol Tots TAPATTOLAGL Kat Tais awap- 
 tiats, is really Satan’s seat. His chosen abode is the dark nebu- 
 lous 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 KOG LOS 
 that “ form and pressure’’—that aiév—which the apostle here 
 describes as its characteristic element. If this interpretation 
 be reckoned too ingenious—and interpretations are generally 
 false in proportion to their ingenuity—then we can only say, 
 that 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 ealls “ near propin- 
 quity,” 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—«ara 
 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— 
 
 Tov TvEvpATOS TOD Vov évepyodvToS ev TOIs ULots THs ameLBelas 
 —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 apyovta. 
 So, apparently, Ambrosiaster, who has the translation—spir7- 
 tum. Bullinger cuts the knot by rendering—qu¢ est spiritus, and 
 so Luther by his—nemlich 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 accusa- 
 tive. Some, again, take wvedmatos in a collective sense, as 
 Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, and Holzhausen, Governed by 
 dpxovta, 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 wvev- 
 patos as governed by dpyorta, and they understand by wvedpua 
 that spirit or disposition which reigns in worldly and ungodly 
 men, of which Satan may be considered the master. Meyer, 
 
 “according 
 
 
 
132 EPHESIANS II. 2. 
 
 adopting the same construction, defines zrvedua as a principle 
 emanating from Satan as its lord, and working inmen. Har- 
 less, Olshausen, Matthies, and Stier take the word in apposition 
 with éfovcias, and governed by apyovta, 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— 
 ein verfinsternde tidtende inspiration—“a darkening and killing 
 inspiration.” But how does this view harmonize with the 
 phraseology ? Surely an influence, or principle, or inspiration 
 is not exactly in unison with apywv. We cannot well say— 
 prince of an influence or disposition. We would, therefore, 
 take mvevparos in apposition with é£ovc/as, but refer it to the 
 essential nature of the éfovc/a. 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 pur- 
 pose with its malignant dpywv. 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 mvebdpa. 
 In Luke iv. 33 occurs the phrase—vetpa Sdaipoviov axa- 
 Oéprov. This “spirit” is in its subjective form called 76 
 mvedpua Tod Koopov. 1 Cor. ii. 12. And it is a busy spirit-world 
 —tov vuv évepyovvTos. 
 
 *"AmeiOea 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 vio- 
 lating that law which is written in their hearts. Deut. ix. 23, 
 24; Heb. iv. 6. The phrase vio? tis dzrevPevas is a species of 
 Hebraism, and is found v. 6; Col. iii. 6, &e. 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 aid its sustenance from 
 “ disobedience;” or, as Winer says, they are “ those in which 
 disobedience has become a predominant and second nature,” 
 
EPHESIANS II. 3. 133 
 
 § 34, 3, b. 2. The adverb vdv denotes “at the present time” 
 —the spirit which at the present moment is working in the 
 disobedient. Meier, not Meyer as Olshauzen 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 
 that the working of the devil is restricted, in contrast to the 
 eternal working of the Holy Ghost. The vdv appears to stand 
 in contrast to the zoré—“ Ye, the readers of this epistle, were 
 once in such a condition, and those whom you left behind 
 when you became the children of God, are in the same condi- 
 tion still.” 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—«edary ; the world has its—dpyov. That Head is 
 aman, 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 dark- 
 est, most malignant, and unlovely being in the universe, 
 exercises a subtle 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—ovvtatret kat éavtov—as Theodoret says— 
 
 (Ver. 3.) "Ev ois kal pets ravtes avertpadnuey Tote év— 
 “Among whom also we all had our conversation once in—.” 
 The ois does not refer to taparTémact, as is supposed by 
 the paraphrase of the Syriac version, and as is imagined by 
 Jerome, Hstius, Cocceius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and Stier; but 
 it agrees with viots, as is argued by De Wette, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Meyer, Harless, Meier, Matthies, and Riickert. The 
 
134 EPHESIANS II. 3. 
 
 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 dwaptia of 
 ver. 1, the apostle refers to the heathen world, and that in 
 this verse, and in connection with vapdrt@pa, he character- 
 izes the Jewish world. Least of all can the change from 
 “vou” to “we” vindicate sucha meaning. We wait till the 
 apostle, in a subsequent verse, makes the distinction himself. 
 The sets wavtes is—we all, Jew and Gentile alike. See 
 also Rom. iv. 16, viii. 32; 1 Cor. xii. 13; 2 Cor. im, 18. 
 There is not in this section such a characteristic definition of 
 sins, as 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 Pela- 
 gius 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. 18. 
 
 aveatpagnpév tote. 2 Cor. 1. 12; Gal. i. 13; 1 Tim. ui. 
 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; spectostus quam 
 ambulare, says Bengel. All we—all of us—Jew and Gentile, 
 were once so distinguished. For we walked— 
 
 év Tats érriOumias THS capKos Huav—< in the lusts of our 
 flesh.” This clause marks out the sphere of activity. dpé 
 signifies man’s fallen and corrupted nature, in its antagonism 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 3. 135 
 
 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 capé, in apostolic language, include the 
 will, and have a meaning which neither c@ua nor xpéas has, 
 the question still recurs, How has our whole nature come to 
 be represented by a term which truly and properly denotes 
 only one part of it? Delitasch, Bib. Psychologie, p. 325. 
 LdpE does sometimes stand in opposition to the human zvedua, 
 as 1 Cor. vy. 5; Col. ii. 5; but in such places its meaning is 
 restricted by the antithesis. Gen. vi. 3. If what properly 
 signifies a portion of our nature come to signify the whole of 
 it under a certain aspect, there must be some connection. 
 What is material, as cdpé naturally is, may represent what is 
 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. °Emv@upia 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 spiri- 
 tual life is dead, and therefore the cdp£ is unchecked in all 
 its impulses and desires. And the apostle adds— 
 molovvtes TH Oednpata THs capKos Kal TOV SLavolav— 
 “doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts.” ‘The 
 principal differences of interpretation respect the word Svavorar, 
 which has a good sense in the classics. The exegesis of the 
 Greek fathers is too vague. Chrysostom sums up the meaning 
 by saying—rtouréotuy, ovdév mvevpatixov ppovodvtes. Stier 
 denies that by capxds and Siavoidy 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 hendiadys: 
 “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 
 
136 EPHESIANS II. 3. 
 
 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.” Avavofav in the plural is 
 found only here, and in the singular it stands often im the 
 Septuagint for the Hebrew In the plural, as if for d:a- 
 nuata it apparently denotes thoughts or sentiments, ideal 
 fancies and resolves. See Numb. xv. 39; Is. lv. 9. Lapé 
 in the first clause may signify humanity as 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—zsrovodvtes, 
 and when these éz@vpliac become actually Oed7jwatTa—when 
 inclinations become resolves, a distinction at once arises, and 
 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 cdp€ is one, all its appetences are 
 like; but the word dvavoiai is plural, for it describes what is 
 complex and multiform. See codiar, Aristoph. Rane, v. 688 ; 
 and Sapientie, 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, here- 
 sies,” as well as “ adultery, fornication, murder, drunkenness, 
 and revellings.’”’ The historian Polybius describes men 
 sinning, as many of them, 8d Tv adoywot(av—from want of 
 thought, as dua tv dtow, by nature. Lib. xvii. cap. vill. 
 apud Raphel. But there is an awful and additional clause— 
 Kat tuev téxva pvoew dpyijs— and we were by nature 
 children of wrath.” This common reading is retained by 
 
EPHESIANS IU. 3. 137 
 
 Tischendorf, followed by Riickert. Lachmann, however, 
 after A, D, EK, F, G, J, has dice téxva dpyfjs. But there 
 appears no good ground for departing from the order of the 
 Textus Receptus, the changed order wearing the aspect of an 
 emendation. ’Opyy is not simply “ punishment,” but that 
 just indignation which embodies itself in punishment. The 
 word is often so used in the New Testament. Téxva dpyfjs 
 resembles the previous viol tis amePeias, but implying, as 
 Alford says, “ closer relation.” That phrase does not denote, 
 liable to disobedience, but involved in it ; and therefore récva 
 opyis_ does not signify—liable to wrath, but actually under it. 
 Thus, Deut. xxv. 2, riot ja—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 épyjjs d&vor, and as Grotius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and 
 others have understood it; but it describes a present and 
 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 dpyy to be explained away 
 after the example of the early Fathers, as if it were simply 
 chastisement, «ohacvs—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 trascitur 
 imptis et injustis, nec pios justosque diligtt. 
 
 The apostle says further, récva fvoeo—‘ 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; Am- 
 merk. 1. Gdous— nature ’’—in such an idiom, signifies 
 what is essental 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 
 
 1 Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. 
 ’ ? 
 
138 EPHESIANS II. 3. 
 
 —dappdxov dvois is the nature of a drug, its colour, growth, 
 and potency. vows Tov ’Avyirrov" 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 vouos or avayxn, as marking what is spontaneous, 
 in contrast to what is enjomed or is inevitable. Thus Plato, 
 De. Leg. lib. x.—Some say that the gods are od dices addra 
 Tol vowows. Again, the noun is often used in the dative, or 
 in the accusative with cara or mapa, in descriptions of condi- 
 tion or action, and then its signification is still the same: 
 gvce TUprAds— blind by nature,” not by disease;? Tov pices 
 SovAov—‘‘ the slave by nature,” that is, from birth, and not 
 by subjugation ;* of dices modéucor— warriors by nature,” 
 by constitutional tendency, and not by force of circumstances.® 
 And so in such phrases as, cata piow—“ agreeably to nature,” 
 not simply to education or habit; mapa dvcw—contrary not 
 to mere conventional propriety, but to general or ordinary 
 instinctive development; thus—o kata giow vids—* the 
 natural,” not the adopted “son.” The usage is similar in 
 the Hellenistic writers. Wisdom vii. 20, pices Soav—“ the 
 natures of animals,” not the habits induced by training. 
 Dice waves cicly hitavror—‘all are by nature,’ not by 
 training, “ self-lovers.”® dcev movnpos av. being evil by 
 nature,’ and not simply by education. So also in the same 
 author—of the constitutional clemency of the Pharisees— 
 
 nr 4 
 pvoet éTLELKaS Exovow.s 
 
 Likewise in Philo, eipnvatos 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 
 where in James ui. 7 and 2 Pet. i. 4, the word has a significa- 
 tion peculiar to these passages; in all the rest, the meaning 
 is the same with that 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 
 
 1 Odyss. x. 303. 2 Herodot. ii. 5. 
 3 Aristot. Nicomach. iii. 7. ° Hlian, Varia Hist. iii. 22. 7 Joseph. Antig. xi. 2, 2. 
 4 Dio Chrysost. xv. p. 239, & Joseph. Antig. iii. 8, 1. 8 Do. xiii. 10, 6. 
 
 ® De Confusione Ling. C. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 3. 139 
 
 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 duce ‘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, dvous 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 
 nature. Wholly contrary, therefore, to usage and philology 
 is the translation of the Syriac A, LASq—yplene; that of Theo- 
 see (Hcumenius, and Cyril, dAn@as or yunoiws—“ really ”’ 
 
 “truly; that of Julian, -prorsus, ¢ and that even of Suidas 
 bio constant and ron bad disposition and long and evil 
 habits "—adra tHv Eupovoy Kai kaxictny SidBeow Kal ypoviav 
 kal jTovnpav cvvnevav, for on the contrary, dows and cuv7- 
 Oeva 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—Nos 
 paterne traditionis consuetudo possederat, ut omnes ad damna- 
 tionem nasct 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—cttra gratiam Dei in Christo. 
 But, as Meyer observes, the status naturalis is depicted in the 
 whole description, and not merely by ¢’ce. 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 
 
140 EPHESIANS II. 3. 
 
 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 
 indoles 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, 
 Polyznus, 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 @vavs cannot refer to original sin, because 
 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 ducer altogether, and Reiche (Comment. Criticus, 
 1859) dilutes it to a habitus naturalis connatus quasi, p. 147. 
 See also Episcopius, Jnstit., 11.5, 2; Limborch, Theolog. Christ., 
 i. 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 
 
 1 Quintilian, i. 2; Sallust, Jugurtha, 87; Freund, Latein. Wérterbuch, sub voce. 
 2 Ars Critica, Londini, 1698, p. 194. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 3. 141 
 
 actual personal guilt, men are children of wrath. Had he 
 written, xaé dvres, as following out the idea of zrovodytes, 
 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 jwev— and we were,” at a point of time 
 prior to that indicated in zovodvtes. This exegesis is also 
 supported by the following clause— 
 
 @s Kal of Xowroi—“ 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 hereditario 
 jure. Those who hold that sets refers to the Jews injure 
 their interpretation, and Harless and Olshausen unnecessarily 
 suppose that the apostle contrasts the natural state of the 
 Jews with their condition as the called of God, though they 
 do not, like Hofmann, join ¢ucex to dpyijs, as if the allusion 
 were to the Jews, and the meaning were—objects of God’s 
 love as the children of Abraham, and but of His anger as 
 children of Adam. Schriftb. i. p. 564. Thus Estius opposes 
 jilii 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—rtijs dice opyis ; or as Meyer, rijs 
 7 pucet, or, €k Ths dicews dpyjs. We do not imagine, 
 with many commentators, that @vceu 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 
 
142 EPHESIANS II. 3. 
 
 prior to actual transgression, we were “ the children of wrath.” 
 The apostle had just referred to the ca¢p&—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 Siinde, ii. p. 378) says— that they, that is Christians, 
 from among the Jews as well as others, had been objects of 
 Divine punitive justice—nach threr natiirlichen angebornen 
 Beschaffenheit Glegenstinde ; and Lechler also calls man’s 
 natural condition—ene angeborne Zorneskindschaft d. h. eine 
 angeborne Verderbniss der Menschennatur. Das Apost. und das 
 nachap. Zeitalter, &c., 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 vce 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 
 when sin commences are 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 cireum- 
 stance may create or modify, are “children of wrath.” As 
 Calvin says—Hoc 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 accidence—whatever be the 
 depth of human depravity. 
 
 It belongs not to the province of interpretation to enter into 
 
 1 Biblical Repository, 2d Ser. vol. ii. 38. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 3. 143 
 
 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 Manicheean 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.6 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 Supra-lapsarian and Sub-lapsarian hypotheses. 
 Attempts to form a perfect scheme of Theodicy, or a full vin- 
 dication 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- 
 tianism 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 stand-points, and have been influenced in their treat- 
 
 I Miiller, Die Christliche Lehre von der Siinde, voi. ii. p. 495, 38rd ed. See also 
 Beecher’s Conflict of Ages. 
 
 2 Leibnitz, Essais de Théodicée sur la Bonté de Dieu, &c. pp. 85, 86, 288. 
 Amsterdam, 1726. 
 
 3 De Wette, Christliche Sittenlehre, § 10, and Studien und Kritiken, 1849 ; Rothe, 
 Ethik, vol. i. pp. 98, 99; Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, § 66. 
 
 * Lactantius, Instit. Divin. lib. ii, cap. 8, 9; Hegel, Philosophie des Rechts, § 139, 
 
 ® The Mystery, or Evil and God. By John Young, LL.D. London, 1856. 
 
 6 Miiller, vol. ii. pp. 6-48. 
 
 7 Wiggers, August, und Pelag. Kap, 20; Nitasch, § 105, 107. 
 
144 EPHESIANS II. 4. 
 
 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 ves 
 is palpable; for experience confirms the Divine testimony that 
 we are by nature “children of wrath” per generationem, not 
 per imitationem. 
 
 (Ver. 4.) ‘O &8€ eds, AovaLos oY ev EXéec— But God, 
 being rich in mercy.” The apostle resumes the thought 
 started in ver. 1. The dé 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 6é. Hartung, vol. i. p. 173; Jelf, § 767. 
 Jerome rashly condemns the use of dé; but Bodius stigma- 
 tizes the patristic critic as judging—nimds profecto audacter et 
 hypercritice. "Neos signifies ‘ mercy,” and is a term stronger 
 and more practical than ofxripuos. It is not mere emotion, 
 but emotion creating actual assistance—sympathy leading to 
 succour. The participle dy does not seem to have here a 
 causal significance, as such an idea is expressed by the follow- 
 ing 6d. And in this mercy God is rich. It has no scanty 
 foot-hold in his bosom, for it fills it. Though mercy has been 
 expended by God for six millenniums, and myriads of myriads 
 have been partakers of it, it is still an unexhausted mine of 
 wealth— 
 
 dua THY TONY ayarny avTod, Hv HyaTnoey 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 imme- 
 diate 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 1.3, 6, 20; Winer, § 32, 25 
 Kiihner, § 546. The suds are Paul and his contemporary 
 believers, and, of course, all possessing similar faith. That 
 love is 7roAAyj—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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 5. 145 
 
 meaning remains, its specific allusion depends upon its ad- 
 juncts. The idea of frequency may thus be included, as it 
 seems to be in some uses of the word’—number being its 
 radical meaning. ILoAd7 aya7n, therefore, is love, the inten- 
 sity of which has been shown in the fervour and frequency of 
 its developments. See underi. 5. And what can be higher 
 proof than this— 
 
 (Ver. 5.) Kat dvtas ids vexpovs Tots taparTm®paciw—“ Us 
 being even dead in trespasses.” The xai 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 preter join- 
 ing the «ai to the participle évras, and making it signify 
 “indeed,” or when we ‘“ were truly ” dead in sins. Hartung, 
 vol. i, p. 132. See chap. 1. 11, 15. 
 
 ovvelwoTroincey T® Xpiotm—“ quickened together with 
 Christ.” Some MSS. and texts have the preposition éy 
 before 76 Xpeore@, but for this there is no authority, as the 
 dative is governed by the ovy- in composition with the verb. 
 The ovv 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. ‘he remark of Jerome is 
 foreign to the purpose, that the aorist is used with reference to 
 the Divine prescience—-zd quod futurum est, quast factum esse 
 jam dixerit. We have already exhibited the validity ofsour 
 objection under 1.19. Theodoret’s interpretation is out of 
 place—éxeivou yap avactavtos, Kat jets EXaibopev avactn- 
 cecOa. Meyer’s view has been already rejected under the 
 Ist verse of this chapter; for as the death there described is 
 
 1 Passow, Pape, Lex. sub voce. 
 
146 EPHESIANS II. 5. 
 
 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) arrapy? GH, Kat 
 jets — 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, éxeivov évepyeta—Him in fact, but us dvvdper 
 viv—potentially only, but afterwards in fact also. Harless 
 compares the language with that in Rom. viii. 80, 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 
 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 
 
lord 
 
 EPHESIANS II. 5. 147 
 
 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 char- 
 acter. 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 zdeally 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 
 ouvexaGicev, 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 
 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 
 symbol in Jesus, the Saviour and Representative. And, there- 
 fore, the notion of Beza and Bloomfield, that ovv- 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, 
 
148 EPHESIANS II. 5. 
 
 Koppe, Grotius, a-Lapide, and Rosenmiiller. See on xara 
 in i. 19. Calvin limits the possession too much to objective 
 happiness and glory laid up for us in Christ. The language 
 of Crocius is better—nos excitatos esse in Christo, ut in capite 
 membra ; idque non potentia, non spe, sed actu et re ipsa. 
 
 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— 
 
 xapiti éote cecwopévor— by grace have ye been saved.” 
 The 6€ or yap found in some MSS. is a clumsy addition, and 
 ov, the genitive of the relative pronoun, occurring in Dt, K, 
 I, G (06 7H xapite, or ob ydpute), 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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 6. 149 
 
 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.) Kat cuvrjyetpev—* And raised us up with.” The 
 meaning of ocuv- is of course the same as in the preceding 
 cuvetworroince. 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— 
 
 Kat ovverd@icev—‘‘ 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— 
 
 €v Tols €troupaviows ev Xpict@ *Inood—“ in the heavenly 
 places in Christ Jesus.”” This idiom has been already con- 
 sidered both under ver. 3 and ver. 20 of the Ist 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 enjoy- 
 ment. The addition of év Xpiotd “Inood occurs also 1. 3; 
 and in both places the epithet 7a évrovpavia points out the 
 exalted position of the church. Union to Christ brings us 
 into them. His glory is their bright canopy, and His pre- 
 sence diffuses joy and hope. The év before Xpiot@ *Inood 
 has perplexed commentators, for cuv- is also in composition 
 with the verb, and would have been supposed to govern these 
 nouns, had not év been expressed. But év again, as fre- 
 quently in the previous portion of the epistle, defines the 
 
150 EPHESIANS II. 7. 
 
 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 conscious 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.” 
 Rey. 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— 
 
 (Ver. 7.) “Iva évdetEnrat év Tots aidow Tois érepyouévots— 
 “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—Ndv pév yap 7roAdol 
 amittovaw, év 66 TO MéANOVTL AiOVE TaYTES YV@ToVTaL TL Hiv 
 éyaploato, opavtes év apat@ So&n Tovs aylous ; the idea being 
 
EPHESIANS II. 7. 151 
 
 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 
 évdeiEnrat, which in the New Testament is always used in the 
 middle voice, means to show for one’s self—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 sjdés, makes this use of his own conver- 
 sion. 1 Tim. i. 16. The peculiar plural phrase aidves, with 
 the participle éepyopuévor, denotes “coming or impending 
 ages.” Luke xxi. 26,37; James v. 1. The asov is an age 
 or period of time, and these aidves 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 riches of his grace ”— 
 
 TO UTrepBadXov TODTOS THs xapiTos avTov. The neuter form 
 is preferred by Tischendorf and Lachmann on the authority 
 of A, B, Dt, F,G. Gersdorf, Bedétrdge, p. 282; Winer, § 9, 2, 
 note 2. The participle twepBadrov has been already ex- 
 plained, i. 19. The conversion of the Ephesians was a mani- 
 festation of the grace of God—of its riches, of its overflowing 
 riches. That was not restricted grace—grace to a few, or 
 grace to the more deserving, or grace to the milder forms of 
 apostacy. 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— 
 
 €v xpynorotynte ef’ jpas ev Xprote "Inyoot—* in kindness 
 toward us in Christ Jesus.’’ Four terms are already employed 
 
152 EPHESIANS II. 7. 
 
 by the apostle to exhibit the source of salvation—éneos, aya7n, 
 xapis, xpnoTétns—conveying the same blessed truth in differ- 
 ent aspects. The first respects our misery ; the second defines 
 the co-essential form of this—éneos ; the third characterizes 
 its free outgoing, and the last points to its palpable and expe- 
 rienced embodiment. Trench on Syn. p. 192. ‘Winer suggests 
 that éd’ jas is connected with tzrepBarnrop, § 20, 2,6. But 
 the structure of the sentence forbids altogether such a connec- 
 tion, and the construction proposed by Homberg and Koppe 
 is as violent—rijs yapitos Kal ypnotoTnTos, supplying évtas 
 also to the phrase év Xpiot@ “Incod. The noun ypyortorns 
 may be followed itself by ézé, as in Rom. xi. 22, or as when 
 the adjective occurs, Luke vi. 35. We do not understand, with 
 Olshausen, that év ypnorornte is a closer definition of the 
 more general ydpis. Nor is there any need of a metonymy, 
 and of taking the term to denote a benefit or the result of kind- 
 ness. 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 éy again, 
 as so often before, marking Christ Jesus as the only sphere 
 of blessing. See under i.16. There is an evident alliteration 
 in yapts, ypnororns, Xpiords. 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! O, He is so kind in giving grace, and such grace, 
 to so many men, and of such spiritual demerit and degrada- 
 tion; so kind as not only to forgive sin, but even to 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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 8. 153 
 
 present age His ability and desire to repeat in them the same 
 blessed process of salvation and life. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) TH yap xdpiti éore cecwopévor Sia THS TicTEws— 
 “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 ydpurs, on which from its position the emphasis 
 lies, expresses the source of our salvation, and the genitive 
 mlotews with dua 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 con- 
 necting 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 
 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- 
 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.’” 
 
 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 
 
154 EPHESIANS II. 8. 
 
 But this grace does not operate immediately and univer- 
 sally. Its medium is faith—esa tis 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 ydpurt, 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, D1, 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 ye might “ work and 
 win” for yourselves, but—ye are actually saved. ‘The words 
 denote a present state, and not merely “an established pro- 
 cess.” Green’s Gram. of New Test. 317. Thus Tyndale 
 translates—“ By grace ye are made safe thorowe faith.” The 
 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 asa 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 life-boat, is from that moment a 
 gratia preveniens, operans, co-operans ; the first having for its object homo conver- 
 
 tendus; the second, homo, gui convertitur; and the third, homo conversus sed 
 sanctificundus. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 8. 155 
 
 saved man. ven though he scarce feel his safety or be 
 relieved from his tremor, he is still a saved man; yea, though 
 the angry winds may how] around him, and though hours may 
 elapse ere he set his feet on the firm land. The apostle adds 
 more precisely and fully— 
 
 kat TodTO ovK €€ Yuav—“ and that not of yourselves ”’—éx, 
 as it often does, referring to source or cause. Winer, § 47, d. 
 The pronoun Todo does not grammatically agree with mictews, 
 the nearest preceding noun, and this discrepancy has originated 
 various interpretations. The words xat rodto are rendered 
 “and indeed” by Wahl, Riickert, and Matthies. This em- 
 phatic sense belongs to the word in certain connections. Rom. 
 xi. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 6; Phil. i. 28. The plural is also simi- 
 larly 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 mio7us—“ And this faith is not of 
 yourselves.’ Such is the interpretation of the fathers Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret, and Jerome. Chrysostom says—ovde 7) 
 miatis €& Hwy, eb yap ovK HAOEV, Eb yap pr exdrETE, TOS 
 novvawela mictedoa. Jerome thus explains—Lt hec 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—iotus, 
 why change the gender? why not write cai aitn? To say, 
 with some, that faith is viewed in the abstract as Td mo- 
 tevewv, does not, as we shall see, relieve us of the difficulty. 
 2. Granting that xai todTo is an idiomatic expression, and 
 that its gender is not to be strictly taken into account, still 
 the question recurs, What is the precise reference of ddpov? 
 3. Again, wiotis 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 
 
156 EPHESIANS IL. 8. 
 
 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« é& épywv must have salvation, and not faith, as its 
 reference. ‘The words from «al todo 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& buy corres- 
 ponds to the €& épyav. Baumgarten-Crusius argues, that the 
 allusion is to riores, because the word dépov proves that the 
 reference must be to something internal—auf/ Innerliches. 
 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 todto refer to éore ceowopévor—“ and this state of 
 safety is not of yourselves.” This exegesis is presented in a 
 modified form by Theophylact, Zanchius, Holzhausen, Chan- 
 dler, and Macknight, who refer «at todro to the entire clause 
 —‘ this salvation by faith is not of yourselves.” Theophylact 
 says—ov THv wiotw éyer SHpov Oeod, GAA TO Sia TicTEws 
 cwOnvat, ToUTO SMpov é€ctt Meod. But some of the difficulties 
 of the first method of interpretation attach to this. The «ai 
 tovro 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 cal tovro, &c. was suggested 
 by the mention of the subjective medium—ziotis, 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— 
 
 @cod To SHpov— God’s is the gift.” God’s gift is the gift 
 —the genitive @eod being the emphatic predicate in opposition 
 to tuev. Bernhardy, p. 815. 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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 9. 157 
 
 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« é& tuav suggested the repetition. And there 
 is really no tautology. In chap. ii. 7 occur the words—xara 
 Tip Sw@peay THS yapiTos Tod Deod; xapis being the thing 
 given, and dwpedy pointing out its mode of bestowment. Men 
 ,are saved by grace—r7 ydprre ; and that salvation which has 
 ‘its origin in grace is not won from God, nor is it wrung from 
 ‘Him ; we His 1 is nisi gift.” Look at salvation in its origin—it 
 Fis & iad grace.’ Look at it in its reception—it is “ through 
 1 faith.” Look at it in its manner of conferment—it is a “ gift.” 
 For faith, though an indispensable instrument, does not merit 
 salvation as areward; 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, «ai todro seems to refer to the idea contained in 
 the participle only, it would seem that in @eod ro dépor 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 Meyer 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— Crit. 
 p- 144. 
 
 Griesbach places in a parenthesis the entire clause from «al 
 tovto to é& épywr, connecting the words iva uy Tus Kavyjonta 
 with dua tHs wiotews, but the words ov« é&€ épywy have an 
 immediate connection with the tva—a connection which can- 
 not be set aside. Matthies again joins ov« €& épywr 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.) Ov« é& &pywv-—“ Not of works ”—the explanation 
 of ov« é& tuav. The apostle uses dia with the article before 
 miotews in the previous verse, but here é& without the article 
 before gépywv—the former referring to the subjective instru- 
 ment, or causa apprehendens ; the latter to the source, and 
 
158 EPHESIANS II. 9. 
 
 excluding works of every kind and character. *Ex again refers: 
 to source or cause. Sweighaiiser, Lew. 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 pre- 
 sent acceptance. How, then, shall it atone for former delin- 
 quencies? 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 such a 
 theory, the moral bonds of the universe would be dissolved. 
 The distinction made by Thomas Aquinas between meritum 
 ex congruo and meritum ex condigno, was too subtle to be 
 popularly apprehended, and it did not arrest the Pelagian 
 tendencies of the medieval church. 
 
 a pa) Tis Kavynontat— 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—r0, yap, iva, ov« 
 aituoroyiKov éoTl, GAN éx Ths amoBdcews Tod mpaypatos ; 
 that is, the fa 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 fa be viewed from a human stand- 
 point, and as indicative of the writer’s own purpose ; as if the 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS IT. 10. 159 
 
 and far-fetched. Macknight has argued, that va 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 
 see 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 
 motive. And truly boasting is effectually stopped. For if 
 man be guilty, and being unable to win a pardon, simply 
 receive 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 
 reception; 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. 1. 29-31. 
 Ambrosiaster truly remarks—hee superbia omni peccato nocen- 
 tior, omni genere est elationis insanior. And further, salvation 
 cannot be of ourselves or of works— 
 
 (Ver. 10.) Adrod yap éopev mroinua— For we are His 
 workmanship.’’ The yap has its common meaning. It ren- 
 ders the reason for the statement in the two previous verses. 
 It does not signify “ yet,” as Macknight has it. Others care- 
 lessly overlook it altogether. Nor can we accede to the opinion 
 
160 EPHESIANS II. 10. 
 
 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. MRiickert 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 of boasting. Nor can we, 
 with Harless, view the verse as connected simply with the 
 phrase—@eod 76 SHpov. 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 zroimpa, 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 Nazianzum, Tertul- 
 lian, 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— 
 
 kriabévtes ev Xpiot@ ’Inoov—“ created in Christ Jesus.” 
 This added phrase explains and bounds the meaning of 
 moinua. The reference here is to the caw xtiow (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 
 wn in Ps. li. 10, and in Ps. cii. 18 (Schoettgen, Hore Hebraic, 
 i. p. 828). See also verse 15 of this chapter. Chrysostom 
 adds, with peculiar and appropriate emphasis—éx Tod ju) dvTos, 
 eis TO Elva TapnxXOnucv. Again is it év Xpiot@ "Inood, for 
 Christ Jesus is ever the sphere of creation, or, through their 
 vital union with Him, men are formed anew, and the spiritual 
 
EPHESIANS II. 10. 161 
 
 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— 
 
 éml épyows ayaots—“ in order to,” or “ for good works.” 
 This meaning of éwi may be seen in Gal. v. 13; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 7. Winer, § 48 ; Kiihner, § 612; Phrynichus ed-Lobeck, 
 p- 474. Palairet, in his Odservat. Sac. in loc., has given 
 several good examples of éwi with such a sense. Our entire 
 renovation, 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 efficimus, says 
 Bugenhagen, sed Spiritus Dei in nobis ; or, as Augustine puts 
 it—ipso in nobis et per nos operante, merita 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 Ronis Such, we apprehend, is the apostle’s 
 argument. Salvation is not é£ épywy; yet it is él épyous 
 aya0ois—“ 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 imita- 
 M 
 
162 EPHESIANS IL. 10. 
 
 tion of 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 
 yean 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 Syner- 
 gists battled with mischievous fury: Major arguing that salva- 
 tion 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 no novelty nor accident— 
 
 ois mpontoiwacey 0 eds, va év avtois mepiTaTHoTwpev— 
 “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 ois. 
 
 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 ds is 
 fatal to this opinion. The idea, too, which in such a connec- 
 tion is here expressed by a dative, is usually expressed by the 
 accusative with eis. Rom. ix. 23; 2 Tim. un. 21; Rev. ix. 7. 
 
 2. Valla, Erasmus, Er. Schmidt, and Riickert give ois a 
 personal reference, as if it stood for dco i)ueav—“ among 
 whom God before prepared us.”—But the antecedent sets 
 is too remote, and the ois appears to agree in gender with 
 €v avTots. 
 
 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—pa wx— 
 év ois iva TepiTatTnoa@pev ev avTots, Tpontolwacev 0 Meds. 
 But this exegesis is about as intricate as the original clause. 
 
 1 Comment. in Matt, iii, 12. 2 Gram. Ling. Gree. N.-T. p. 229. 
 
 . 
 ————-— a. ae 
 
EPHESIANS II. 10. 163 
 
 4, The large body of interpreters take the ois for & by 
 attraction. Winer, § 24,1. This opinion is simple, the change 
 of case by attraction is common, and a similar use of iva is 
 found in John v.36. So the Vulgate— Que preparavit. 
 
 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 zpo in mpontoipacer, 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 mpoopifew, or 
 assign it, with Koppe and Rosenmiiller, the sense of vedle or 
 jubere ; Harless saying that it is used of things as the verb 
 last referred to is used of persons, but without sufficient proof; 
 and Olshausen supposing that the two verbs differ thus—that 
 mpoetouuatew refers to a working of the divine eternal will 
 which is occupied more with details. Perhaps the difference 
 is more accurately brought out in this way :—zrpoopifew marks 
 appointment or destination, in which the end is primarily kept 
 in view, while in rpoeroumafew 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 «tua Gévtes, 
 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 
 us, God hath shown it to be His purpose, that “ we should 
 
164 EPHESIANS II. 11. 
 
 walk in them.” ‘Tersely does Bengel say, ambularemus, non 
 salvaremur aut viveremus. These good works, though they 
 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 trepurrarjc@pev is a Hebraism 
 occurring also in ver. 2. See under it. ‘Tit. i. 14, im. 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 condi- 
 tions requisite to make faith saving.” The same view in 
 substance has been elaborately maintained by Bishop Bull in 
 his Harmonia Apostolica, Works, vol. i. 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. 
 Kat éxtic@ns otk tva apyis, AAN va 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— 
 
 Aw pvnpovevere—“ Wherefore remember.” The reference 
 has a further aspect than to the preceding verse—ésd com- 
 mencing the paragraph, as in Rom. i. 1, and in this epistle, 
 ii. 13, iv. 25; though in some other places it winds up a para- 
 graph, as in 2 Cor. xii. 10; Gal. iv. 31. These things being 
 so, and such being the blessings now enjoyed by them, lest 
 
EPHESIANS II. 11. 165 
 
 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 
 their ideas of divine grace, and incite them to ardent and 
 continued thankfulness. The apostle honestly refers them to 
 their previous Gentilism. Remember— 
 
 OTe moTé wpwels TA Ivy ev capxi— that ye, once Gentiles 
 in the flesh.” ”“Ovtes is understood by some, and 7Te by 
 others ; but of such a supplement there is no absolute need 
 —the construction being repeated emphatically afterwards. 
 The article ta before vn signifies a class, and it is omitted 
 before év capxi to indicate the closeness of idea. “E@vn— 
 biz—has a special meaning attached to it. Not only were 
 they foreigners, but they were ignorant and irreligious. Matt. 
 xvi. 17. If €@vn simply signified non-Israelites, then they 
 were so still, for Christianity does not obliterate difference of 
 race; but the word denotes men without religious privilege, 
 and in this sense they were zoré—once—heathen. But their 
 ethnical state no longer existed. Some render éy 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 cata 
 odpxa would have been in that case the more appropriate 
 idiom. Jerome supposes the phrase to stand in opposition to 
 an implied év wvevwatr. But the verse itself decides the 
 meaning, as Drusius, Calvin, Beza, Rollock, Bengel, Riickert, 
 Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, De Wette, and Stier rightly sup- 
 pose. Natural Israel was so—év capxi; the Gentiles were 
 also so—ev capxi. Col. ii. 138. 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 capxi denoted natural descent, then the 
 fact of it could not be changed. Heathens, and born so, 
 they must be so still, but they had ceased to be heathen on 
 their introduction into the kingdom of God, The world 
 
166 EPHESIANS II. 12. 
 
 beyond them, whose flesh had been unmarked, was on that 
 account looked down upon by the Jews, and characterized as 
 ta €0vn. The apostle now explains his meaning more fully— 
 
 of Neyopevot “AxpoSvaoTia—“ who are called the Uncircum- 
 cision.” The noun adxpoBvoria is, according to Fritzsche (on 
 Romans ii. 26), an Alexandrian corruption for axpotroc@ia. 
 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 stigmatized it as beyond the pale of religious privilege. 
 Gen. xxxiv. 14; Lev. xix. 23; Judg. xiv. 3; 1 Sam. xiv. 6; 
 Isa. lii. 1; Ezek. xxviii. 10. And the Gentiles were so 
 named—+ri»— 
 
 vTo THS Neyouevns Lepetophs— 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—év capki yerpomroutov— 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— J-ma3 LE J As SLNJS—*“ and it is 
 a work of the hands in the flesh.”’ He cannot, as Harless and 
 Olshausen remark, be supposed to undervalue the rite 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. ii. 28, 29; Gal. v.6; Philip. ii. 35 Col. 1. 11, 
 ii. 11. The word is used in a good sense in Acts x. 45, 
 x. 23shKom. xv. 8;°Galifii.'7)'8;:93 Coloavalde ni ie ae, 
 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.) “Ors tire TO Kaup@ exeivp yopls Xpiarob— That 
 
EPHESIANS II. 12. 167 
 
 at that time ye were without Christ.” The preposition ép is 
 of doubtful authority, and is rejected by Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf. Kiihner, § 569; Winer, § 31,92. External 
 authority, such as that of A, B, Dt, F, G, is against it, though 
 the Pauline usage, as found in Rom. iii. 26, xi. 5; 1 Cor. 
 x1. 23; 2 Cor. viii. 13, &c., seems to be in its favour. The 
 reference in the phrage—“ at that time,” is to the period of 
 previous Gentilism. The conjunction é67v resumes the thought 
 with which the preceding verse started, and 7 xaipé points 
 back to wo7é. The verb re, as De Wette suggests, and as 
 Lachmann points, may be connected with the participle dan\- 
 AoTprwpévor—“‘ that at that time, being without Christ, ye 
 were excluded from theocratic privileges.” Ellicott and 
 Alford call this construction harsh, and make év Xpictd a 
 predicate. We will not contend for the construction, but we do 
 not see such harshness in it. In this syntactic arrangement, 
 yopis Xpuctov would give the reason why they were aliens 
 from the Hebrew commonwealth. Xwpis Xpictod corresponds 
 to €v Xpiot@ Incod in ver. 13.1. But in what sense was the 
 Gentile world without Christ? According to Anselm, Calo- 
 vius, 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 interpreta- 
 tion—“ 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 
 
 1 According to Tittmann (De Synon. p. 94), évev Xeserod would be only—Christ 
 was not with you; but yweis Xeiwrod is—ye were far from Christ, ywe/s referring to 
 the subject as separate from the object. Not to contradict this refinement, we might 
 add, that évev, allied to in, wn, ohne, might, in a general sense, signify privation ; 
 but ywe/ 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—yweis. But, as Ellicott says, ‘this distinction must 
 be applied with caution, when it is remembered that ywe/s is used forty times in the 
 New Testament, and é&y:v only three times.” 
 
168 EPHESIANS II. 12. 
 
 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 
 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 Xpuictod, as Xpiotos was the official 
 designation embalmed in promise; but he says in ver. 183— 
 év Xpict@ Inood, for the Messiah had appeared and had 
 actually become Jesus. . 
 anmdXoTpi@pevoe THs ToNTElas TOD ’lopanA— being aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel.’ The first thing to be 
 examined is what is meant by the wonutela Tod “Iopair. The 
 conversatio (referring, it may be, to citizen-life) of the Vul- 
 gate, Jerome, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Kstius, is not to 
 be thought of. As Israel was the theocratic appellation 
 of the people, the zrodvre‘a 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—tav THy Tow oixotyvTav 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. 111.1; Xenophon, Memo- 
 rabilia, ii. 1, 13; 2 Maccabees iv. 11, viii. 17, &. “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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 12. 169 
 
 the king were the same obligation. The nation was, at the 
 same time, the only church of God, and the archives of the 
 country were also the records of its faith. Civil and sacred 
 were not distinguished; municipal immunity was identical 
 with religious privilege ; and a spiritual meaning was attached 
 to dress and diet, as well as to altar and temple. And this 
 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 dmnddoTpi@pévor. Eph. iv. 18; Col. i. 21; Ezek. 
 xiv. 7; Hos.ix. 10; Homberg, Parerga, p. 291; Krebs, Od- 
 servat. p. 326. The contrast is svuzroNiraz 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 rodute(a be used in an ideal sense, as Riickert thinks, 
 meaning eine wahrhaft géttliche 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 aAdotpios but andXoTpr@pévor—men who had 
 been excluded from the Hebrew commonwealth. Chrysostom 
 notices the word, and ascribes to it odd Eudacis. 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— 
 
 Kal Eévor Tov SiaOnKav THs érrayyeNias— 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 
 
170 EPHESIANS II. 12. 
 
 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 dva@jxas is 
 used 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 
 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 voyobecia succeeds dvabfxar 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 cove- 
 nant 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. xii. 3, xxii. 18; with Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 3; 
 with Jacob, Gen. xxviil. 13; with the people, Exod. xxiv. 8; 
 and with David, 2 Sam. vii. 12. See also Jer. xxxi. 31-34; 
 Mal. iii. 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. ‘T’o such covenants 
 the heathen were strangers—éévor. This adjective is followed 
 by a genitive, not as one of quality, but as one of negative 
 
 1 Annotations to the Books of the New Covenant, in doc. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 12. 171 
 
 possession. Bernhardy, p. 171. Or see Matthiae, § 337; 
 Scheuerlein, § 18,3 a. Thus Sophocles, Gidip. Tyr. 219— 
 Eévos Tov Aoyou. ‘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, eo ipso, strangers to its glorious covenants and 
 their unique promise. The various readings in the MSS. 
 are futile efforts to solve apparent difficulties. Another fea- 
 ture was— 
 
 errida pry Eyovtres—“‘ not having hope.” The subjective 
 negative particle «7, 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 
 Wyclitie—“ 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. 
 
 Kat a&eor— 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. 233; Opera, vol. ii. 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 
 
172 EPHESIANS II 12. 
 
 occurs also in the sense ‘‘ without God’s help,” as in Sopho- 
 cles, Gidipus Tyrannus, 661 :— 
 
 "Exel abeos Apidos 6 v1 TIMEToY 
 "Oroimay.... 
 ‘* Since I wish to die godless, friendless,” &c. 
 
 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 
 atheists. Acts xvii. 23; Rom.1. 20-25; 1 Cor. x. 20. Theo- 
 doret understands by the phrase épyyou Peoyvacias— devoid 
 of the knowledge of God;” and the apostle himself uses the 
 phrase ovd« eiddres Ocov, Gal. iv. 8. Compare 1 Thess. iv. 5; 
 2 John 9. The Gentile world were without God to counsel, 
 befriend, guide, bless, and save them. 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@ KOopm—“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 (Opuscula Academica, ii. p. 304) paraphrases 
 —In his terris versabimini ; 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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 13. 173 
 
 we are inclined to take é€v T@ xoop@ as a separate epithet, and 
 we would not regard it simply as—dinter ceteros 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 capxi. Schutze intensifies it by his translation—cn per- 
 ditorum hominum senfiné. With Harless and Calovius, we 
 regard éy T@ Koow@ as standing in contrast to the vodvre/a. 
 The xocpos is the entire region beyond the rodze/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 
 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 58, év Xpictd Inood—“ But now, in Christ 
 Jesus.” The apostle now reverses the picture, and exhibits 
 a fresh and glowing contrast. Nuvi is in contrast to év T@ 
 Kaip@ éxeive. The present stands in opposition to the past— 
 Sé. “Ev Xpicr@ Inood is also the joyous contrast to the pre- 
 vious dark and melancholy ywpis Xpuctod. 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 em- 
 bodied in the actual Jesus of Nazareth. And the phrase 
 stands to this entire verse as ywpis Xpsotod 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— 
 
 pets. ot mote Ovtes pakpay, eyyds éeyevnOnte—“ ye, who 
 sometime were far off, became nigh. Lachmann reads—éyevj- 
 Onre éyyt’s, but without sufficient authority. The adverbs, 
 paxpdv and éyyvs, had a literal and geographical meaning 
 under the old dispensation. Isaiah lvii. 19; Daniel ix. 7; 
 
174 EPHESIANS II. 13. 
 
 Acts ii. 39. The presence of Jehovah was enjoyed in His 
 temple, and that temple was in the heart of Judea, 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 
 “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— 
 
 évy TO aiwate tod Xpictod—“‘ in the blood of Christ.” 
 Compare i. 7, where d/a 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. 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 
 
 1 Wetstein (in loco) and Schoettgen (p. 761) have illustrated 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 a man was 
 made a proselyte he was said “to be brought near;” thus, propinguum facere, 
 equivalent to proselytum fucere. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 14. 175 
 
 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 recon- 
 ciled to God. 
 
 The following passage is magnificent in style as well as 
 idea. No wonder that the pious taste of Bengel has written 
 —Ipso verborum tenore et quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur :-— 
 
 (Ver. 14.) Adros ydp eoTuv 1 etpnvn nuav— For He is our 
 peace.’ I'dp introduces the reason of the previous statement. 
 There is peculiar force in the avros. It is not simply “ He,” 
 but “ He himself” —“ He truly,” or “ He and none other.” 
 Winer, § 22,4. The sev 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,” 
 and not merely 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—eipyyy. ‘ 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 Tojcas TA aphotepa Ev—“ who made both one.” The 
 participle is modal in sense, and Ta aporepa are clearly the 
 two races, Jew and Gentile, and not, as Stier and others main- 
 tain, man and God also. The words are the abstract neuter 
 (Winer, § 27, 5), and in keeping also is the following 
 adjective €v. Jew and Gentile are not changed in race, nor 
 amalgamated in blood, but they are “one” in point of pri- 
 
176 EPHESIANS II. 14. 
 
 vilege 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. . . . Iwill 
 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 TO pwecdtovyov TOU dpayyod Avcas—“ and broke down 
 the middle wall of partition”—paries intergerinus. Kai 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—rod 
 dpaywod—as that of apposition; nor could we, with Piscator, 
 change the clause into tov dpayuov Tod pecdToryov. 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, a, a. Ppayyos does not, however, 
 signify “‘ partition ;” it rather denotes inclosure. The Mosaic 
 law was often named by the Rabbins a hedge—»». Buxtorf, 
 Lex. Talmud. sub voce. What allusion the apostle had in 
 peadtotyoyv 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—pr) detv addodvdov €vTos Tod aylou Tapetvat. 
 Joseph. Antig. xv. 11; Bellum Jud. v.2. Such is the idea of 
 Anselm, Wetstein, Holzhausen, Bengel, and Olshausen. Tyn- 
 dale 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 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS II. 15. 177 
 
 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 Kphesian 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 allu- 
 sion 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 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 ti. 19. Having pulled down— 
 
 (Ver. 15.) Tov éy@pav—“ 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 
 KaTapynoas, as in our version and that of Luther, the sentence 
 is‘intricate and confused. Tay éyOpav— the enmity,” pro- 
 verbial and well known, is in apposition to pecdrosyov ; 
 “having broken down what formed the wall of separation, to 
 wit, the hatred.” This éy@pa is not in any direct or promi- 
 nent sense hatred toward God, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 (Hcumenius, 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 
 N 
 
178 EPHESIANS II. 15. 
 
 arguments advanced by Ellicott in defence of this hypothesis 
 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 Gen- 
 tile, and reconciliation with God is afterwards and formally 
 introduced. 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 Cony- 
 beare, 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, Riickert, and 
 Meyer, to take the term in its plain significance, as the con- 
 trast of e¢piyvn, 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 dis- 
 tance. 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.t This rancour formed of neces- 
 
 1 When Haman wished to destroy the Jews, he impeached them as a strange 
 people whose ‘laws are diverse from all people.” (Esther iii. 8.) Tacitus says :— 
 Moyses, quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque ceteris 
 
 yses, ] ’ q 
 
 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. 
 Judzorum mos absurdus sordidusque. (/istor. v. 4, 5.) 
 And Juvenal sings:—- 
 
 Nil preter nubes, et eli numen adorant 
 Nec distare putant humana carne suillam, &c. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 15. 179 
 
 sity a middle wall of partition, but Jesus, who is our peace, 
 hath broken it down. The next sentence gives the requisite 
 explanation— 
 
 €v TH TapKl avTOV TOV VOmoV THV evTOABY ev OOYpacW 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—év 7) capkt avtod 
 cannot refer to éy@pa, as the clause is pointed by Lachmann, 
 as Chrysostom and Ambrose quote, and as Bugenhagen and 
 Schultess argue, giving cdpé& the sense of kinsfolk—hatred 
 existing among his own people; or as Cocceius, who adopts 
 that view of the connection, renders—donee appareret in 
 carne. Such a construction would require the insertion of 
 the article t#v. Sdp& cannot bear such a meaning here, and 
 the enmity, moreover, was not confined to the Jews; it was 
 not all on their side. Nor can we, with Theodoret, Gicume- 
 nius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Riickert, 
 and Matthies, join the phrase to Xveas, as it is more natural, 
 and in better harmony with the course of thought, to annex 
 them to xatapyjoas, as explanatory of the means or manner 
 of the abolition. This last opinion is that of Harless, Ols- 
 hausen, Meier, Meyer, and De Wette. dp& 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. Katapyjoas means 
 “}aving made void ’’—“ having superseded.” Rom. ii. 31. 
 
 The phrase tov vopov Tov évtodar év Sdéypace is a graphic 
 
 Horace sneers at them, too :— 
 
 Hodie tricesima sabbata, vin’ tu 
 Curtis Judeis oppedere. (Satir. Lib. I. ix. 70.) 
 
 Diodorus Siculus speaks of their institutions as—r% wicdwWlgare zal rugdvouc En « 
 (Lib, xxxiv.) Shakspeare’s “ Shylock” was the universal picture of a Jew in 
 times not very distant from our own, and still, alas! the Jew is a “ hissing and a 
 proverb.” 
 
180 EPHESIANS II. 15. 
 
 description of the ceremonial law. But the meaning and 
 connection of év doypacr have been disputed :—lI. 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—doypata yap cadet Thy wictw. TVheo- 
 doret and Theophylact as usual follow him, while Gfcumenius 
 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 édywa. 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 ddéyua is wholly unbiblical. Adyywa 
 is equivalent to the participial form—7o dedoypévov, and has 
 its apparent origin in the common phrase which prefaced a 
 proclamation or statute—édofe 76 Aa®@ cai TH BovrAy. 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 phi- 
 losophical term to describe the tuition of the great Teacher, 
 because he might be writing to persons skilled in the idiom 
 of philosophical speech. 8. 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 ddypacu is too 
 
EPHESIANS IL. 15. 181 
 
 general to have in itself such a direct meaning, and avdrtod, or 
 some distinctive appendage, must have been added, did the 
 words bear the sense we are attempting to refute. 
 
 IL. Harless, Olshausen, and von Gerlach connect év ddypace 
 with carapyjcas, but in a different way. They understand 
 év doypace as describing one peculiar phase of the Mosaic law, 
 in which phase Jest abolished it. The phrase is supposed 
 by them to represent the commanding aspect of the law, and 
 so far as these d0yuata are concerned, the law has been abro- 
 gated. “ Waving abolished as to its ordinances—Satzungen— 
 the law of commandments,” that is, the law of commandments 
 is still in force, but its doyuata are set aside. In this view 
 those scholars were preceded by Crellius—non 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 doyuara is 
 a part of the voyos, the article tozs shonld 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, 
 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 d0yyara, 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. iu. 18; 
 Col. ii. 14. 
 
 III. The correct junction of the phrase év déyyacr is with 
 vowov Tov évtodov. Had it referred to vduos alone, one would 
 have expected the article to be repeated—voyov Tov évToAa@v Tov 
 év doypact. 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 vdsos, as 
 it was a code sanctioned by supreme legislative authority. 
 But, as a code, it comprised a prodigious number of minute, 
 
 1 Winer’s Greek Gram. § 31,7, 1, 5th edition. Ezeget. Stud. 1, 183. 
 
182 EPHESIANS II. 15. 
 
 varied, and formal regulations or prescriptions—éyToAai, the 
 genitive being that of contents; while the phrase év doypace 
 defines the nature of these évtonai, for they were doywara— 
 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 o7donnances—proclamations in the name of God. In an 
 especial sense, the ceremonial institute seemed good to God— 
 doxe?, and it became a ddyua. 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 
 set aside. Viewed as an organic whole, the Mosaic institute 
 was vouos—a law; analyzed and looked upon in its separate 
 constituents, it was vowos évtoA@y ; and when these évToXal 
 are inspected in their essence and authority, they are found to 
 be ddyuata—to be obeyed, because the divine Dictator was 
 pleased to enjoin them. The article, therefore, is not prefixed 
 to ddyuacr, which is descriptive of the form and authority 
 of those statutory regulations, the phrase representing one 
 connected idea. Winer, § 20,2. The év is not to be taken 
 for ovy, 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 quee data erat 
 Judwis in circumcisione et in neomeniis et in escis et in sacrificiis 
 et in sabbatis evacuavit. By the abrogation of the Mosaic 
 institute, the éyOpa 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 dis- 
 tinction 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 Ovo KTicn év éavT@ eis Ga Kawov avOpwrov— 
 “that He might create the two in Himself into one new 
 man.” This clause is no mere repetition of the preceding 
 
EPHESIANS II. 15. 183 
 
 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 
 new man. Kawos advOpwrros is found elsewhere as an epithet 
 descriptive of spiritual change, as in iv. 24; 2 Cor. v.17; 
 Gal. vi. 15; Col. iii. 10. The phrase is very different from 
 the novus homo of theduatins, 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 cireum- 
 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 
 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 
 both a novelty, they are shaped into one new man. And this 
 metamorphosis is effected év éav7o (A, B, F, have at7é)—not 
 50 éavtov, as Gicumenius 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 
 
184 EPHESIANS II. 16. 
 
 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- 
 lieving Gentile may be, and are, at enmity still, but when 
 they are united to Christ, they both feel the high and novel 
 place 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. 
 
 Tovov elpjnvnv-—“ making peace.” This e¢pjvn 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” 
 —rpos Tov Gedy Kal mpds adAAAAovs, for peace with God is in 
 the order of thought, the formal theme of the next verse, 
 although both results spring together from the same work of 
 Christ. The present participle, referring back to adtds, is 
 used, because it does not, like the aorist in the next clause, 
 express a reason for the result contained in the «rion, but it 
 is contemporaneous with it. The participle covers the entire 
 process—abolition of enmity, abrogation of law, and creation 
 of the new person; for in the whole of it Jesus is “ making 
 peace.” Scheuerlein, § 31,2 a. There is yet a higher aim— 
 
 (Ver. 16.) Kat doxatadddén tovs apdotépovs ev évi 
 cépate TO Oeo—“ And that He might reconcile the twain 
 in one body to God.” ‘This verse indicates another and 
 separate purpose of the annulment of the Jaw. 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 conterm:- 
 porancous. 
 
 The principal difference of opinion regards the phrase—év évi 
 compart; viz. whether it refer to united Jew and-Gentile, or to the 
 one humanity of Christ. The latter opinion is held by Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret, Beza, Crocius, Bengel, Riickert, Harless, 
 Matthies, and Hofmann, Schrift. ii. 379; but it is untenable. 
 For, 1. The order of the words would indicate another meaning 
 
EPHESIANS II. 16. 185 
 
 —tTovs auportépous ev évi couati—-“ the two in one body,” the 
 very truth which the apostle had been illustrating and enfore- 
 ing. He views the union as effected—does not now say tovs 
 d¥0, but names the united races—the twain in one body. The 
 els Kawvos avOpwrros is viewed as év céya. Photius explains 
 it—dua ev Tod év évl compat, THY Tpds GAXAOUS éudalver 
 katadrayjy. 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 5:a tod atavpod, 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 specified the possessor of the body, even 
 though the idea should be—‘ one body”—they in Him 
 enjoying fellowship with God. It appears better, then, to 
 adopt the other exegesis, and to take the phrase as meaning 
 Jew and Gentile incorporated. Such is the view of Gicume- 
 nius, Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Meier, 
 Meyer, Olshausen, De Wette, and Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 Besides what we have said in its favour, this idea is in 
 harmony with the context, and with what is advanced in the 
 next chapter. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 20, 27; Col. i. 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 body. 
 In that body there is no schism, and though it is made up of 
 two different races, it is yet but one body. So that the ey évt 
 coparte of this verse is in agreement with év évi rvevpare of 
 the 18th verse. 
 
 The action is defined by the verb adzoxata\ddén. The 
 double compound is found only in Col. i. 20,21. The azo 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 amepydfopat, atroOvicKw, aréyw. 
 Much has been written on the difference between duad\ridoow 
 and katakAdoow. Verbs compounded with dud have often a 
 mutuality of signification, but they cease in many instances 
 to bear such a distinction. Kaztad\doow is not practically 
 
186 EPHESIANS II. 16. 
 
 different from dvaAddoow, and so Passow holds (sub voce) that 
 Kata\rXdoow in the middle voice signifies—sich unter einander 
 versbhnen—* 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 Cicumenius, Photius, 
 Anselm, Calvin, a-Lapide, and Grotius, but it gives the ev the 
 sense of eds, and takes away the full force of the dative—r@ 
 @eo, making it mean—ut Deo serviant. But 7@ Oecd, as in 
 other passages where the words occur, defines the person with 
 whom the reconciliation has been secured, while év évi c@pate 
 describes the result of a contemporaneous but minor unity 
 between the two races. Winer, § 56, 5. It is probable, how- 
 ever, that év and eds were originally one—érs, like pels—pev. 
 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 
 
 1 Tittmann has entered at length into the discussion in his book on the Synonymes 
 of the New Testament. According to him, diarécow refers to the cessation of 
 mutual enmity, and z«caiaéccw 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. “If 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 ; first be reconciled to thy brother ”—d:arrcyahs 
 7 &deags. 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 such a philo- 
 logical 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 had been done justly to effend him, and that, upon explanation or 
 apology, his good-will was to be restored. Tholuck (Bergpredigt, p. 192) has well 
 exposed the futility of Tittmann’s subtle distinction Usteri, Lehrb. p. 102; Fritzsche, 
 Ad Rom. i. p. 276. 
 
EPHESIANS IT. 16. 187 
 
 God to justify the ungodly. This statement is proved by 
 the phrase—ésa Tod otavpod—for the cross has reconcili- 
 ation 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 whick the result of this peace is declared to be “ access 
 to the Father,’ which has been created by the blood of the 
 atonement. ‘T'rue, 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 T'wisse. Jew and Gentile are thus reconciled 
 to God, and the same act which gives them social unity, con- 
 fers upon them oneness with God, for the abrogation of the 
 ceremonial law was in itself the glorification of the moral law, 
 in the presentation of a perfect obedience to it, and in the 
 endurance of its penalty. 
 
 amoxteivas THY ExOpav év avto@— having slain the enmity 
 in it.’ The enmity referred to has been variously under- 
 stood, But éy@pa cannot exist on God’s part, for what He 
 feels toward sin is opy7. ‘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 it 
 our view of the nature of reconciliation be correct, and we 
 
 
 
 1 Works, vol. x. p. 495. Edin. 1853. 
 
188 EPHESIANS II. 17. 
 
 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 azroxtetvas 
 describes an action which precedes that of its verb adroxatan- 
 AdEy— and that, having slain the enmity, He might recon- 
 cile 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 argu- 
 ment will not hold, for—1. The slaying of the enmity being an 
 act prior to the reconciliation, refers to the sentiments of the pre- 
 ceding verses—the enmity between Jew and Gentile. 2. The 
 word éyOpa has special reference to the phrase—év évt cépate 
 —“and having slain the enmity between them, he might 
 reconcile them both in one body unto God.” 3. The stress 
 lies on tods aduortépous ev évi cepwati—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 abro- 
 gation 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 atté—in semet ipso, and Luther 
 —in sich selbst, with which the reading év éavt@ coincides, 
 and which is naturally vindicated by such exegets as Bengel, 
 Semler, Hofmann, and others, who refer to c@parte as the 
 antecedent, and understand by c#pa Christ’s humanity. But 
 the more natural interpretation is to refer the pronoun to Tod 
 atavpov. ‘The Syriac reads—“‘ and by His cross has slain 
 the enmity.” The word dzroxteivas, as Grotius suggests, 
 seems to have been employed because the cross referred to 
 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.) Kat dav evayyedicato eipyyny—* And having 
 come He preached peace.” “ Peace,” in this clause, is to be 
 taken in its widest acceptation; that peace which had just 
 
EPHESIANS II. 17. 189 
 
 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—avtos yap éotw % eipivn judv, 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—xait é\@@v. 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, Hstius, Holz- 
 hausen, Matthies, and Harless argue, for here it is an event 
 posterior to the crucifixion; as it is a coming to proclaim 
 what the death on the cross had secured. Nor can we, with 
 Riickert and Bengel, restrict the coming to the resurrection 
 of Jesus. As little can we hold the sense realized in our 
 Lord’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 
 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 these both are included. Christ brought 
 peace to the Ephesian Christians by means of this Spirit in 
 the apostles—qui facit per alium, facit per se. The preaching 
 of the apostles having the truth of Christ for its theme, the 
 
190 EPHESIANS II. 17. 
 
 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 
 “ Prace.” 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 €\@ov generally 
 as denoting Christ’s appearance upon earth, as in John i. 9, 
 11; iii. 19, &c. 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 so, 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 
 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— 
 
EPHESIANS II. 18. 191 
 
 duty Tots maKkpav Kal eipnynv Tots éyyds— to you who were 
 far off, and peace to them who were nigh.” The dative is 
 governed by the previous verb, and the second eépyvnv has, 
 on the authority of A, B, EK, °, G, and of several versions and 
 fathers, been received by Lachmann and Tischendorf into the 
 text. Isa. lvii. 19. The repetition is emphatic. Rom. ii. 31, 
 vil. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 16. The idea contained in paxpay 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 du’ adtod Exopev Ti Tpocaywyny ot audo- 
 tepo.— For by Him we both have access ’’—access specially 
 theirs, as the article intimates. The é7z 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. 
 IIpocaywy7, formed with the Attic reduplication from éya, is 
 “‘ introduction,’ entrance into the divine presence—an allu- 
 sion, according to some, to approach into the presence of a 
 king by the medium of a rpocaywyevs—sequester (Bos, Obser- 
 vat. p. 149) ; according to others, to the entrance of the priest 
 into the presence of God. Herodotus, 11. 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 
 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. ui. 18. 
 
 
 
192 EPHESIANS II. 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—év avtod; and the emphasis from their position 
 lies on these words. Our frail humanity realizes His huma- 
 nity, and by Him enters into the presence of Jehovah. John 
 xiv. 6, Thus Chrysostom says 
 Tpocaywyny, ov yap ap’ éavTav TpocnAOoper, AN’ UT’ avToD 
 mpoonyOnuev. 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: 
 ot auporepor—the twain have it. It belonged to the theo- 
 cracy in one form of it, when the high priest, the repre- 
 sentative 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 of 
 apporepor forming €vy capa (ver. 16)—now they are having 
 access to the Father— 
 
 év évt. mvevpati—“‘in one Spirit.”” The collocation ot 
 apporepor—ev evi mvevpate again brings out solemnly and 
 emphatically the leading thought in the passage. The éy is 
 not to be identified with dvd, as Chrysostom and Theophylact 
 hint; as if the apostle meant to say, by Him and by the 
 Spirit we approach. The wvedwa is not “ disposition,’’ nor 
 is éy mvedpa only “ unanimity,’ and so synonymous with 
 opoOvpasov, 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 Gicumenius, 
 
 
 
 5 \ 
 OUK elTrev TpoTodov GAA 
 
EPHESIANS II. 19. 193 
 
 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 aNadyrous. Rom. viii. 26. As again and again 
 in previous sections, the Triune relation is brought out: we 
 are having access—zrpos—unto the Father, whom we worship 
 as we gaze upon His tenderness and majesty; and this—dva 
 —by Jesus, through whom we approach in confidence His 
 Father and our Father; but also—éy—in the Spirit, who fills 
 and lifts the heart, and is closely united with Father and Son. 
 
 The need of a tpocaywyevs 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 mediatewr nécessaire entre Dieu et 
 Thomme, ce oyos de Pythagore et de Platon, ce Verbe fait 
 chair qui sert @interpréte a Dieu 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 ody ovxére earé Eévor Kal mapoixor—“ Now, 
 therefore, ye are no longer strangers and sojourners.” ‘The 
 first two words are a favourite idiom of the apostle. Rom. 
 
 O 
 
194 EPHESIANS II. 19. 
 
 v. 18, vii. 3, 25, vill. 12, &e.3 Gal. vi. 10; 1 Thess. v. 6. 
 The formula dpa ody is not used in Attic Greek, save in the 
 case of the interrogative dpa. Hermann, Vigerus, 292. The 
 particle dpa marks progress in the argument, as if equivalent 
 to cal an’ éxeivov. Thucyd. vi. 89; Donaldson’s New Cratylus, 
 § 192. The particle ody—allied to the substantive verb, and 
 not to avrds as Hartung wrongly supposes—has a stronger 
 ratiocinative force than dpa (Klotz-Devar., 11. 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—que 
 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. Eévor— strangers ””— 
 they had been so while the old theocracy stood, the Jews 
 being the children, but they miserable outcasts. Once, too, 
 they were rdpocxot, 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 -y, and also of 2m. The 
 two words are found together many times, as in Levit. xxv. 
 &e. It is natural here to view the oixe?ou of the last clause 
 as the contrast of mdpovxor, so that the significations of the 
 word usually given are too vague to sustain this antithesis. 
 In Leviticus xxii. 10, the noun denotes an inmate of the 
 family, but without its domestic rights ; mdpovxos tepéws 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 antagonism 
 of otxeiov? De Wette will not allow it, and says that Koppe, 
 Bengel, Flatt, Harless, and Olshausen wnrichtig erkliren. 
 His idea is, that the two terms &évo. and wdpoixos express 
 generally the thought nicht-biirgers— non-citizens.” Ellicott 
 and Alford hold a similar view, regarding 7dpovxos as the 
 same with pérotxos, its classic equivalent——a form which 
 occurs only once in the Septuagint. But it is natural to sup- 
 
 — = 
 
EPHESIANS IL. 19. 195 
 
 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 wdpouxor 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— 
 
 GN éoté cuvTroNitat TOV ayiov— but fellow-citizens with 
 the saints.” The spelling cvv7roXtraz, instead of cvupzroXirat, 
 has the authority of A, B’,C, D, E, F,G. Instead of the 
 simple adnra of the Received Text, the best MSS., such as A, 
 B, C, Dt, G, warrant the reading add’ 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. vvzodtrns, a 
 word occurring both in Athan, 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— 
 monityns Eye, 2) TvuTroATHs. 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 a@yioe are God’s people; and there is no occasion to 
 add, with Calvin-—et eum ipsis angelis. The reader may turn 
 to the first verse of the epistle for the meaning of a@yios.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 of those, of 
 
196 EPHESIANS IT. 19. 
 
 “saints” are not the Jews as a race, as is supposed by Vors- 
 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 Gicumenius 
 and Theodoret describe the alliance. Chrysostom exclaims— 
 ‘Opas ort oby atdOs ThV “lovdaiov GAA TOY dylov Kat wEeya- 
 Nov éxeivov avdpav Tav Tept "ABpadp kat Maiohv kau’? HrLav 
 els THY AUTH TOW aTreypadnuev. These dyvoe are viewed as 
 forming a 7roAus—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 zravdoxelov, nor as the pérorKxor 
 at Athens are they degraded by the symbolical tépsodopia, 
 but they possess the coveted icoréXeva. With all, then, who 
 belong to this wonduTeta, 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 otxeiow Tod Oeo¥— and of the household of God.” 
 The church is often likened to a family or house. Numb. 
 xu. 7; Hos. viii. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 15; Hebrews iii. 2, 5, 6; 
 whom some serve Him here on earth, and some surround the Throne of His glory 
 —to be fellow-citizens with whom is the highest privilege of man—and make it a 
 
 nickname to mock at 
 scorn.” —M‘Ghee’s Lectures on Ephesians, vol. i. p. 8323; London, 1848. 
 
 
 
 ‘sants!!’ The very term with multitudes is a name of 
 
EPHESIANS ILL. 20. 197 
 
 1 Pet. iv. 17. When Harless thinks that Christians receive 
 this designation, because they are stones in the house, the 
 conclusion 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 
 oixeios and mdpotxor. True, as Ellicott says under Gal. vi. 
 10, oéxetos is often used with abstract nouns, as oixetoe pido- 
 oii &c., 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 ocxetou Tod Oeod 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 oicoSeomérns 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.) ’Ezroccodoundévres emt TO Oepedi TOV aTroTTON@Y 
 xa mpodntav— built up upon the foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets.” The preposition éz/ 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— 
 superedijicati, as in the Vulgate. 1 Cor. ili, 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 LF signification with us, as the 
 “House of Bourbon” “House of Stuart ’’—phrases in 
 which the word is eepTbed 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 
 otxetot, the apostle enlarges the metaphor, by explaining on 
 
198 EPHESIANS II. 20. 
 
 what the ofxos rests, what its symmetry is, and what its glo- 
 rious purpose. That “house’’ is composed of the oéxeto., and 
 each of them is a living stone, resting on the one foundation. 
 
 What the writer means by doorodov is plain; but what 
 is meant by the subjoined zpodntav? 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—hoe 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- 
 phetarum. Contra Mare. v. 173 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 
 to the prophets! Estius says that the two classes are ranged, 
 dignitatis habita ratione, as the apostles had seen and heard 
 Christ, enjoyed more endowments than the old prophets, 
 and were immediately instrumental in founding these early 
 churches. Did the phrase occur nowhere else, these ingenious 
 arguments might be of some weight; though still, if the church 
 be regarded as an edifice, the prophets laid the foundation 
 earlier than the apostles, and should have been mentioned 
 first in order. The dignity of Moses, Samuel, David, and 
 Isaiah, under the old dispensation, was not behind that of the 
 
 1 My four Scottish predecessors have here shown somewhat of our national “ can- 
 niness.” They do not recognize any difficulty at all, or at least they quietly relieve 
 themselves of it, by the simple and apparently unconscious reversal 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 Comment. exhibits the same trans- 
 parent ingenuity, as well as in hosts of subsequent references, nay, even in his Latin 
 notation of the inspired original, he reads—/fundamento prophetarum et apostolorum., 
 
EPHESIANS IL. 20. 199 
 
 apostolical college. The ruddy tints of the morning, ere the 
 sun 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 ’—tols dylous atootéXos avToD Kat tpopytais. 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’””’—tovs ev atroatoXous, Tovs dé tpodytas. 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 in this verse, as they are twice named in 
 combination by the writer in the same epistle? The pre- 
 sumption is, that in the three places, the same high office- 
 bearers are described. 
 
 3. We deny not the relation of the prophets of the Old 
 Testament to the church of the New Testament. They pre- 
 ceded, the apostles followed, and Jesus was in the midst. 
 But in writing to persons who had been Gentiles, who were 
 strangers to the Hebrew oracles, and had enjoyed none of their 
 prophetic intimations—persons whose faith in Christ rested 
 not on old prediction realized in Him, but on apostolic procla- 
 mation of His obedience and death—a reference to the seers of 
 the Hebrew nation would not have been very intelligible and 
 appropriate. ‘lo Jews with whom the apostle had “reasoned 
 out of the Seripture,” and whom he had thus convinced that 
 
200 EPHESIANS II. 20. 
 
 Jesus was the Christ, the reference would have been natural 
 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- 
 cient importance and rank to be designated along with the 
 apostles. ‘The passages quoted from this epistle show this. 
 And there are many other references. Acts xix. 6; Rom. xii. 
 6; 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 8; the greater portion of the 14th 
 chapter; 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- 
 tion 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 
 oral law and testimony, and their work was not simply a dis- 
 closure of future events. (For illustration of the office of New 
 Testament prophets, see under iv. 11.) 
 
 4. Had the apostle meant to distinguish the prophets 
 of the Old Testament as a separate class, the article would 
 probably have preceded the noun. Winer, § 19, 4; Kiihner, 
 § 493, 9; Matthiae, § 268, Ann. i.; Middleton, p. 65, ed. 
 Rose. Comp. Matt. ui. 7, xv. 1; Luke xiv. 3, in which 
 places different classes of men, but leagued together, are 
 described. See also Col. ii.19; 2 Thess. i. 2; Tit. 1.15; 
 Heb. iti. 1. Not that, as Harless, Riickert, Hofmann 
 (Schriftb. vol. ii. p. 103), and Stier seem to say, apostles and 
 prophets are identical—or that apostles were also prophets, as 
 being men inspired. The want of the article clearly shows 
 that both classes of office-bearers are viewed in one category 
 as one in duty and object—one incorporated band. This 
 combination of function and labour shows, that these “ pro- 
 phets ” were those of the church of the New Testament. 
 
 The relation in which apostles and prophets stood to the 
 church is defined by the words éit té Oeuerio. The prepo- 
 sition describes the building as resting on the foundation with 
 the idea of close proximity. Kiihner, 612, 8; Bernhardy, p. 
 249—the dative signifying “ absolute superposition.” Donald- 
 son, Gr. Gram. § 482 b. The stones are represented not as 
 in the act of being brought, but as already laid, and so the 
 
EPHESIANS II. 20. 201 
 
 dative is employed rather than the accusative, which occurs 
 in 1 Cor. iii, 12. 
 
 But what is the exact relation indicated by the genitive— 
 Tov aTooTONwY Kal TpopyTav? 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, 
 Retin: Cocceius, Piscator, Alford, and Beza, the last i. aan 
 thus paraphrases HSuped Chips qui est apostolice 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 Oeuédwos and the axpoywriaios. 
 
 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. Such is the opinion of Chry- 
 sostom and his imitators, Theophylact and Ccumenius, of 
 a-Lapide, Estius, Zanchius, Morus, De Wette, Baumgar- 
 ten-Crusius, Meier, von Gerlach, Turner, Hofmann, and 
 Olshausen. Qepédros broxeivrat, says Theophylact, ot mpo- 
 pyrar Kat of amootodot, tyels SE THY AoTHY olKOdomAY 
 avaTt\npwcate. 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 Oeveriw be masculine or neuter, nor is the argument 
 of Hofmann (Scha7ftb. vol. ii. sec. part, p. 101) of any avail, 
 that as the last clause has a personal reference this must have 
 the same. In one sense the apostles, in their personal teaching 
 and labours, may be reckoned the foundation; but should such 
 a sense be adopted here, Christ would be brought into com- 
 
202 EPHESIANS IL. 20. 
 
 parison with them. Hofmann (J. c.) gets out of this objection 
 by taking the following avrod as referring to Oeuehla— Jesus 
 Christ being its chief corner-stone’’—that is, if He is the 
 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 thdtigen 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, Rickert, Harless, Matthies, Meyer, Holzhausen, and 
 Ellicott. The apostles and prophets laid the foundation broad 
 and deep in their official labours. In speaking of the foun- 
 dation 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¢e7jvn—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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 20. 203 
 
 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 
 great edifice, but they can never be substituted for the one 
 foundation, Yea and further— 
 
 dvTos axpoywuaioy avtod “Inood Xpuorod— 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 
 Gevércov—* 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. iii. 4; 
 Luke x. 42; Johniv. 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—érTos, “ being all the while ”—axpoywriaiov— 
 scilicet-—r0ov. ‘The reference in the apostle’s mind seems to 
 be to Ps. exvui. 22; Isa. xxvii. 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—nz tsi—xeganr? Tis yevias (Ps. exviil. 22), whereas 
 in Isa. xxviii. 16, the words are 722 yx, rendered by the Seventy 
 —nifov axpoywvaiov. 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 
 
 1 Gesenius, Thesaurus, sub voce. 
 
204 EPHESIANS II. 20. 
 
 building, seems to have been reckoned in Oriental architecture 
 of more importance than the foundation-stone. The foundation- 
 stones, Qeuédvo.—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 principal 
 foundation which was carefully laid at the angle of the 
 building, and on which the connected walls rested. Fyrom 
 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 cormmer-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 
 
EPHESIANS II. 21. 205 
 
 and rose from it “ the first-fruits of them that sleep.” If 
 — preach, Christ crucified is their text; and if churches 
 
 “ erow 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 Sait who applies His truth to the 
 mind, sprinkles His blood on the heart, and seals the inner 
 man ith His blessed image. 
 
 (Ver. 21.) "Ev @ maca oixodomy TvvappoNoyoupévn avéer— 
 “Tn whom the whole building, being fitly framed together, is 
 growing.” The relative agrees with the nearest substantive, 
 ‘Incod Xpictod—not with TH Oewedio, as is the opinion of 
 Holzhausen ; nor with dxpoywriaiov, 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, Moras and Flatt. 
 “In whom,” that is, in Ghani Jesus ; the building being fitly 
 framed together in Him. Its unity and symmetry are origi- 
 nated and maintained in Him. The article 1) before vaca 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 waoa 7 is the right 
 reading. Reiche says—Paulum scripsisse aca 1 oixkodopy cum 
 articulo nullus dubito, and he ascribes the omission to the 
 homoioteleuton—oixodopm 7 4. Comment. Crit., p.149; Gotting. 
 1859. Hofmann, /.c., renders, “all which is built””—was gebaut 
 wird. Must, hen, Taoa aaah 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 —Ilds otxos IoparjA—phraseology 
 
206 EPHESIANS II. 21. 
 
 based upon the usage of the Septuagint, 1 Sam. vu. 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, Antiq. 
 iv. 5, 1—Ilorapos b1a waons épyuov péwv— a river flowing 
 through the whole desert ;’” Thucydides, i1. 43—aea yi, and 
 also in 88—é€x mdons ys; Iliad, xxiv. 407—acav adnGeinv ; 
 Hesiod, Op. et Dies, 510—raca try; Theog. 847— Gav 
 maca. Also—bua mdons vuxtos; 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 -Jitis otsSs— the whole building.” 
 
 Oixodou7, a term of “the later Greek, as is shown by Lobeck 
 in his Parerga to the Ecloge of Bnggichps signifies pro- 
 perly “the art or process of building,” and is originally 
 equivalent to ofxoddéunous, but has also the same meaning as 
 oixodopnua —pp. 421, 487,490. The structure named has not 
 yet been completed, and caca oixodoum 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- 
 egress, shall be manifest, fully and for ever—“ a holy temple 
 in the Lord.” 
 
 The present participle cvvapyoroyoupévn, is a rare term 
 
EPHESIANS Il. 21. 207 
 
 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- 
 ture 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 
 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.”’ 
 
 Avéer is for the more usual adéaver. It occurs Col. ii. 19, 
 and also in the Greek poets. The present marks actual 
 erowth 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- 
 
 , j 2 7 a ims Pi Ba eg <.ahs 
 
 l Avo yag aputns Evavrias wrArAGAass rovs AiOove Exiiyay. "Evrds D2 oltre yAAIE ovTe THAOS Hy, 
 arAw Lovonodopenwevos meyeenos Aides zal Zvroey eyyovios cID{ew webs AAAGAOUs Te Ewbey xot 
 woniBdw Fedeuévo.——Thucydides, i. 93. 
 
208 EPHESIANS IT. 21. 
 
 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 Doric 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— 
 
 eis vaov dytov év Kupio—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 vaov dyvov ; not as 
 (Kcumenius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Wolf, and 
 Meyer suppose, to aver ; for these critics, with the exception 
 of the last, give év the sense of dsa—it groweth ‘ by means of ” 
 the Lord. Nor does Kvpuos 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 éy of its 
 own significance, making the phrase év Kup/ equivalent to a 
 dative, and joining it with vadv; 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 dy.os, see 1. 1. 
 The signification of the simple dative—‘ a temple dedicated 
 to the Lord,’”? cannot be admitted for another reason—that 
 
 1 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 il employe 1’or brilliant d’une foi extraor- 
 dinairement éclairée; 1k argent secourable d’une charité liberale; 1 le fer dur et 
 ferme dune patience invincible; 14 le cedre incorruptible d’une vie pure, et éloignée 
 des corruptions du monde; Ja la hauteur des colonnes qui paroissent de loin, pour 
 mettre la verité dans une belle vué; 1a la force des soubassemens qui la soutiennent 
 et l'affermissent ; afin que par ce moyen son Eglise soit un édifice bien ajusté et bien 
 assorti, & qui rien ne manque pour sa subsistance. I] se sert méme de la contrarieté 
 des humeurs et des esprits, pour rendre cet ajustement plus parfait. Car par la 
 promtitude et la vehemence des uns, il excite la lenteur des autres: et par la lenteur 
 de ceux-ci il modere et retient la promtitude de ceux-la. Par les lumieres des 
 clairvoyans il instruit les simples, et par la sainte simplicité des idiots, il sanctifie 
 les lumieres des clairvoyans. Si tous étoient bouillans dans leur humeur, il y auroit 
 
EPHESIANS II. 22. 209 
 
 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. 1. 16, 17, vi. 19; 2 Cor. 
 vi. 16. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 8, 4), and its peculiar and specific 
 meaning is given in the next clause, by the words xatovn- 
 7, . : 
 THpLov TOD Ocod—“ Habitation of God ;” for vads, from vaio, 
 like the Latin aedes, is the dwelling of the Divinity. Exod. 
 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 & kal tpels cvvotxodopciobe—“ In which 
 also you are built together.” To translate cat tpets by “ you 
 even’’ may be too broad, but some comparison is involved. 
 Some refer év 6 to Kupie, “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 adxpoywriaiov for an antecedent. We 
 prefer, with Calixtus, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten, and Matthies, 
 taking vaov ayov év Kupiw as the antecedent. If it be said, 
 on the one hand, that év 6 usually in such connections refers 
 to Christ, then it may be said, on the other hand, that to be 
 built 7m 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 tdpels 
 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 magisque which Bucer 
 gives to the ovy- in composition with the cuvotxodopeiodc, 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 
 
 de l’emportement; si tous étoient froids, il y auroit de la negligence: mais par la 
 
 violence des uns il échanffe la froideur de temperament des autres; et par la froideur 
 
 des derniers il tempere la trop grande ardeur des premiers; faisant et entretenant 
 
 ainsi un heureux ajustement, et unesalutaire harmonie dans son Eglise.”— Sermons sur 
 
 ?Epitre de St. Paul aux Ephesiens, par feu M. Du Bose, tome iii. pp. 299, 300. 1699. 
 P 
 
210 EPHESIANS II. 22. 
 
 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 
 3 Esdras v. 88, cvvorxodopnoomev buiv 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 tpets of this verse are the vets of 
 ver. 19. The cvv- 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 cuvapporoyoupévyn. ‘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 ’’— 
 
 els KaToLKnTHpLov TOD Oeod ev Ivevwart— for an habitation 
 of God in the Spirit.” We regard these words as explanatory 
 of the vads ayzos 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 
 Godt “This is my rest ’”’—“ here will I stay.””’ Now Jehovah 
 
 1 Josephus records among the omens which preceded the fall of Jerusalem, that 
 a mysterious 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. 
 
EPHESIANS II. 22. 211 
 
 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 a joy, 
 of which the lustre of the Shechinah was only a faint reflec- 
 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 
 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—éev Ivetpart. 1. Some, such as Chrysostom, Riickert, 
 Olshausen, and Holzhausen, as also Hrasmus, 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 anything implying it. Nor could the two words, 
 placed as they are by the apostle, naturally bear such a signi- 
 fication. 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 IIvedmare to the verb cuvorxodopetobe, 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 pre- 
 ceding 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 
 IIvebpua, denoting the Spirit objectively, should have the article. 
 But surely the article is not required any more than with the 
 
212 EPHESIANS II. 22. 
 
 év Kupim of the preceding verse. The reader may turn for 
 proof to this epistle, i. 5, vi. 18; and Matt. xxii. 43; Rom. 
 vill. 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 i. 27, iv.1,14. Perhaps 
 the idea of divine power exerted ab extra is intended in these 
 last passages. When the epithet ayvov is employed, the article 
 is sometimes used and sometimes not, though the cases of omis- 
 sion 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. 11. 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 vill. 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. 11.16. What is true of them separately is also 
 true of them collectively—they are the residence of God in 
 the Spirit. “Ev Ivevpmars 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 IIveduare—in the Spirit, if 
 
EPHESIANS II. 22. 213 
 
 so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Rom. viii. 9. 
 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. 
 
CHAP. III. 
 
 Havine 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 im- 
 prisonment, 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 1st 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 yapuw— For this cause;”’ the reference 
 
 1 The 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 sus- 
 pension of a process for a year was held to be tantamount to its abandonment. 
 
EPHESIANS UI. 1. 215 
 
 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 Zan- 
 chius, 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 Gicumenius 
 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 ovo in that verse, as by the fact that the 
 repeated tovtov yap 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 expo- 
 sitors adopt the view we have given, to wit, that ver. 14 
 resumes the interrupted sentiment. Theodoret says—rtavra 
 mavra (ver. 1-13) é€v péow Tebekms dvadauBdaver Tov TeEpi 
 mpocevyns Noyov. 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- 
 enthesis or digression occurs, and for this purpose various 
 supplements have been proposed for the 1st verse. Many 
 supply the verb e¢ué— For this cause I Paul am the prisoner 
 of Jesus Christ.” This conjecture has for its authority the 
 Peschito, which is followed by Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Anselm, Erasmus, Aretius, Cajetan, Beza, with a large host 
 
216 EPHESIANS IIf. 1. 
 
 of modern critics, the version of Tyndale, and Geneva. The 
 paraphrase of Chrysostom is—éia TobTo Kal éy@ Sedeyai ; 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 déopues 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, rovrou ydpuw and b7ép tway 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 mpeoSev@—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 Kcexavynuar, 
 taken from Phil. ii. 16. Jerome supplies—cognovi mysterium, 
 nd Camerarius gives us—hoc scribo. Meyer’s rendering is 
 peculiar—deshalb—because you are inbuilt—zu 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. 
 
 "Eye Taddos—‘ I Paul,” his own name being inserted to 
 give distinctness, personality, and authority to the statement, 
 as imrd-Cor, 112913, ui, 4)n5p22% 2+Cor. =. ly Galgynee 
 Col. i. 23; 1 Thess, 17.18; Phil. 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 synonyme of antichristian intolerance, it was now Paul, 
 not merely a disciple or a servant, but— 
 
 0 déoptos TOD Xpiatod ’ Inood-—“ the prisoner of Christ Jesus.” 
 2 Tim. 1.8; Phil. 9. The genitive, as that of originating 
 cause, signifies not merely “a prisoner belonging to Christ,” 
 but one whom Christ, that is, Christ’s cause, and not Cesar, 
 had imprisoned. Winer, § 30,2, 8; Acts xxii.11. His loss 
 of liberty arose from no violation of law on his part: it was 
 
EPHESIANS III. 2. 2G 
 
 solely in prosecuting his mission that he was apprehended and 
 confined; for he was in fetters— 
 
 trép tuav tov eOvav— 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 
 xxl, 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 cap- 
 ture 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.) Eivye jxovcarte tiv oixovopiav-— 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 eye 
 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 
 case, ye have heard.” Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834. The 
 particle ye is used in suppletive sentences (Hartung, Partih. 
 i. 391) and may be rendered und 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 
 contents of the sentence are adduced as proof of a preceding 
 statement, the meaning of elye approaches that of 67 and 
 évet. Hoogeveen also states the same canon.? The apostle 
 says—I am a prisoner for you Gentiles ; and he now gives the 
 reason of his assertion—Ye must surely have heard of the dis- 
 pensation committed to me—a dispensation whose prominent 
 and distinctive element it is to preach among the Gentiles. 
 
 Reckless efforts have been made upon the verb nxovcate— 
 
 1 Stud. and Kritik. 1841, p. 432. 
 2 Doctrina Particularum, §e. p. 158, ed. Schiitz ; Klotz-Devar. p. 308, 
 
218 EPHESIANS III. 2. 
 
 as when Pelagius renders it jirmiter tenetis. So Anselm, Gro- 
 tius, and Rinck, Sendschretb. des Korinth, p.56. See underi. 15. 
 The apostle has been supposed by Musculus, Crocius, Flatt, 
 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 eiye, rather than 67, 1s 
 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 ofcovoyia 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; nor officiwm 
 dispensande gratia 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 ocovoula with the amoxadvys of 
 the following verse— As much as to say, I learned it not 
 from man.”’” How came it that a person like Paul—a staunch 
 Pharisee, a scholar of Gamaliel, attached to rabbinical studies, 
 and a zealot in defence of the law—how came it that he, with 
 antecedents so notorious in their contrast, should be the man 
 to preach, as his special mission, the entrance of Gentiles into 
 Christian privilege? The method of his initiation was of 
 God; and that “ economy’? is described as being— 
 
 THs Xapitos TOD Meod Tis SoGeions por eis bwas— of the 
 grace of God which is given me to you-ward.” This ydpus is 
 
EPHESIANS III. 3. 219 
 
 not, as Grotius and Riickert imagine, the apostolical office, 
 but the source or contents of it. Wesee no ground to identify 
 xapes with the following wvorypiov, though it includes it. The 
 idea is either that the o/xovoyia had its origin in that yaprs, or 
 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—els buds—“ to you,” not inter vos, as Storr 
 makes it. Gal. 1.15, 11.9; Acts xxii. 21. There may, as 
 Stier suggests, be an allusion in the odcovoyia to the otxodoun 
 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 cata atroxarupw éyvwpicbn jot TO wuaTHpLoV 
 —‘“How that by revelation was the mystery made known to 
 me.” ’‘Eyveépice is the reading of the Received Text, on the 
 authority of D'11, KE, J, K, and many minuscules, and is 
 received by Knapp and Tittmann ; but éyywpic6@n has the pre- 
 ponderant authority of A, B,C, D1, F,G, &c., the Syriac and 
 Vulgate, and is adopted by Lachmann, Hahn, and Tischendorf. 
 The “ relative particle 671, as the correlative of t/, 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 disclosure—xatd atroxddvwu, the 
 emphasis lying on the phrase, as is indicated by its position. 
 Gal. 1. 2. In Gal. i. 12, the genitive with dvd is employed. 
 Grammarians, as Bernhardy (p. 241) and Winer (§ 59), show 
 that xara, with the accusative, has sometimes an adverbial 
 signification ; so Meyer renders offenbarungsweise. The differ- 
 ence is not material; but dc doxadvews would refer to the 
 means or method of disclosure, whereas cata atroxdduyw may 
 describe the shape which it assumed. he general spirit of 
 
220 EPHESIANS III. 3. 
 
 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.” 
 It was by special instruction that he comprehended the world- 
 wide adaptions 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 xxii. 21; Gal. i. 16. And he adds— 
 
 xabas Tpvéyparyra év ddtyo —‘ 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 wvorijpsov 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—ovy os twés tméraBov, Stu étrépayv émiatodny 
 yéypadev. 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 oAty@—in brevi (Vulgate), “in brief” 
 —in a few words. See Kypke, Odservat. 11. 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 év ddvym should be taken as explanatory of the 
 mpo- in mpoéypayra, 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 odtyou would have been employed. And the apostle has 
 
EPHESIANS II. 4. 221 
 
 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.) Ipds 6. pds 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 
 not the immediate sense. Its more usual signification—“ in 
 reference to which’’—is as appropriate. Winer, § 49,4. Such 
 is also the rendering of Peile—‘ referring to which.” Herodot. 
 iii. 52; Jelf, p. 638; Matthiae, § 591; Bernhardy, p. 265; 
 Vigerus, De Idiotismis, 1. p. 694; London, 1824. The 
 reference is subjective—“ as I have already written in brief, 
 in reference to which portion—‘ tanquam ad specimen,’ when 
 ye read it, ye may understand my knowledge.” In the phrase 
 pos 6, the apostle quietly claims their special attention to the 
 passage on which such notoriety is bestowed, and adds— 
 
 Sivacbe dvaywecKovTes vonoar THY ovVEeTiv pov ev TO 
 pvaortnpio Tob Xprrrod— 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.” Grech Gram. § 427, d. If this 
 be supposed to be too refined, it may be added that several 
 verbs, as Svvapar, are in Greek idiom followed by the aorist 
 ia than the present. Winer, §44, 7. The vérb vofjcas means 
 to perceive—come to the knowledge of—to mark; whereas 
 cvveows is intelligence or insight, and does not require the 
 repetition of the article before év 76 pv Tnpi~, as one idea is 
 conveyed. Josh. i. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; Daniel i. 17; 
 
 1“ Here he confuteth the papists. on account of their cursed practice in taking 
 away the key of knowledge—the reading of the Scriptures; in which fact they are 
 like the Philistines putting out the eyes of Samson, and taking away the smiths, 
 not leaving a weapon in Israel,”—-Bayne, on Eph. in loc. Lond. 1643. 
 
222 EPHESIANS III. 5. 
 
 3 Esdras 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 Xpicrod, is probably that 
 of object. Ellicott, following Stier, inclines to make it that of 
 material or identity, which appears too refined and strained— 
 Colossians i. 27 not being exactly parallel, but being a sub- 
 jective 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 Ephesians 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 érépaus yeveats odx éyvwpicOn Tols viois Tav 
 av@pemwv— Which in other ages was not made known to the 
 sons of men.” The antecedent to 6 is wvoTHptoy, the relative 
 forming a frequent link of connection. The év which is found 
 in the Received Text is condemned by the evidence of MSS., 
 such as A, C, D, E, F, G, 1, K. The dative as a designation 
 of the time in which an action took place may stand by itself 
 without a preposition, as in 11. 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. Tevea, corresponding to 
 the Hebrew +, signifies here the time occupied by a genera- 
 ration—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 
 
EPHESIANS III. 5. 223 
 
 phrase tofs viots Tov avOpw@rwyv. Such a construction is clumsy, 
 and it is far better to give the two datives a differential sig- 
 nification. The formula érépas 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 supposes, 
 mean the prophets of the Old Testament, is wholly out of the 
 question. Ezekiel was often named o222—“ son of man,” but 
 the prophets never as a’ body received the cognomen “ sons of 
 men.” We can scarcely say, with Harless, Matthies, and 
 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. 81. The words so 
 familiar to a Hebrew ear, seem to have been suggested by the 
 yeved 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 yeveat. The 
 meaning of the apostle, however, is not that the mystery was 
 unknown to all men, for it was known toa 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— 
 
 @s vov aTreKarvhOn Tots aylots aTooToNOLs avToD—‘ 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 preconium. 'The points 
 of comparison introduced by ws are various:—1. In point of 
 time—viv. 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 
 
224 EPHESIANS III. 5. 
 
 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 
 under ii. 20, and “ apostles and prophets”’ will be more fully 
 illustrated under iv. 11. The epithet dycoc 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 atrod. They were His in a special sense, selected, 
 endowed, 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 mpopytass év Ivedwati— and prophets in the Spirit.” 
 Lachmann, followed by Bisping, places a comma after ayious, 
 and regards the next words as in apposition. Ivedua has not 
 the article. See under i. 17; see also under 11. 22. Ambro- 
 siaster and Erasmus connect év Uvetpwate with the following 
 verse, a supposition which the structure of the succeeding 
 sentence forbids; and Meier joins the same phrase to ayious, 
 as if év Ivetware 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 
 
EPHESIANS III. 5. 225 
 
 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 u. 20. It might be said 
 that the pronoun seems to qualify amrooréAous—tols dylows 
 aroatorots avtTov—to. His holy apostles, while the prophets 
 have no distinctive character given them, unless it be by the 
 words év Ilveduare, for they were prophets, and had become 
 so, or had a right to the title, év Tvevware. 2 Pet.i.21. This 
 interpretation was before the mind of Chrysostom, though he 
 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. 
 Sunilar 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—avrod—in a special sense, and they were dy: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 IIvedware with the verb gives so 
 good a meaning, that we could not justify ourselves in depart- 
 ing from it. aw 
 _ 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 clacrvoyance, with the fuller 
 revelation of its terms and contents given to modern apostles 
 and prophets; or as Theodoret contrasts it—ovd yap Ta 
 Tpdypata eidov, dAda Tods Trep) TOY TpayLaTwY Tpoeyparyav 
 Q 
 
 =~ 
 
226 EPHESIANS IIf. 6. 
 
 Noyous. In Vetere Testamento Novum latet, et in Novo Vetus 
 patet. The scholium in Matthaei—“ 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 
 Judeo-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 
 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- 
 
 Se prise. Acts xi. 17, 18, xv. 7, 13. 
 
 (Ver. 6.) This verse explains the mystery. The infinitive 
 eivat 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— 
 
 eivat Ta EOvy cvyKAnpovoua— that the Gentiles are fel- 
 low-heirs.” Rom. viii. 17. Remarks have been made on the 
 KAnpovopia, 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— 
 
 Kail ovvawpa— and of the same body,”—concorporales— 
 a more intimate union still. The form of spelling civowpa 
 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 be distinguished from the original mem- 
 
EPHESIANS III. 6. 227 
 
 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—é& yap 
 coma yeyovacw ot éOyiKol mpos Tods "lopanditas pid Keharj 
 éy Xpiot@ cvyxparovpevot. Comp. il. 16. Still further— 
 
 Kal cuppétoxa Tis égayyerias—“ and fellow-partakers of 
 the promise.” The pronoun avrod 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?, D3, E, F, G, K, L. The spelling cuvpéroya is found 
 in A, Bt, C, D', F, G. It has been thought by many. to 
 be too narrow a view to restrict the promise to the Holy 
 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. 15), 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 unmistakable 
 meaning. Ellicott says that this view is scarcely consonant 
 with cvyxAnpovoua—tellow-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 XpictS “Inood—in Christ Jesus—as A, B, C, followed 
 by the Coptic and Vulgate, read. We would not, with Vatab- 
 lus, Koppe, Meier, Holzhausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 restrict €v Xpict@ Incod to the preceding noun ézaryyehia— 
 
 
 
228 EPHESIANS IIL. 6. 
 
 “promise in Christ’””—for then we might have expected a repe- 
 tition of the article; but, with the majority of critics, we 
 regard it as qualifying the whole three adjectives, as the inner 
 sphere of union, while the medium or instrumental cause is 
 next stated— 
 
 Sia Tod evayyeXtov—not, as Locke translates, “ in the time 
 of the gospel ;” but “‘ by means of the gospel.” The prepo- 
 sitions év and éa@ stand in a similar relation, as ini. 7. “In 
 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.” 
 
 How, then, do the three epithets stand connected? There 
 seems to be no climax, as Jerome, Pelagius, and Baumgarten- 
 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 cup-is thrice repeated, 
 and ctvcwpa and cvrpétoyxa, are terms coined for the occa- 
 sion, though the verb cvpperéy@ occurs in classic Greek, as 
 in Euripides, Supp. 648—ovpperacyorres ; Xenophon, Ana- 
 basis, vii. 8.17; Plat. Thecet., Opera, vol. iii. p. 495, ed-Bekker; 
 The Gentiles are fellow-heirs. But such a fellowship might 
 be external to a great extent—Hsau 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 
 
 1 Jerome affirms on this place, and in apology for the barbarous Latin in whicle 
 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 Zeil—basis, manner, and end, with a cor~ 
 respondent reference to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 
EPHESIANS III. 7. 229 
 
 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- 
 mision to the law, as so many had fondly imagined, but by 
 the gospel. The next verse shows his relation to that gospel— 
 
 (Ver. 7.) O& éyevnOnv Sudxovos—“ of which I became a 
 minister.” Col.i.23; 2 Cor. 11.6. 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 éyev76nv is used in 
 Doric for éyevounv, yiyvec@ar being in that dialect a deponent 
 passive. Phryn. ed-Lobeck, p. 108-109. Avdxovos (not, as 
 often said, from 64 and xéves— one covered with dust,” but 
 from an old root—é.dcke—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 dvd cannot enter into the composition of d:dxovos, 
 as the ais long. The ain ova 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 dijxovos. Lexilogus, 
 sub ‘voce, Ssaxtopos. 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 Swpedy THs ydpiTos ToD Oeod THY SoPEtady por— 
 “ according to the gift of the grace of God which was given 
 to me.” Awped is the gift, and ydpus is that of which the 
 gift is composed (ii. 8), the genitive being that of apposition. 
 Instead of tv So0etcay in the next clause of the Received 
 Text, some modern editors read—rfjs d00e¢ons, which has the 
 authority of the old MSS. A, B, C, Dt, 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 D3, 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 ydpis is not the gift 
 
230 EPHESIANS III. &. 
 
 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 évépyevav Ths Suvdpews avtoD— according to the 
 working of His power.” Kara refers us to do0cicav. The 
 gift of grace is conferred in accordance with the working of 
 His power. Seei. 19. "Evépyesa and dvvayis 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- 
 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—xara tiv dwpeay ; and 
 that office was conferred upon him in unison with—xata tiv 
 évépyetav—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—hee est potentic 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 Swped Ths yapitos ; and that power wrought very effec- 
 tually— évépyera tis Suvdpews. Gal. ii. 8. The apostle 
 becomes more minute— 
 
 (Ver. 8.) "Epol, 76 éXayiototépw Tavtov ayiov—“ 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 €@verw to the dwpedy 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 
 
EPHESIANS IIL 8. 231 
 
 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. "EXayic- 
 TeTép@ is a comparative, founded on the superlative éddytcros 
 —“less than the least;” a form designed to express the 
 
 1 The following note descrilfes 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 inany 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 them with envious and bitter thoughts against those that stand in their 
 light, or by any means do eclipse their glory, or hinder the progress of their idolized 
 reputation. . . . . 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 informing 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 contradicteth 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 understand, 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 roughness, unevenness, and superfluity. If we 
 have a plain and cutting passage, it throws it away as too rustical and ungrateful. 
 . . . - And when pride hath made the sermon, it goes with them into the pulpit ; 
 it formeth their tone, it animateth them in the delivery, it takes them off from that 
 which may be displeasing, how necessary soever, and setteth them im 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 
 should 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 preacher, and 
 to be applauded by all that hear me?’ When the sermon is done, pride goeth 
 home with them, and maketh them more eager to know whether they were 
 applauded, than whether they did prevail for the saving change of souls! They 
 could find in their hearts, but for shame, to ask folks how they liked them, and to 
 draw out their commendation.” —The Reformed Pastor, &c., pp. 154, 155, Baxter's 
 Works, vol. xiv.; London, 1830. 
 
232 EPHESIANS III. 8. 
 
 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. ’EnXayvotdtatos 
 is found in Seatus Empir. ix. p. 627. The English term 
 “lesser”? isakin. Matthie, § 186; Winer, §112; Buttmann, 
 § 69, note 3. [ldvtes ayvor are not the apostles and prophets 
 merely, but saints generally. Theophylact says justly—xanrei 
 ov TOV ATOCTONOY, GAA TaVT@V TOV aylwv, TovTéoTL TOY 
 miotov. 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; Philip. i. 6. To him— 
 
 €560n %) yapis a’rn—“ 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 
 intrusted to Paul had the following end in view— 
 
 év Tols EOveow evayyericacbar— to preach among the Gen- 
 tiles. Lachmann omits év, 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 €y rots 
 éOveow, 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 mis- 
 sionary to the heathen world. And the staple of that good 
 news which he proclaimed was— 
 
 T) aveEvtyviact ov TAOVTOS TOU Xpictov—“ the unsearchable 
 riches of Christ.” IIodros is rightly read in the neuter. 
 See under i. 7, and 11.7. The adjective occurs in Rom. xi. 
 33, and has its origin in the Septuagint, where it represents 
 the Hebrew formula—yn px, in Job. v. 9; ix. 10—and zs}, 
 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, adap- 
 tation, and substantial permanence, he terms “riches.” ‘The 
 
EPHESIANS III. 9. 233 
 
 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 dura- 
 tion 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 consciousness, shrouds itself from our 
 scrutiny, for it indicates the presence of the Divine Spirit in 
 His power—a power exerted upon man, beyond resistance, 
 but without compulsion; and in its mighty and gracious 
 operation neither wounding his moral freedom nor impinging 
 on his perfect and undeniable 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 par- 
 ticipants. Still farther— 
 
 (Ver. 9.) Kat daticas mavras— And to make all men 
 see.’ Lachmann has assigned no valid reason for throwing 
 suspicion upon wavras. To restrict the meaning of the adjec- 
 tive to the heathen, as Meyer and Baumgarten-Crusius do, is 
 without any warrant, though vdvras 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 ¢awrtifw, 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, dda&ar, but to enlighten inwardly—to 
 give spiritual apprehension—d¢wrica. 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 
 
 
 
234 EPHESIANS III. 9. 
 
 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— 
 
 tls % oikovopia Tod wvetnpiov— what is the economy of 
 the mystery.” That oixovouia should supersede the gloss 
 xowevia 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 otxovoyia and puartipiov 
 have been already explained i. 9, 10, and iii. 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— 
 
 TOU amroKeKpumpévou ato TAY al@vey év TO OcS—“ which 
 from of old has been hid in God.” Col. 1. 26; 1 Cor. i. 7; 
 Rom. xvi. 25. ’Aqo tay aidévev—“‘ From the ages: in a 
 temporal sense; ’’ not concealed from the ages, in the sense of 
 Macknight, but hid from of eld; 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, 
 
EPHESIANS III. 9. 235 
 
 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— 
 
 TO Ta TavTa KTicav7rt—* who created all things.” The 
 additional words dua “Incot Xpiotod, 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 Gicumenius. The 
 emphasis lies on ta wavta, but the meaning of xrticavre has 
 been much disputed :—1. Chrysostom, guided by the words 
 which he admitted into the text dua ’Incov Xpictodb—ex- 
 plains thus— He who created all things by Him, revealeth 
 also this by Him.” But if the phrase dua "Incov Xpicrod 
 be spurious, this interpretation, if it can be called one, is 
 at once set aside. 2. Olshausen says, that the term is 
 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 religue aconomie. 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. 8. 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 i. 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, seems to 
 prove that it must bear its most usual and simple significa- 
 tion. 4. Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others, refer ta tdvta to 
 men, abridging by this tame exegesis the limitless meaning 
 of the terms. 
 
236 EPHESIANS III. 10. 
 
 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 amystery. 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 
 sovereion 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 
 with creation, for creation built up the platform on which 
 the strange mystery of redemption was disclosed. God, as 
 Creator of the universe, has of necessity a plan according to 
 which all arrangements take place, for creation implies pro- 
 vidence or government—the gradual evolution of counsels 
 which had lain folded up with unfathomable secrecy. But 
 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 pre-arranged 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 6 vov—“ In order that there might 
 now be made known.” “Iva yvwpicO} stands connected as a 
 climax with evayyedicacbar of ver. 8, and dwricai of ver. 9. 
 Noy is opposed to aio tay aidvwv. We cannot here regard 
 
EPHESIANS III. 10. 237 
 
 iva as echatic 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 Hazrless, cake connects ae verse solely 
 with the clause immédiately 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 fva, 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 
 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, 
 
238 EPHESIANS III. 10. 
 
 place, method, and results of its disclosure, it now exhibited 
 the divine wisdom in a novel and striking light— 
 
 Tais apyats Kal tats éEovclats év Tots érovpaviows— 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—-év trois érovpaviois, which designates 
 abode or locality, has been considered under i. 3, 205 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 Till 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. 1. p. 360-2) 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 
 form, and are taught by the foundation and extension of the 
 church their own weakness.’’ Nor can we agree with the 
 opinion of Van Till, Knatchbull, and Baumgarten, that the 
 words é€y tots érovpaviows signify “in heavenly things,” and 
 are to be connected with yywpic@h, so as to mean, that the 
 principalities and powers are instructed by the church in 
 celestial themes. And the lesson is given— 
 
 Sua Ths éxxXnolas—* by the church ”’—the community of 
 the faithful in Christ being the instructress of angels in 
 heaven. That lesson is— 
 
 7 TodVTOiKIAXOS copia Tod Ocod— the manifold wisdom 
 of God.” ‘The adjective, one of the very numerous compounds 
 of wodvs, 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—orédavov 
 modvTroiktAoy avOéwy ; and in Kuripides, [phig. Taur., 1149, 
 it describes the variegated colours of a robe—zrodvTolKira 
 pdpea; while in a figurative sense it is joined in the Orphic 
 Hymns to the nouns tedrer7 and Adyos, v. 11, lx. 4. The 
 
EPHESIANS II. 10. 239 
 
 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 illus- 
 trious for its very numerous forms, and for the strange diver- 
 sity 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 
 Cicumenius, 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, 
 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 
 
 1 Teo cay ris tvavIewrnotns rou cures HUaY vedvay aTrty eyivwoxoy cel ovedyices Dvvecmers Thy 
 g (4 xe Y g 
 : Eerste 5 n s , Bes ho ee es y cas 
 ToPiay To Seov Ex movou Too Ouyaroy xarogdoumivay. Niy d¢ ye dice vis tis thy ExxAnolay zal co 
 ayteurivey yévos cizovomins ovxics Lovey TAH KAA xa) ToAvroizihos EyvdoSn h cogia ToD Seod 
 Bice civ tvavrioy re tvavria zaroeSoicu dice Suverov Cry, ds’ eriplas ddLuy, dic craveotd zed- 
 g ? & BY, 
 Fasor, Ole Tevréiy raly sireAdiy re SeorgerH- See also Aquinas, Summ. Theol. p. 1; Quest. 
 57, art. 5. 
 
240 EPHESIANS III. 10. 
 
 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 of 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, 
 nor was it ever affronted by any abandoned experiment. 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS III. 11. 241 
 
 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 perplexing 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 
 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 Peter 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, 
 
 Tn one full lake of light it rests at last.” 
 Kai 7s xnpirtess, elmep 0 TAOdTOS aveEryviacrtos? asks Theo- 
 doret, robto yap avto, pyar, KnpUTT@ bru aveEvyviacTos. 
 
 The whole has been arranged— 
 (Ver. 11.) Kata rpddeow tév aiovwv— According to the 
 
 eternal purpose.”” The connection of these words is not 
 
 with the adjective or substantive of the preceding clause ; 
 R 
 
242 EPHESIANS III. 11. 
 
 neither with codvolxidos, a8 is supposed by Anselm and 
 Holzhausen, nor with codia, as Koppe conjectures; but with 
 yvwpicO. 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—po tév aiwver rpo- 
 é9ero. 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 mpo@ects 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 aiévios—or of possession with Ellicott; and such is 
 the opinion of Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. Winer, § 30, 2. 
 So in Hebrew, oxy v2—everlasting strength, Isaiah xxvi. 4. 
 See also Dan. ix. 24. It was a purpose— 
 
 iw érroincer vy TO XpictS "Inood 76 Kvpio yuov— which 
 He wrought in Christ Jesus our Lord. The article before 
 Xpior@ is doubtful, though Tischendorf inserts it. The ante- 
 cedent to jv is not copia, as Theophylact, Jerome, and Luther 
 construe, but wpdecrs. Two classes of meanings have been 
 attached to ésro(noev :— 
 
 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. See 1.3. 
 See for one view of the relation of Christ to the Father in 
 such an expression, Hofmann, Schriftb. vol. 1. p. 230; and for 
 another, Thomasius, Christ? 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 zrovety may bear such a sense, as in ii. 3; Matt. 
 xxl, 81; John vi, 38; 1 Thess. v. 24. Olshausen suggests 
 
 ee 
 
EPHESIANS III. 12. 243 
 
 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 évy Xpiotd “Incod 
 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, &c. 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 principal- 
 ities 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 6 éyouev tH wappynolay Kal THY Tpocaywryhy 
 —‘‘Tn whom we have boldness and access” —the éy again 
 connected with Christ as the sphere. Lachmann, following 
 A and B, omits the second article, and there are other but 
 minor variations. Ilappnoia 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 
 Clshausen, for such an idea is totally foreign to the train of 
 thought. This boldness is toward God generally, but espe- 
 cially in prayer, as is indicated by the following term zpo- 
 cayoyn. Heb. ii. 6, x. 19, 35; 1 John ii. 28, i. 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 
 
244A EPHESIANS IIL. 13. 
 
 spirit which sin produces, are absent from believers when they 
 enjoy access to God. Heb. 11. 6; 1 John ii. 28. Ipocaywy7 
 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 meTrolOnoer—“ in confidence.” 2 Cor. i. 15, 111. 4, viii. 22, 
 x. 2; Phil. ii. 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 7pocaywy7 is enjoyed, and it is involved in the very idea 
 of vappncia. 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— 
 
 dua THs TicTews avtodD—“‘ by the faith of Him ;”’ the geni- 
 tive being that of object. The genitive is similarly employed, 
 Rom. iii. 22, 263-Gal. ui. 16;-205 Philsail 9; James 1+ 
 Rey. ii. 13, xiv. 12. This clause belongs to the entire verse, 
 and not merely, as some suppose, to aezoi@now. Faith 
 in Him is the instrument, and éy and dud are connected as 
 in i. 7. The means by which our union to Christ secures 
 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.) Awd aitoduar wn éyxaxetv— Wherefore | entreat 
 you that ye faint not.” Ac—‘“ 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 éyxaxeiv to the common reading, éxxakeiv, 
 
 a a 
 
 eee 
 
 Saas 
 
EPHESIANS III. 13. 245 
 
 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 J 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 trép tuav to attob- 
 poar—‘I pray on your account,” has little to recommend it. 
 Our view is that of Chrysostom and the majority of inter- 
 preters. That ye faint not ”— 
 
 év tats Oriipeciv pov brrép tuav— in my tribulations for 
 you.” No article is needed before dwép. 2 Cor. 1.6. "Ev 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— 
 
 Aris éott do€a tyov—“which is your glory.” “Hrs is 
 used by attraction with the following predicate d0£a, and sig- 
 nifies “inasmuch as they are,” wfpote que. Winer, § 24, 3. 
 
“246 EPHESIANS Il. 14. 
 
 But what is its antecedent? Theodoret, Zanchius, Harless, 
 and Olshausen suppose it to be the thought contained in pz) 
 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 meaning of the 
 clause by finding in it only the vague indistinctness of orato- 
 rical 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 
 
 “‘olory ”’ 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.’ 
 
 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.) Tovrou ydpw xaprtw ta yovatad pou— For 
 this cause I bow my knees.” The attitude, which Kant has 
 
EPHESIANS III. 15. 247 
 
 ventured to call ecnen knechtishen (servile) Orientalismus, is 
 described instead of the act, or, as Calvin says—a signo rem 
 denotat. The phrase is followed here by mapos—but by a 
 simple dative in Rom. xi. 4; while yovumerety has an accusa- 
 tive in Matt. xvii. 14; Mark i. 40,x. 17. This compound 
 and ryovucduvety represent in the Septuagint the Hebrew vn. 
 
 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 xxu. 41; 
 Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, su Dee eb Stee Thesaurus, 
 sub voce yovuxnucla. He does not simply say, “I pray,” 
 adds Chrysostom—andra tiv Katavevuypévny Sénow €djnr@CeD. 
 Tovtov ydpw is repeated from ver. 1, ‘Because ye are inbuilt 
 in the spiritual temple.” J bow my knees— 
 
 mpos Tov tatépa— toward the Father.” Winer, § 49, h. 
 The genitives, tod Kupiov juav Incod Xpictod, 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, HE, F, G, I, K, &c. 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 watpid. The question is yet 
 somewhat doubtful. The object of Paul’s prayer is the 
 Father—the universal Father— 
 
 (Ver. 15.) "EE 0b raca rartpia év ovpavois Kat eri ys 
 ovopaterac— Of whom every family in heaven and on earth 
 is named.” Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Zanchius, and Reiche, 
 refer to Christ as the antecedent. But even if the former 
 
248 EPHESIANS III. 15. 
 
 clause be genuine, this interpretation cannot be sustained. It 
 is the relation of the watpid to the zatyp 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 Ilartpid, from their relation to 
 the Ilarjp. These words admit of a variety of interpreta- 
 tions. Ilarpud, it is plain, cannot be equivalent to watporys, 
 and denote fatherhood—paternitas, as Jerome translates. 
 Yet this view is held by Theodoret, Theophylact, Gicume- 
 nius, Anselm, a-Lapide, Allioli, and Nitzsch. Prakt. Theologie, 
 i. 269. The. Syriac also translates—jzoo12; —“ 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 
 celestial orders no proper fatherhood can exist. ’Ezrel, as 
 Theophylact confesses, exe? ovdeis €& oddevos yevvatat ; or, as 
 Theodoret adds—ovpavious tatépas Tovs TvevpatiKods KaNel. 
 Jerome is also obliged to say—tta puto et angelos ceterasque 
 virtutes habere principes sut generis quos patres gaudeant apel- 
 lare. Yet Stier would find no difficulty in defending such 
 phraseology. Giving matpid the sense of fatherhood, this 
 meaning might be extracted—all paternity has the origin of 
 its name in God the Father of all. Fatherhood takes its name 
 from Father-God—alle Vaterschaft hat thres Namens Grund 
 in 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. 
 i. 24. But an idea of this abstract nature is foreign to the 
 apostle’s modes of thought. 
 
 Ilarpid, 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. 11. 143, 111. 75, 1. 200; Luke ii. 4; Acts 
 ii.25. The Seventy represent by it the common Hebrew phrase 
 —nox mi. 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, 
 
EPHESIANS IIl. 15. 249 
 
 Hore Heb. p. 1237; Buxtorf, Lew. Tal. p. 1750; Wetstein, 
 in loc. Some, again, such as Chrysostom, Bucer, Calvin, 
 Zanchius, Estius, Michaelis, Kiittner, and Peile, find a polem- 
 ical 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 6v dtrav ovoTnpa. 
 
 The verb ovowdgeras “is named,” that is, involves the 
 name, of zatpid. But Bullinger, Bucer, Estius, Riickert, 
 Matthies, and Holzhausen, take the verb in the sense of 
 “exists.” Kandéw in its passive voice may sometimes indi- 
 rectly bear such a meaning, but the verb before us never has 
 such a signification. It signifies to bear the—dvoua. ’EE ob 
 —‘ from whom,” or, as we say, “after whom” every family in 
 heaven and earth is named. Homer, Llad, x. 68; Xenophon, 
 Mem. iv. 5,12; Sophocles, Gdip. Tyr. 1036. The meaning 
 seems to be: every circle of holy and intelligent creatures 
 having the name of vatpid takes that name from God 
 as Ilatjp. The reference is certainly not to the physical 
 creation, or creation as a whole and in all its parts, as is 
 the groundless opinion of Theophylact, Cicumenius, Estius, 
 'Riickert, Matthies, and Bretschneider. The apostle speaks of 
 classes of intelligent creatures, each named vatpid simply 
 after God, for He is Ilatjp. It follows as a natural conse- 
 quence, though Meyer and De Wette object to such a conclu- 
 sion, that if angels and “ spirits of just men”’ in heaven, and 
 holy men on earth, receive the name of zatpia from the 
 Divine Father, then they are His children, as is contended for 
 by many interpreters, from Beza and Piscator down to Ols- 
 hausen. 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 differ- 
 ent products of the same divine workmanship, but they 
 
250 EPHESIANS III. 16. 
 
 merge into one family—“ all they are brethren.” Hvery 
 matpia must surely possess unbounded confidence in the 
 benignity and protection of the Ilar/p, and to Him, there- 
 fore, the prayer of the apostle is directed— 
 
 (Ver. 16.) “Iva dan tyiv Kata. TO TrODTOS THs SoENS adTod 
 —“ That He would give you according to the riches of His 
 glory.” A, B,C, F, G, read 66, and the reading has been 
 adopted by Lachmann, Riickert, and Meyer. Others prefer 
 the reading of the Textus Receptus, which is sustained by 
 D, E, K, L, and most MSS., 56 being regarded as a gram- 
 matical 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- 
 cate,” for the phrase “I bow my knees ”’ is a pregnant ellipse 
 —the understood posture and symbol of earnest entreaty. The 
 neuter form, wAodTos, is preferred to the masculine on the 
 incontestable authority of A, B, C, Dt, E, F, G, &. The 
 masculine has but D*, I, K, &c., in its favour. See under 
 i. 7; ii. 7; 11.8; where both the form of the word and its 
 meaning have been referred to. ‘The phrase is connected not 
 with cpatawOjvat, but with dén, and it illustrates the propor- 
 tion or measurement of the gift, nay, of all the gifts that are 
 comprehended in the apostle’s prayer. And it is no exagge- 
 ration, for He gives like Himself, not grudgingly or in tiny 
 portions, as if He were afraid to exhaust His riches, or even 
 suspected’ them to be limited in their contents. ‘There is no 
 fastidious scrupulosity or anxious frugality on the part of the 
 
 Divine Benefactor. His bounty proclaims His conscious’ 
 
 possession of immeasurable resources. He bestows according 
 to the riches of His glory—His own infinite fulness. “ That 
 He would give you ”— 
 
 Syvaper KpatarwPhvar Sia Tov Ivetpatos adtod els Tov rw 
 avOpwrrov— 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 Suvdwer as an adverb, nor, with Koppe, identify it with 
 duvatas. Rather, with Meyer, would we take it as the dative 
 of instrument, by which the action of the verb is communi- 
 eated. Winer, § 31,7. It is by the infusion of power into the 
 
 se 
 
 fy 
 4. 
 + 
 Ly 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS III. 16. 251 
 
 man within, that the process described by xpatavw@jvae is 
 secured. The verb xpataidw belongs to the later and espe- 
 cially the Hellenistic Greek ; xpatvvw 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-svrongs, 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 building may be 
 compact and solid. 
 
 dua Tod Uvetpatos ad’tot— by His Spirit.” The Spirit 
 of God is the agent in this process of invigoration. ‘hat 
 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 be— 
 
 els Tov éow cvOpwrrov-—* into the inner man.” és 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 
 ‘reference to,” as Winer and De Wette render, nor “for,” as 
 Green translates it (Greek Gram. p. 292); but it denotes or 
 implies that the dvvayss comes from an external source, and 
 enters into the inner man. The phrase 0 éow dv@pamos is 
 identical with the parallel expression—o xpumtos THs Kapdias 
 avOperros, which the apostle Peter, without sexual distinction, 
 applies to women. 1 Pet. i. 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 
 
252 EPHESIANS III. 16. 
 
 the soul—yvy7j—in its special aspect of vital consciousness, 
 but it is more connected with mind—vods, and stands in con- 
 trast not exactly to odp£, as representing generally depraved 
 humanity, but to that sensuous nature which has action and 
 reaction in and from the members—péAy. Delitzsch, System 
 Bib. der Psychol., p. 331; Reuss, Theol. Chret., vol. ii. p. 56. 
 But “the inner man” is not identical with “the new man” — 
 6 Kawos 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 6 évtds avOpwrros, 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 
 easily 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 
 its philosophical uses and applications. And this strength is 
 imparted to the “inner man” by the Spirit’s application of 
 those 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 
 soul to Him; with the necessity of decision, consistency, and 
 perseverance; with the assurance that all grace needed will 
 be fully and cheerfully afforded ; and with the hope that the 
 victory shall be ultimately obtained. Rom. xv. 13; 2 Tim. 
 i. 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- 
 mentators Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, join this last clause— 
 eis TOV €ow avOpwrov, with the following verse, and with the 
 verb xatouxfjcai—* 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 d:a tis mictews 
 cannot well be joined to év tals xapdiais, and that there would 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS III. 17. 253 
 
 be a glaring pleonasm in the occurrence in the same verse of 
 6 ow avOpwros and 7 Kapdia buev. The ordinary division 
 is a natural one, and we accordingly follow it. 
 
 (Ver. 17.) Karovxjoas tov Xpictoyv—“ That Christ may 
 dwell.” ‘The first point of inquiry is the connection of this 
 infinitive with the previous sentence. Does it depend on den, 
 and is the meaning—“ that he would grant that Christ may 
 dwell in your hearts?” or is it dependent on cpatawOjvar, 
 and is the meaning —“ that he would grant you to be 
 strengthened in die. 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 1t,—xai 70 peifov Kal Tepicodtepov. Meier 
 adopts the view of Calvin,—declarat, quale sit interioris 
 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 well 
 raight 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 catouxfoas as an infini- 
 tive of purpose or design, and regards the clause as describing 
 the completion of “the strengthening.” Bernhardy, p. 365; 
 See on Col. i. 11. We now look upon it as pointing out rather 
 the result of the process of invigoration prayed for. The 
 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 déy, and more 
 closely with the preceding infinitive ; Winer, § 44,1. There 
 
254 EPHESIANS III. 17. 
 
 is little doubt that in the verb xatouxjoat, emphatic in its 
 position, the reference is to the last clause of the 2nd chapter— 
 Katotxnthptov Tod 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 
 foundations 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 
 Fritsche coldly and tastelessly describes it—mens quam Christus 
 postulat. Kpatos, not dvvayus, may be applied to the qualities 
 of physical objects, and so with propriety its derivative verb 
 is here employed. Ina temple that was crazy, or was built 
 of loose and incongruous materials, the Divine guest could not 
 be expected to dwell. 
 
 The caroxqoas of this verse has, as we have said, its origin 
 in the xatoixntypiov of ii. 22. The language is of common 
 usage, and has its basis in the Old Testament, and in the 
 employment of 2 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. vi. 9, 11; 
 Gal. ii. 20; James iv. 5. The means of His dwelling is— 
 
 dua THs mictewas—* by faith” —your faith. Faith induces 
 and also realizes His presence. And His abode is in no outer 
 vestibule, but-— 
 
 év tats Kapdiats vue@v— in your hearts.” The heart, as 
 centre of the spiritual life, is His temple—the inner shrine of 
 emotion and power— Centrum des sittlicher Lebens. Delitzsch, 
 
 System der Bib. Psychol. p. 206; Beck, Seelenlehre, p. 69. 
 
 1 When Ignatius was asked, on his trial, by the emperor, what was the meaning 
 of his name—Theophorus—he promptly replied, ‘‘ He who has Christ in his 
 breast.” 
 
 eee. 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS III. 18. ‘ 255 
 
 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 ayarn éppifopévot Kat TePeuedi@pévor (va— 
 “ 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 meta- 
 thesis 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 fva; and the passages usually adduced to justify such an 
 alteration are not precisely parallel, as is acutely shown by 
 Piscator. John xiii. 29; Acts xix. 4; Gal. 1.10. ‘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 ”—tats xapdiais 
 tails muaTais, Tals épputouévass. This connection is also advo- 
 cated by many, including Erasnius, 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 
 Kapdiats and to busy, 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 
 iva. 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. Bnt 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 
 starting idea—the perfect being used with propriety, and not the 
 present. Christ dwelling in their hearts—they are supposed, 
 
256 EPHESIANS III. 18. 
 
 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, &c. “ Having thus become rooted and grounded in 
 love, in order that ye may be able to comprehend.” 
 
 The two participles éppiGouévor and reOewedvw@pévor, 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—Ilevoiotpatos éppifwce tiv Tupavviba ; 
 Plutarch, De Fortun. Rom.—pifaoar Kat Kxatactioae Ti 
 monw ; Sophocles, Gdip. Col. 1591, odov ynbev eppifw@peévovr ; 
 also Plutarch, De Lib. Educ. 9,&c. The verb is thus used in 
 a general sense, and coupled with reAenedimpévos 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 aydzn 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. 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 ayamn 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 
 under the term both Christ’s love to us and our love to him, 
 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 
 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 
 
 - 
 a 
 
EPHESIANS III. 18. 257 
 
 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 intel- 
 ligently 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&toytonte cataraPRécOut abv Tat Tots aylots 
 —‘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 invigo- 
 ration they were disciplined to it, and braced up for it— 
 “that ye may be fully able’”’—fully matched to the enter- 
 prise. 
 
 On aytos, see i. 2. The verb cataraPécbar, 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 geschiftlichen oder 
 geistigen Kraftaufwandes—of earnest or spiritual energy. 
 The aorist expresses the rapid passing of the act. Winer, 
 § 44,7, b. In the only other passages where it occurs, as in 
 
 Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25, the verb signifies to come to a 
 S$ 
 
258 EPHESIANS IIT. 18. 
 
 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— 
 
 Tl TO TAATOS Kal pHKos Kal BaGos Kat 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 7. 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,” &c. This exegesis is both violent 
 and unnatural, puts an unusual sense upon xatadaBéoVat, 
 and treats ti TO 17AdrTos, as if it were TO 7AATOS TL. 
 
 2. Nor need we be detained by the opinion of Schrader, 
 who regards the words ti To mAdrtos, &c., as only the para- 
 phrastic complement of the verb catadaBéo@as, 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 
 heave-offering and wave-offering. Exod. xxix. 27. 
 
 4. Some of the Fathers referred these four words to the 
 mystery of the cross—rod otavpod dvows, 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—sacramentum cructs— 
 was explained by Augustine as signifying love in its breadth, 
 hope in its height, patience in its length, and humility in its 
 depth. Ep. exu.; De Videndo Deo, cap. 14; Ep. cxx. cap. 26. 
 
EPHESIANS III. 18. 259 
 
 Well does Calvin add—hwe 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, &ec.—the reference 
 being to the signuwm tT 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 tla 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 puotijpiov TO Umép Huadv oikovepnOev, and Theodoret, 
 who describes it as—rijs oixovopias TO péyeOos. 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.t Matthies holds the same 
 allusion, but refers it to the moral perfections of God. What 
 
 1“ Ut sient in sphera tanta longitudo est, quanta latitudo, et tanta altitudo, 
 quantum et profundum; ita et in Deo omnia xqualia,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 ineflabilis 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. 
 
260 EPHESIANS III. 18. 
 
 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,” 
 &c. 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 
 ayarn, 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 aydmn 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 «a/, 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 x1. 8 a reference to the Divine wisdom, but the 
 language specially affirms the mystery of the Divine nature. 
 Slichting also refers to Col. 1. 2—to “the mystery of God 
 the Father and of Christ,” as if that were the allusion here, 
 
EPHESIANS IIL. 18. 261 
 
 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, Roéll, 
 Bengel, Koppe, Stier, Burton, Trollope, and Dr. Featley in 
 the “Assembly’s Annotations,” suppose the allusion to be 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 substrue- 
 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 
 
262 EPHESIANS III. 19. 
 
 will do, so many myriads of so many nations, and spanning 
 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 
 “‘yooted 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 Spizit 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.) Tvavai re tiv trepBddroveay Tis yvdboews 
 ayarnv tod XpiotoD— And to know the knowledge-sur- 
 passing love of Christ.’”? Tvévar is not dependent on xata- 
 NaBéoOar, but is in unison with, or rather parallel to it, being 
 also a similar exercise of mind. The particle re, not unlike 
 the Latin gue, does not couple; it rather annexes or adds a 
 clause which is not necessarily dependent on the preceding. 
 Kiihner, § 722; Hartung, i. p. 105. Hand, Zursellinus seu 
 de Particulis Latinis Commentarii, lib. 1. p. 467. Winer 
 remarks, that in the clause adjoined by te the more prominent 
 
EPHESIANS III. 19. 263 
 
 idea of the sentence may be found. § 57,3. In the phrase— 
 ayarnv Tod Xpiotod, Xpictod is the genitive of possession or 
 subject—the love of Christ to us. The genitive yvadcews is 
 governed by the participle depBadroveay, and not by the 
 substantive aydnv,—the last a misconstruction, which may 
 have originated the reading of Codex A and of Jerome— 
 setentie 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 
 _yv@ous 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 Cliist is 
 better than mere knowledge about Him”—a position which 
 nobody 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 
 caritati. De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. cap. 19. Far more point 
 and consistency 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 
 
 
 
 1 His first translation was—die Liebe Christi, dic doch alle Erkentniss tibertrifjt, 
 but in the year 1545 he rendered—dass Christum lich haben viel besser ist, denn alles 
 Wissen. 
 
264 EPHESIANS III. 19. 
 
 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- 
 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 
 that 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 Gicumenius and 'Theophy- 
 lact,—7Tyv ayarny tiv vTrEepéyovoay Taons yveceos. ‘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—vo yva@vas avtt Tov amrohadaat Aeyés. 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 
 so far by the application of human instincts and analogies ; 
 
EPIESIANS III. 19. 265 
 
 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 
 by searching find it out? Uncaused itself, it originated sal- 
 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 surpasses 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 Chiist 
 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 TANpoOATE eis TAY TO TANPwLa TOD Ocov— “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 5én—iva efio- 
 xvonte—iva TAnpwOfjTte—this last being climactic, or the great 
 
266 EPHESIANS III. 19. 
 
 end of the whole supplication. (For the meaning of mAjpopa, 
 the reader may turn to 1. 10, 23.) Tod @eod is in the genitive 
 of subject or possession. “ All the fulness of God” is all the 
 fulness which God possesses, or by which He is characterized. 
 Chrysostom is right in the main when he paraphrases it,— 
 TAnpoda Oar TaoNS apeTHs Hs TAHpns ect 0 Oeos. Some, like 
 Hazrless, refer the fulness to the Divine d0£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, Hstius, 
 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- 
 ing 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- 
 sion to the church,”—thus diluting the words into & 7@ 
 TAnp@Ojvat twas. Schleusner has a similar view. Codex B 
 reads—iva TANPoOF wav TO TAHpwpa, an exegetical variation. 
 The wAjpowa—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 
 plainly contrary to fact and experience to understand the term 
 of the uncreated essence of God, for such an idea would involve 
 us in a species of pantheism. 
 
 The preposition eés is used with special caution. The 
 simple dative is not employed, nor does eis stand for éy, as 
 Grotius, Estius, and Whitby imagine, and as it is rendered in 
 the Syriac and English versions. It does not denote “ with,” 
 but “for” or “into”—filled up to or unto “an end quan- 
 titatively considered.’’ ‘The whole fulness of God can never 
 contract itself so as to lodge in any created heart. But the 
 smaller vessel may lave its-own fulness poured into it from 
 
EPHESIANS III. 20. 267 
 
 one of larger dimensions. The communicable fulness of God 
 will in every element of it impart itself to the capacious 
 and exalted bosom, for Christ dwells in their hearts. The 
 difference between God and the saint will be not in kind, 
 but in degree and extent. His fulness is infinite; theirs is 
 limited by the essential conditions of a created nature. 
 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 wAjpmua—as if it here signified the church as 
 divinely filled. (See the illustrations of wA7jpwpa under i. 23.) 
 The apostle prays for strength, for the indwelling of Jesus, for 
 unmovable 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. ii. 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.) To 6€ duvvayévm irép mavta Twoihoat brepex- 
 Tepiaacov wy aitovpe0a %) vootwev— Now to Him who is 
 able to do beyond all things superabundantly beyond what 
 we ask or think.’’ The apostle supposes his prayer to be 
 answered, and all its requests conferred. The Divine Giver 
 of such munificent donations is surely worthy of all homage, 
 and especially worthy of all homage in the character of 
 the answerer of prayer. By 6€ he passes to a different subject 
 
 
 
268 EPHESIANS III. 20. 
 
 —from recipients to the Giver. Praise succeeds prayer—the 
 anthem is its fitting conclusion. 
 The  eeneuinn is idiomatic, as if the apostle’s mind 
 
 laboured for terms of sufficient intensity. Words compounded 
 with wzrép are often employed by the full mind of the apostle, 
 and are the favourite characteristics of his style. i. 21, iv. 10; 
 Romaivm20) wand Ts (2Cor vis 4x. 523: se Bhai 
 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. “Yzép is twice 
 expressed; before vavra, and in the double compound term 
 imepextrepiccod. Mark vii. 87 ; 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 18. ‘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—treép Tdvta Toujoa & aiephadi =i to do beyond all 
 which we ask or think.” But this description did not exhaust 
 the apostle’s conception, and so he inserts—wzrepexrepiccod 
 ov airovpeCa— more than abundantly,” or abundantly far 
 beyond what we ask or think. Nor is there any tautology. 
 ‘Trép mavta Trojoa expresses merely the fact of God’s super- 
 abundant power, but the subjoined bzepexmepiccod 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. MHarless places the two 
 clauses in apposition, but their union appears to be closer, as 
 our exegesis intimates. Ildévra is closely connected with op, 
 which is governed in the genitive by the bzép in vzrepex- 
 mepicoov. Bernhardy, p. 139. And we do not say with 
 Harless that there is any hyperbole, for omnipotence has 
 never exhausted its resources. While omniscience is the 
 actual knowledge 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 and beyond 
 our widest conceptions and most daring expectations is God 
 “able to do.” God’s ability to answer prayer transcends not 
 
EPHESIANS III. 21. 269 
 
 only our spoken petitions, but far surpasses even such thoughts 
 as are too big for words, and too deep for utterance. 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. Tor we know so 
 little of His promises, and so weak is our faith in them, that 
 we ask not, as we should, for their universal fulfilment; and 
 though we did understand their depth and 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 sitiunt justitiam, quoniam ipst 
 saturabuntur. Qui esurit, esuriat amplius, et qui desiderat, 
 abundantius adhuc desideret, quoniam quantumcunque desiderare 
 potuerit, tantum est accepturus -— 
 
 kata Thy Stvamw Tv évepyoupevny ev juiv—“ according 
 to the power which worketh in us.” These words are not to 
 be joined to voodmev, 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. (1. 19, ii. 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 7 d0&€a év Th exxrnaia év Xpiat@ “Inoob— 
 “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, b. Ao&a 
 may, as an abstract noun, have the article prefixed; or the 
 
270 EPHESIANS III. 21. 
 
 article may be used in what Bernhardy calls its “‘rhetorische 
 form,” signifying the glory which is His especially, and due to 
 Him confessedly. p. 290., The difference of reading is not of 
 essential moment. Some MSS., such as A, B, and C, with 
 the Coptic and Vulgate, supply «ai before év X. I., and this 
 reading is preferred by Lachmann, Riickert, and Matthies, but 
 refused by Tischendorf, while D', F, G, with Ambrosiaster, 
 reverse the order of the clauses, and read—év Xpict@ "Inood 
 Kat TH exxdnola. Koppe, on the authority of one MS., 46, is 
 inclined to reject as spurious the whole clause—év Th éxxAnaoia. 
 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 xaé, 
 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. 11. part 2, p. 108, pleads for xaé, and connects év Xpuor@ 
 *Incod with the following words eis wdcas tas yeveds, &e. 
 The relation of the two clauses—év 7H éxxrnoia and év Xpiotd 
 *Incod—has been variously understood :— 
 
 1. Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, 
 Holzhausen, Olshausen, and Stier, connect the words thus— 
 “Tn the church which is in Christ Jesus.” Not to say that 
 a second 77 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 dd€a. 
 
 2. Some render év Xpicr@ by the words “ through Christ” 
 —06vd, as in the interpretation of Theophylact; ody, as in that 
 of Gicumenius; 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 instru- 
 mental, retains its distinctive meaning, and is not to be super- 
 ficially confounded with did. 
 
 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,” 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS, III. 21. Tt 
 or presented by the members of the sacred community in the 
 consciousness of union with Him, and by consequence in a 
 spirit of dependence on Him. So generally Harless, Meyer, 
 De Wette, Alford, and Ellicott. The place of doxology is 
 the church, and the glory is hymned by its members, but the 
 spirit of the song is inspired by oneness with Jesus. Ao£a is 
 the splendour of moral excellence, and in what place should 
 such glory be ascribed but in the church, which has wit- 
 nessed so much of it, and whose origination, life, blessings, and 
 hopes are so many samples and outbursts of it? Ebrard, 
 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 Tdoas TAS Yyeveds TOV aidvos TaV aiovorv. *Apyv— 
 “to all the generations of the age 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. Eis yeveds 
 yeveoav—Luke i. 50—is phraseology based upon the Hebrew 
 ois ws. Ps. Ixxii. 5; cit. 24. The other portion of the 
 phrase occurs as in Gal. 1. 5—els tods aidvas Tov aidver, 
 (1 Pet. i. 23) eis rov aidva. Heb. v. 6; vi. 20. We have 
 also efs Tous ai@vas in many places; and in the Septuagint, 
 eis ryevedy Kal yevedy, Ews yeveds Kal yeveds, Ex yeveds els yevedy, 
 els ryeveas yevedv. So €ws aiovos Tov aiévey stands in Dan. 
 vii. 18 for the Chaldee oty 1m row wmv. 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 yeved 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 
 
272 EPHESIANS III. 21. 
 
 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 eternal 
 anthem. The Trinity is here again brought out to view. The 
 power within us is that of the Spirit, and glory in Christ is 
 presented to the Father who answers prayer through the Son, 
 and by the Spirit; and, therefore, to the Father, in the Son, 
 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 heayen’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.” 
 
CHAP. TY. 
 
 ? 
 
 THE practical portion of the Epistle now commences, or as 
 Theodoret says—eml ta eidn mpotpéres Ths aperhs. 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.) Hapaxare ody tyds eyo 6 décp005 ev Kuplo— 
 “YT exhort you then, I the prisoner in the Lord.” The 
 retrospective ody 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. ili. 1. The phrase év Kupi@ is closely connected with 
 0 décuwos, as the want of the article between the words also 
 shows. Some, indeed, prefer to join it to the verb wapaxaro 
 —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 TapakaX® is not used in its original 
 
 sense, but si nifies ‘ I exhort,” as if equivalent to 7 por, éTO. 
 ? 8 ] 
 > i 
 
274 EPHESIANS IV. 1. 
 
 It has, however, various shades of meaning in the Pauline 
 writing. See Knapp’s Scrip. Var. p. 125, et seg. Nor can 
 év Kupi@ 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 Kupio 
 (Rom. xvi. 11)—dayarrnrov év Kupio (Philem. 16)—yapnOijvat, 
 povov év Kupi (1 Cor. vii. 389)—rov ayamnrov 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 Kvpuos, 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, per- 
 haps 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, 4} Bacired’s 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 ‘l'yrannus, 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. “TI exhort you”’— 
 
 akiws Tepiratioar ths KXjoews Hs éexAjOnte— that ye 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 2. 275 
 
 walk worthy of the calling with which ye were called.” 
 Kyijows is the Christian vocation—the summons “ to glory 
 and virtue.” See under i.18; Rom. xi. 29; Phil. i. 14; 
 2 Tim. 1.9; Heb. ii. 1, &. In Fs exrjOnre is a common 
 idiom—js being probably by attraction or assimilation, as 
 Kriiger, § 51, 10, preferssto call it, for 7, but perhaps for iv 
 (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; i1.4. ”Aé&sos in the sense of “in har- 
 mony with,” is often thus used. Matt. iii. 8; Phil. i. 27; Col. 
 i. 10; 1 Thess. 1. 12; 2 Thess. i. 11. On the peculiar meaning 
 of wepuratéw 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, 1 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 tarewodpocivns Kal mpatitntos, weTa 
 paxpoOupias, avexopevot adAdjr@V ev ayarn—“ With all low- 
 liness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one 
 another in love.” Col. iii. 12. Merdé is with—accompanied 
 with—visible manifestation. Winer, § 47, h. On wdons see 
 i. 8. Some suppose the various nouns in the verse to be 
 connected with dveyduevot, but such a connection mars the 
 harmony and development of thought, as it rises from general 
 to special counsel. 
 
 Tarrewvodpoctvy is lowliness of mind, opposed to Ta ina 
 dpovodvres. 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 
 
276 EPHESIANS IV. 2. 
 
 we are called. It is ascribed by the apostle to himself in Acts 
 xx. 19. Itis not any one’s making himself small—érav tis 
 péyas wv—as Chrysostom supposes, for such would be mere 
 simulation. very 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 —dons dperis trdbecrs. 
 Trench, Synon. § 43; Tittman, De Syn. p. 140. 
 
 IIpaiirns 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 pera is repeated before the next noun, 
 paxpoOvyias, and this repetition has led EHstius, Riickert, 
 Harless, Olshausen, and Stier to connect it with dveyopevor 
 in the following clause. We see no good ground for this 
 construction. On the contrary, avexyouevor has év ayaa to 
 qualify it, and needs not wera paxpoOvuias, which, from its 
 position, would then be emphatic. Some, like Lachmann and 
 Olshausen, feeling this, join év aydy as unwarrantably to the 
 following verse. ‘he first two nouns are governed by one 
 preposition, for they are closely associated in meaning, the 
 “‘ meekness”’ being after all only a phase 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. 
 
 Maxpofvpia— long-suffering,” 
 
 is opposed to irritability, 
 
 Bi 
 
 4 
 as. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 3. rai | 
 
 or to what we familiarly name shortness of temper (James 1. 
 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 
 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 aveyduevos 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 imperative mood of 
 the verb of existence—“ Be ye forbearing one another.” 
 *Avéxyouat, in the middle voice, is to have patience with, that 
 is, “to hold one’s self up” till the provocation is past. Col. 
 il. 13. Verbs of its class govern the genitive. Kuhner, § 539. 
 *Ey aydarn describes the spirit in which such forbearance was 
 to be exercised. Retaliation was not to be allowed ; all occa- 
 sionally needed forbearance, and all were uniformly 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, se, 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 nutriment “ in love ”’—in 
 the genuine attachment that ought to prevail among Christian 
 disciples. CEcumenius justly observes——évOa yap éotw ayarn, 
 TAVTA ECT AVEKTA. 
 
 (Ver. 3.) Sarevéddbovtes tyhpely THY évoTnta Tov IvevpaTos 
 —“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. Ilvedua 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—Lygo simplicius interpretor de animorum 
 concordia ; and Ambrosiaster quietly changes the terms, and 
 
278 EPHESIANS IV. 32. 
 
 renders—wunitatis spiritum. Others, again, take the phrase to 
 denote that unity of which the Spirit is the bond. Chrysos- 
 tom says—dia yap TovTo TO Tvedwa €560n, iva Tods yévet Kat 
 tpoTrois Suadopors SveatnKoTas évoocyn. ‘This view is perhaps 
 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, wnitas ecclesiw, que est 
 corpus spirituale, but it is the unity which dwells within the 
 ehurch, and which results from the one Spirit—the originating 
 eause 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. xu. 4, &c. 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—ozrov- 
 dafovres, 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 Spint.” And 
 that unity is to be kept— 
 
 éy TO ovvdécum Ths eipyvns—‘‘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. ii. 14, where love is 
 termed “a bond.’ See on the place. Ezpxvns appears to be 
 
 1 Kinigkeit im Geist diirfen und kénnen wir nicht machen, sondern nur dariiber 
 halten.—Rieger, quoted by Stier. 
 "2 Commentat. in Eph, ivy. 1-6. Lipsiw, 1836. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 4. 279 
 
 the genitive of apposition, as Flatt, Meyer, Matthies, Ols- 
 hausen, Alford, and Ellicott take it. Winer, § 59,8; Acts 
 viii. 20. “The bond of peace” is that bond which is peace. 
 Ev does not denote that the unity of the Spirit springs from 
 “the bond of peace,” as if unity were the product of peace, or 
 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 cdpa cai &v Ivedua— 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, &c. But sucha 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 éoti. 
 Kiihner indeed (§ 760, c.) says that such an asyndeton as 
 this frequently happens in classic Greek, when such a particle 
 as ydp is understood. Bernhardy, p. 448. But the verse 
 abruptly introduces an assertatory illustration of the previous 
 
280 EPHESIANS IV, 4. 
 
 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 
 “ Remember there is one body,”’ which is an argument surely 
 to maintain the unity of the Spirit.” The idea contained in 
 o@wa—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 évl cépati—ev &t 
 Ilveduarte ; and the apostle here implies that this unity ought 
 to be guarded. Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 3; Col. 1.24. The 
 church or body is one, though its members are of travtaxod Tis 
 olxoupévns meotot. (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 so, 
 unaffected by distance or time, or physical, intellectual, and 
 social distinctions. And as in the bedy 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- 
 rience— 
 
 Kabas Kal xrAjOnte ev pod ErTridt THS KjoEwSs DwoOv—“ even 
 as also ye were called in one hope of your calling.” Ka@as 
 cai 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, 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 5. 281 
 
 and render it “ by ;”’ others, as Grotius, Flatt, Rickert, and 
 Valpy, would give it the meaning of eis, and Chrysostom 
 that of éwé. Harless adopts the view expressed by Bengel on 
 1 Thess. iv. 7, and thinks that it signifies an element—7indoles 
 —of the calling. We prefer to regard it as bearing its com- 
 mon signification—as pointing to the element in which their 
 calling took place—7n wna spe, as the Vulgate. 1 Cor. viii. 15; 
 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 ¢v represents the element in which the calling takes 
 effect, év eipjvy, 1 Cor. vil. 15; év yapurs, Gal. i. 6; ev ay- 
 acu, 1 Thess. iv. 7: emi represents the proximate end, é7’ 
 érevdepia, Gal. v. 13; ovx, émt axaBapaia, 1 Thess. iv. 7: eds 
 depicts another aspect, eds xowwviav, 1 Cor. i. 95 etpyvn— 
 eis Hv, Col. 11.15; els To Oavpacrov aitov das, 1 Pet. ii. 9— 
 and apparently also the ultimate purpose, eis repurroinow dons, 
 2 Thess. ii. 143 els Bacirelav xat dd£av, 1 Thess. ii. 12; ris 
 aiwviov Cwhs eis Hv, 1 Tim. vi. 12; els tiv aidviov adtéu 
 do€av, 1 Pet. v.10; other forms being eés todro, 1 Pet. ii. 21; 
 eis TodTO ivd, 1 Pet. iii. 9—while the instrumental cause is 
 given by dia; the inner, dua ydperos, Gal. i. 15; and the 
 outer, ua Tod evayyediov, 2 Thess. 1. 14. The follow- 
 ing genitive, KAjcews, 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 éxAnOnte, 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—17) ave xdjors (Phil. i. 14), had brought them 
 into the possession of this hope. See Nitzsch, System., § 210 ; 
 Reuss, Theol. Chret. vol. 11. 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.) Eis Kupuos, uia mictis, &v Barticpa— “ One 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Further and conclusive argu- 
 
282 EPHESIANS IV. 6. 
 
 ment. For the meaning of Kupios in its reference to Christ, 
 the reader may turn to i. 2. Had Irenzeus 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 
 Deum et Dominum. Opera, tom. 1. 448, ed.-Stieren, Lipsie, 
 1849-50. ‘There is only one supreme Governor over the 
 church. He is the one Head of the one body, and the Giver 
 of its one Spirit. This being the case, there can therefore 
 be only— 
 
 “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—one 
 dedication to the one Lord. Acts, xix. 5; Rom. vi. 3; Gal. 
 ii. 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—/felix 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 Sup- 
 per 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.) Eis cds xai Ilathp ravtwv—“ 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 
 has 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 6. 283 
 
 unity stamps an image of itself on that scheme which origin- 
 ated 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 
 to his rival. Oneness of spirit ought to characterize their 
 worship. ‘One God and Father of all,” that is, all Chris- 
 tians, for the reference is not to the wide universe, or to all 
 men, as Holzhausen, with Musculus and Matthies, argue— 
 but to the ehurch. Jew and Gentile forming the one church 
 have one God and Father. (An illustration of the filial rela- 
 tionship 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. 
 belch Rom.ii0) 22; xi 36s°Col: 1/16; Winer, '$ 50) 6. 1 ditas 
 altogether a vicious and feeble exegesis on the part of Koppe 
 to say that these three clauses are synonymous—sententia 
 videtur una, tantum varits formulis synonymis expressa. A 
 triple relationship of the one God to the “all” is now pointed 
 out, and the first is thus expressed— 
 
 6 émt mévtav—“ who is over all.” These adjectives, 
 mavrTwv and dou, are clearly to be taken in the masculine 
 gender, as the epithet zat7jp would also suggest. Erasmus, 
 Michaelis, Morus, and Baumgarten-Crusius take them in ézi 
 mavroy and da tavTwv as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zacha- 
 riae, and Koppe accept the neuter only in the second phrase. 
 ‘O éri ravtwv is rendered by Chrysostom—o érdvw rdvtov. 
 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 dia mavtov— 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—per 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 are through 
 
284 EPHESIANS IV. 6. 
 
 God, and quite another to say, God is through all 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 understands 
 by it the third Person of the Trinity—Deus Spiritu sancti- 
 ficationis diffusus per omnia ecclesie membra. Meyer holds a 
 similar view. Chrysostom and his patristic followers, along 
 with Beza, Zanchius, Crocius, and Grotius, refer it to God 
 providing for all, and ordering all—7r4 mpovola Kat dvoixnoet. 
 Bengel, Flatt, and Winer understand it as signifying “ through 
 all acting.”” Winer, § 54. 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 dca 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. 
 
 Kat év maow— and in all.’”? The Elzevir Text adds tpiv, 
 as Chrysostom does in his commentary. Others have adopted 
 nptv, 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 Adthiopic, and 
 the text of Ignatius, Eusebius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory, 
 Chrysostom, and Jerome, exclude such a pronoun altogether, 
 and leave us simply év raéow. 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 dvd is more external and general in its 
 nature—acting through or sustaining; while that expressed 
 by év is intimate and ‘special union and inhabitation. Very 
 different is such a conception from either ancient or modern 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 6. 285 
 
 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.” 
 
 Whether there be any reference to the Trinity in this re- 
 markable declaration, it is impossible to affirm with certainty. 
 While Theophylact seems to deny it, because heretical notions 
 were based upon it, Jerome on the other hand maintains it, 
 and it was held by Ireneus and Hippolytus, the former of 
 whom explains the first clause of the Father—caput Christi ; 
 the second of the Son—caput ecclesie ; and the third of the 
 Holy Spirit in us—aqua 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 God alone dwells in believers; so that in the second 
 clause, and in the words “ through all,” there may be an allu- 
 sion 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 repre- 
 sentation 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, 5, 
 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 in ecclesia—‘“‘in the church.” “All are not Israel 
 who are of Israel.” But the real spiritual church of the 
 
 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 vols. Keil, 1850. Com- 
 pare also Marheineke, Christl. Dogm. § 426; Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube, ii. 
 § 170, 3d ed. Berlin, 1835. 
 
286 EPHESIANS IV. 6. 
 
 Redeemer is one body. All the members of that church par- 
 take 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 consti- 
 tuted 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.”’ 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 
 enjoyment—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.”? “TI will give 
 them one heart and one way ’—a promise, the realization of 
 which is surely not to be deferred till the whole church as- 
 semble in that world where there can be no misunderstanding. 
 The great father of the western church tersely says—Contra 
 rationem, nemo sobrius ; contra Scripturas nemo Christianus ; 
 contra Licclesiam nemo pacificus senserit. 
 
 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 aflirms 
 that out of the invisible comes the visible church, and the first is the ground of the 
 last.” Sixth ed., Mainz, 1843. 
 
 2Tt is one of the many instances in which Rothe sets himself to overthrow 
 established modes of thought and expression, when he attacks the phrase, ‘‘ visible 
 church,” as being deceptive and unphilosophical. His objection, however, com- 
 pelled Hagenbach to coin a new phrase to express the popular idea, and with the 
 facility of the Teutonic language for compounds, he gives us the untranslatable 
 epithets—historisch-empirisch, heraustretende, kirperliche.—Lehrbuch der Dogmen- 
 geschichte, § 71. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 7. 287 
 
 (Ver. 7.) “Evt 8€ éxdot@ udv €500n 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 évt to éxdor@, the idea of 
 distribution is expressed more distinctly than by the simple 
 term. Luke iv. 40; Acts 11. 3, xx. 31. B, D', F, G, L, omit the 
 article 1) before yapis, but there is no valid reason to reject it ; 
 the preceding » of ¢60@) 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. ’Eé0@n in this verse is 
 explained by édw«e in verse 8. While grace has been given 
 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 MéTpOV THs Swpeds Tod Xpictod —“ according to the 
 measure of the gift of Christ.” The first genitive is subject- 
 ive, 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 
 
288 EPHESIANS IV. 8. 
 
 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. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) Avd Xéyec— Wherefore He saith.” This quotation 
 is 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 cantitaré sciret. Opuscula, iii. 309. 
 The formula Aéyes is not uncommon—a pregnant verb, con- 
 taining in itself its own nominative, though 7 ypady often 
 oceurs, 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 8. 289 
 
 clause. The Hebrew reads—owai nip mnpb oc ma® ors) my, 
 and the Septuagint has in the last clause—édraBes Sowara év 
 avOparra, or-—avOpeé7rois ; but the apostle’s quotation reads— 
 kal &axev Sdpata Tois avOpmTrows— and He gave gifts to 
 men.” Various attempts have been made to explain this 
 remarkable variationy none of them perhaps beyond all doubt. 
 It may be generally said that the inspired apostle gives the quo- 
 tation in substance, and as it bore upon his argument. Whiston 
 maintained, indeed, that Paul’s reading was correct, and that 
 the Hebrew and Seventy had both been corrupted. Carpzovius, 
 Crit. Sacr. p. 3. On the other hand, Jarchi, one of the 
 Targums, the Syriac, and Arabic, have—Thou hast given 
 gifts to the sons of men.’ Jerome, followed by Erasmus, 
 relieves himself of the difficulty by alleging that, as the work 
 of Christ was not over in the Psalmist’s time, these gifts were 
 only promised as future, and He may be said to have taken 
 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 
 gifts, 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—AapBdvev yap tiv TioTW avTWidwot THY yapLY, 
 a mere Spielerei as Harless terms it. We agree with Meyer, 
 that the Hebrew word np 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 
 sumere—Gen. xv. 9—“ Take for me,” that is, take and give 
 
 to me; xvii. 5—“ And I will take you a morsel of bread,” 
 ; 195 
 
290 EPHESIANS IV. 8. 
 
 ie. take and give it you; xxvii. 13—“ Go, take them,” i.e. 
 take them and give me them; xli. 16—“ Let him take your 
 brother,” i.e. let him take and bring him; Ex. xxvii. 20— 
 “That they take thee pure oil,” i.e, take and present it to 
 thee; so Lev. xxiv. 2; 1 Kings xvii. 10—“ Take me a little 
 water,” i.e. take and offer it me; 2 Kings ii. 20; Hos. xiv. 2; 
 and so in other places; Glassius, Philol. Sacra, p. 185; Bux- 
 torf, 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—-édxe. The phraseology of Acts 11. 33 is corrobora- 
 tive of our view— Being exalted to the right hand of God, 
 and having received—AaBov—tfrom the Father the promise of 
 the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this ’’—bestowed upon the 
 church such gifts of the Spirit. It is of the gifts of the Spirit, 
 especially in the administration of the church, that the apostle 
 speaks in this paragraph; and Peter, in the style of the 
 Psalmist, describes Messiah as receiving them ere He distri- 
 butes 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 taken 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 iiber der 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 8. 291 
 
 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 ii.), 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 Psalm lxvilil. 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 
 language of Joab to David, in 2 Sam. xi. 11, does not affirm 
 the presence of the ark in the Israelitish camp, but may be 
 explained by the words of 2 Sam. vil. 2. That the psalm 
 is one of David’s times and composition may be proved, 
 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 “ Harlekinannzug’’—brings the psalm down 
 to the period between Alexander the Great and the Macca- 
 bees. One of the Targums 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 
 
 1 The following note is translated from the Rabbinical Commentary of Mendels- 
 sohn :—‘“ As he mentions (vy. 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 
 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.’ ” 
 
292 EPHESIANS IV. 8. 
 
 “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 ot2}—“ on 
 high—’’in such a connection refers to heaven, in contrast with 
 earth, where the victory had been won. Ps. xviii. 16; Isaiah 
 xxiv. 18, xl. 26; Jeremiah xxv. 30. 
 
 “ Thou hast led captivity captive ’—yyywaretevoas aixpa- 
 Awoiav. The meaning of this idiom seems simply to be— 
 thou hast mustered or reviewed thy captives. Judges v. 12; 
 Gesenius, sub 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 a 7m, and to regard this 
 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, &c. § 623 Schnurrer, 
 Dissertat. p. 803. The preposition a 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, &c.; 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. xxiil. 
 3; Proy. 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 éy into éwi. But how can 
 év avOpor@ denote “after the fashion of a man,” and how 
 can oa 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 ? 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 8. 293 
 
 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 
 exegets as Morus and even by Doddridge, can therefore have 
 no pit here. Nor can we agree with Carin that Paul has 
 Grae twisted the words from their biota 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 
 gifts 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 advaSdas on which the 
 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 Psalm lxviil. 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 
 
294 EPHESIANS IV. 8. 
 
 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 
 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— 
 
 avaBas eis thpos jyparwrevcey aliyxyadrwoiav—* 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; Actsi.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. viii., De figura etymologica, p. 499, has given 
 many examples from the classics. The verb, as well as the 
 kindred form aiywarwrifw, belongs to the later Greek—extrema 
 Greecie 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 8. 295 
 
 Siculus, xvii. 76; Num. xxxi. 12; Judges v. 12; 2 Chron. 
 xxvill. 11-13; Amosi.6; 1 Maccab. 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 priso- 
 ners, whom Jesus restored to liberty. Such is the view of 
 Justin Martyr, of Theodoret and Cicumenius 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 pecu- 
 liar prominence in the Messianic oracles; Ps. ex. 1; Isa. liu. 
 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 
 of heathendom, nor yet as in the equally shallow opinion of 
 Flatt, the hinderances 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 
 yesurrection, 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 
 
 1 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 129. Ed. Otto, Jenw, 1843. The genuineness of this 
 Dialogue has, however, been disputed. 
 
296 EPHESIANS IV. 8. 
 
 Calvin—guum Christus, devicto peccato, subacta morte, Satand 
 profligato, in celum magnifice sublaius 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. 
 
 [kal] &wxev Sopata Tols avOperous— and He”’ (that is, the 
 exalted Saviour) “ gave gifts to men.” Acts 11. 33. There is 
 no cai in the Septuagint, and it is omitted by A, C*, Dt, E, 
 F, G, the Vulgate, and other authorities; while it is found in 
 B, Ct (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 éy av@p#7@, which Peile would harshly 
 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 the 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. ili. p. 178. Lipsiz, 1838; Ueberset. und Ausleg. der 
 Psalmen, p. 305. Hofmann understands it thus—that the con- 
 * quered won by Him get gifts from Him to make them capable 
 of service, and so to do Him honour. Schriftd. ii. part 1, 
 
 
 
 1 Bloomfield has well remarked, that Peile’s ingenious reading of this clause in 
 the Septuagint virtually amounts to a re-writing of it. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 9. 297 
 
 p- 488. See also his Weissagung und Hrfullung, i. 168, 11. 199. 
 Stier says rightly, that these douara are the gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit—die Geistes-gaben Christi. These gifts are 
 plainly defined by the context, and by the following «at 
 autos éoxev. 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 
 to the measure of the gift of Christ.” 
 
 (Ver. 9.) To, dé, avéBn, ti éorev— Now that he ascended, 
 what is it?” Now this predicate, avé@7, what does it mean or 
 imply? ‘The particle 6é introduces a transitional explanation 
 or inference. The apostle does not repeat the participle, but 
 takes the idea as expressed by the verb and as placed in con- 
 trast with caré8n— 
 
 el py OTL Kal KaTéBn Els TA KaToTEpa [| Mépn] THS Yhs s— 
 “unless that He also descended to the lower parts of the 
 earth.” The word wp@tov found in the Textus Receptus 
 before eés has no great authority, but Reiche vindicates it 
 (Com. Crit. p. 173); and pépn is not found in D, E, F, G. 
 Tischendorf rejects it, but Scholz, Lachmann, Tittmann, 
 Hahn, and Reiche retain it, as it has A, B, C, D*, K, L, and 
 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. 
 
298 EPHESIANS IV. 9. 
 
 eis TA KaTwTEpA THs yis—“to the lower parts of the earth.” 
 Compare in Septuagint such places as Deut. xxxii. 22; Neh. 
 iv. 13; Ps. Ixiii. 9, 10, Ixxxvi. 13, exxxix. 15; Lament. 
 iii. 55., and the prayer of Manasseh in the Apocrypha. The 
 phrase represents the Hebrew formula—y x4 nenqn, the super- 
 lative being commonly employed—xarératos. The rabbins 
 called the earth sometimes generally oning. Bartolocci, Bib. 
 Rab. i. p. 820. 
 
 1. Some suppose the reference to be to the conception of 
 Jesus, basing their opinion on Ps. exxxix. 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, Myrothectum Evang. p. 251, Witsius, Piscator, and 
 Calixtus. But the mere poetical figure in the psalm denoting 
 secret and undiscoverable operation, can scarcely be placed in 
 contrast to the highest heaven. 
 
 2. Chrysostom, with Theophylact and Gicumenius, Bul- 
 linger, Phavorinus, and Macknight, refer it to the death 
 of Christ; while Vorstius, Baumgarten, Drusius, Cocceius, 
 Whitby, Wilke, and Crellius, see a special reference to the 
 grave. But there is no proof that the words can bear such 
 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 infertora terra- 
 rum, ut illic patriarchas et prophetas compotes Sui faceret. 
 De Anima, 55; Opera, vol. i1., p. 642, ed. Gihler. 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. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 9. 299 
 
 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 Peter iii. 19, the natural interpretation 
 of which seems to imply it, it may be said, that though the 
 superlative carmTatos may be the epithet of Sheol in the Old 
 Testament, why should the comparative in the New Testament 
 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. 
 u. 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, &e. 3. 
 Nor is there any force in Ellicott’s remark, that the use of 
 the specific term déys “ would have marred the antithesis,” 
 for we find the same antithesis virtually in Isaiah xiv. 13, 15, 
 and expressly in Matt. xi. 23, while tvepdvw and xatotepa 
 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 
 
 1 In Pott’s Excursus, in connection with his interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, will 
 be found a good account of the various opinions on the “descent into hell,” as also 
 in Dittelmeier, Historia Dogmatis de Descensu C., &c., Altorf, 1761. But a more 
 complete treatise on the same dogma in its various aspects is the more recent one of 
 Giider—Die Lehre von der Erscheinung Jesu Christi unter den Todten, &c., 1853. 
 
300 EPHESIANS IV. 9. 
 
 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 para- 
 dise—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—é& ddov xatwrdtov (Ps. Ixxxvi. 13); or more 
 pointed still, éws dou xatwrdrov. Deut. xxxii. 22. See Trom. 
 Concord. Why not use 4dns, when it had been so markedly 
 employed before, had he wished to give it prominence? Un- 
 mistakable phraseology was provided for him, and sanctioned 
 by previous usage. But the apostle employs yf with the com- 
 parative, and it is therefore to 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 €v tots xatwtdtw Tis yhs; 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. lxui. 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; xxx. 18-24, the 
 similar Hebrew phrase which occurs, but which is not rendered 
 dons in the Septuagint, means Sheol or Hades. In Isa. xliv. 
 23, it is as here, earth in contrast with heaven, and perhaps 
 the foundations of the globe are meant, as Ewald, the Chaldee, 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 9. 301 
 
 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 
 
 e 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 phrase- 
 ology occurs in poetical compositions, and as a portion of 
 Oriental imagery. But in the verse before us, the words are 
 a simple statement of facts in connection 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 
 understand the words as simply denoting the earth. Such is 
 the view of Thomas Aquinas, Beza,! Aretius, Bodius, Rollock, 
 Calvin, Cajetan, Piscator, Crocius, Grotius, Marloratus, Schcett- 
 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, Tov appaBava Tod 
 mvevpratos—the earnest of the Spirit—the Spirit which is the 
 earnest; Rom. viii. 23, iv. 11, cnpetov repitops—the sign of 
 circumcision, that is, the sign, to wit, circumcision. Acts. iv. 22; 
 1 Pet. 11. 7; Col. 11. 24; Rom. vii. 21, &. &e. The same 
 mode of expression occurs in Hebrew—Stuart’s Heb. Gram. 
 § 422; Nordheimer’s do. § 815. So too we have in Latin— 
 Urbs Romae—the city of Rome; fluvius Huphratis—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” 
 
 1 Beza refers his reader with a query to the first opinion we have noted. Nor are 
 we sure whether by ‘“‘terra” he does not mean the grave, when he defines it as— 
 pars mundi infima. 
 
302 EPHESIANS IV. 10. 
 
 mean those lower parts which the earth forms or presents in 
 contrast with heaven, as we often say—heaven above and earth 
 beneath. The tos of the former verse plainly suggested the 
 katotepa in this verse, and u7epdvw stands also in corre- 
 spondence with it. So the world is called % yh caro. 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. Comparantur, 
 says Calvin, non wna pars terre cum altera, sed tota terra cum 
 cwlo. 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) y} cate, but eis ta 
 katotepa? 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 
 manger. As a man, He earned His bread by the sweat of 
 His brow, at a manual occupation with hammer and hatchet, 
 “ ooing 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, adros éorw Kai 0 avaBas brepdva 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 10. 303 
 
 mavTov Tov ovpavav— He that descended, He it is also who 
 ascended high above all the heavens.” ‘O cataBas is emphatic, 
 and avrés is He and none other. Winer, § 22, 4, note. Ou 
 yap adros KaTeAnrvoe, says Theodoret, cal addros avedjrvOev. 
 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 
 J esus— 
 “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 
 hunger 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—Hn it is who has gone up. No 
 wonder that a heart which proved itself to be so rich with 
 every tender, noble, and sympathetic impulse, should rejoice 
 in expending its spiritual treasures, and giving gifts to men. 
 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— 
 
 itepave TavtTav TeV ovpavov— above all the heavens.” 
 John iii. 13; Heb. vii. 26. See under i. 21. Oz ovpavoé 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 dijp, an aiOp, and Tpitos ovpavos 
 
304 EPHESIANS IV. 10. 
 
 (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. lxviil. 33, 
 exlviii. 4, in which the phrase occurs—“ heavens of heavens.” 
 We find the apostle in Heb. iv. 14, saying of Jesus—ovedn- 
 AvOoTa Tors ovpavovds—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 éortiv Erepov 
 vt, and He ascended above all—trép & ovK éotw étepa. 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 TAnpecn Ta tavta— that He might fill all things.” 
 The subjunctive with iva and after the aorist participle, repre- 
 sents an act which still endures. Klotz-Devarius, 11. 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, 
 “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 7A7papa, 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 ta wavta 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 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS, IV. 11. 305 
 
 such a boundary. The explanation of Calvin, that Jesus fills 
 all, Spiritus sui virtute ; and of Harless, mit seiner Ginadenge- 
 genwart—appears to be too limited. Chrysostom’s view is 
 better—ris évepyetas av’tov Kal Ths Seorroteias. Stier com- 
 pares the phrase with the last clause of the verse quoted from 
 Psalm Ixviii., that “God the Lord might dwell among them,” 
 to which corresponds the meaning given by Bengel—Se Jpso. 
 
 (Ver. 11.) The apostle resumes the thought that seems to 
 have been ripe for utterance at the conclusion of ver. 7. 
 
 Kal adtos éwxe—“ And Himself gave ””—adrds emphatic, 
 and connected with the adrds 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 é6wxe 
 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. 
 "Edexe is evidently in unison with €60y and dwpea in ver. 7, 
 and with «xe douata 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 
 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— 
 
 Tovs “ev aTroaTOAOUs—“ some as, or to be, apostles.” On 
 the particle wév, which cannot well be rendered into English, 
 and on its connection with wia—see Donaldson’s New Craty- 
 lus, § 151, 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 
 X 
 
306 EPHESIANS IV. 11. 
 
 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 aposto- 
 late were— 
 
 1. That the apostles should receive their commission im- 
 mediately 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, 
 1 Cor. ai 10); « Gali.’ 11, 12; 1 Thess. i1.: 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 1. 43, v.15; and 2 Cor. xi. 12. 
 Paul calls these manifestations “the signs of an apostle ;” 
 
lod 
 
 EPHESIANS IV. 11. 307 
 
 and again in Hebrews 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 vii. 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. vill. 23 ; 
 Phil. ui. 25; Winer, Real- Worterbuch, art. Apostel.; Kitto’s 
 Bib. Cycl. do.; M‘Lean’s Apostolical Commission, Works, 1. 
 p- 8; Spanhemius, de Apostolatu, &c., Leyden, 1679. 
 
 Tous dé mpodytas—“and some to be prophets.’’ Aé looks back 
 to wév and introduces a different class. We have already had 
 occasion to refer especially to this office under ii. 20, and 11. 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 infal- 
 lible, 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 communi- 
 cated also to prophets. iii. 5. The name has its origin in 
 the peculiar usages of the Old Testament. The Hebrew 
 term wn has reference, in its etymology, to the excitement and 
 rhapsody which were so visible under the divine afllatus; and 
 the cognate verb is therefore used in the niphal and hithpahel 
 conjugations. Gesenius, swb voce ; Knobel, Prophetismus, 1. 127. 
 The furor was sometimes so vehement that, in imitation of 
 it, the frantic ravings of insanity received a similar appella- 
 tion. 1 Sam. xvii. 10; 1 Kings xvi. 29. As the prophet’s 
 impulse came from God, and denoted close alliance with Him, 
 so any man who enjoyed special and repeated divine com- 
 munications 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 com- 
 mon internuncius was dignified with the title. Exod. vii. 1. 
 
308 EPHESIANS IV. 11. 
 
 This is the radical signification of rpodytrns—-one who speaks 
 —r7po—tfor, 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. Ezra v. 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 (Exod. xv. 20), and of the 
 sons of the prophets, 1 Sam. x. 5. So it is too in Numb. 
 xi. 26; Titus i. 12. In 1 Chron. xxv. 1, similar language 
 occurs—the orchestra “ prophesied with a harp to give thanks 
 and to praise the Lord.” Koppe, Hxcursus i. 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 11. 36, and to the ebullition of Zachariah 
 in Luke, i. 67. While in the New Testament podyrns 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- 
 liar nature—so sudden and thrilling, so lofty and penetrating 
 —merits 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. v. 28, 
 says of them —o peév mpopytevav tavta amo Tod TvEevpaTos 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 11. 309 
 
 pOéyyerat. ‘They were inspired improvisator? 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 longings 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 mind of an unbe- 
 liever, in laying bare the secrets of his heart, that the prophets 
 concerned themselves specially with the subjective side of 
 Christianity—with its power and adaptations; 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 reve- 
 lation became the instrument of the Spirit’s operation 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, 
 
310 EPHESIANS IV. 11. 
 
 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 com- 
 pare 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, &e., 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 6€ evayyedvotds —‘‘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 Cicumenius stoutly asserts. On the other 
 hand, Theodoret is more correct in his description—zrepuioytes 
 éxnpuTTov— going about they preached.” Eusebius, Historia 
 Kecles. 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 
 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, &c., 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 
 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. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 11. Si 
 
 The prophet had an dzroxddvyis 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, Tychichus, 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. 
 Tovs 6€ Troumévas Kal Svdacxddovs — “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, Gicumenius, 
 Erasmus, Piscator, Musculus, Bengel, Riickert, Harless, Ols- 
 hausen, Meyer, and Davidson. Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 156. 
 Those who make a distinction between pastors and teachers 
 vary greatly in their definitions. Thus Theodoret, followed 
 by Bloomfield and Stier, notices the difference, as if it were 
 only local—rovs cata modw Kal Koynv—* town and 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 Westminster Divines also 
 made a distinction—“ The teacher or doctor is also a minister 
 
312 EPHESIANS IV. 11. 
 
 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, &c.” 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 pre- 
 sided.1_ 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—lNon enim ait ; alios autem 
 pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut 
 gui pastor est, esse debeat et magister; and again—Nemo 
 pastoris sibt nomen assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos 
 pascit. The view of Bengel is similar. The language indi- 
 cates this, for the recurring tods 84 is omitted before dudacKd- 
 Aovs, and a simple xaé connects it with wouévas. The two 
 offices seem to have had this in common, that they were 
 stationary—rrept va tomov joxodnpévot, as Chrysostom de- 
 seribes 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 yore, after which Christian 
 pastors were named érioxomros and mpecBvrepot. Vitringa, De 
 Synagog. Vet., p. 621; Selden, De Synedriis Vet. Heb., lib. i. 
 cap. 14. 
 
 / The idea contained in vro:wyy 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 ‘oceurs, Ps. xxiiie 1) lxxx/1; Jeri S, 111,15, 
 and in many other places; Isa. lvi. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 
 xxxvu. 24; Zee. x. 35. John'xs 14; xxivd5;' Acts xx: 28371 
 Pet. v. 2. Such pastors and guides rule as well as feed the 
 flock, for the keeping or tending is essential to the successful 
 
 1 But Bodius compares ‘‘ teachers” to titular doctors of divinity, a title, he adds, 
 which is not without its value—s? absit hinc quidem onmis ambitus, et vana titulorum 
 hujusmodi affectus. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 11. 313 
 
 feeding. The prominent idea in Psalm xxii. is protection 
 and guidance in order to pasture. The same notion is in- 
 volved in the Homeric and classic usage of vrowujv 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 ésricKo7os is used 
 by the apostle in addressing churches formed principally out 
 of the heathen world—as at Ephesus, Philippi, and the island 
 efaCrete?(Acts:sx: 28° Phileas die d, Time nie Dyes i F)s5 
 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 éwécxorros. See under Phil. i. 1. 
 The édacxdndor, placed in the third rank by the apostle in 
 1 Cor. xii. 28, were persons whose peculiar function it was te 
 expound the truths of Christianity. While teaching was the 
 main characteristic of this office, yet, from the mode of dis- 
 charging it, it might be called a pastorate. The dudacKdros 
 in teaching, did the duty of a ov, for he fed with | 
 knowledge ; and the wou in guiding and governing, pre- 
 pared the flock for the nutriment of the dudacKddos. It is 
 declared in 1 Tim. iii. 2 that a Christian overseer or pastor 
 must be “apt to teach ”—O.daxrixds ; and in Tit. 1. 9 it is 
 said that, in virtue of his office, he must be able “ by sound 
 doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers.” Again, 
 in Heb. xiii. 7, those who had governed the church are further 
 characterized thus—oltwes éhadnoav bpiv Tov NOyor Tod cod. 
 The one office is thus honoured appropriately with the two 
 ‘appellations. It comprised government and instruction, and 
 the former being subordinate to the latter, dudacKddo. 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 
 
314 EPHESIANS IV. 12. ‘ 
 
 associated with those previously named. ‘The evangelists 
 and deacons were indeed helps, but government devolved 
 upon the teachers and elders. See Henderson, Divine Insp7- 
 ration, lect. iv. p. 1845 Riickert, 2d Beilage—Komment. tiber 
 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 men- 
 tioned in one which are not referred to in others. It would 
 appear, in fine, that this last office of government and instruc- 
 tion 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 de- 
 scends 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. 
 
 (Ver. 12.) Ilpos tov xatapticpov Tov ayiwy, eis epryov 
 Suaxovias, els olkodouiy TOV cmpmaTos TOD XpiotodV— 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 
 
 1 How a learned Irvingite of the Continent labours to find in such a passage the 
 kind of intricate hierarchy which his so-called apostolic church delights in, may be 
 seen in the work of Thiersch—Die Kirche in Apostolischen Zeitalter, &c. Frankfurt, 
 1852. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 12. 315 
 
 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 zpos before the first clause, 
 while ets 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- 
 ranted 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.”’ 
 
 3. Harless and Olshausen suppose the prime object to be 
 described in the first clause which begins with pos, and the 
 other clauses, each commencing with eis, to be subdivisions 
 of the main idea, and dependent upon it, as if the meaning 
 were—the saints are prepared some of them to teach, and 
 others, or the great body of the church, to be edified. Our 
 objection to such an exegesis is, that it introduces a division 
 where the apostle himself gives no hint, and which the lan- 
 guage cannot warrant. For all the dysos are described as 
 enjoying 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 eés 
 depend upon the first— For the work of the ministry insti- 
 tuted in order to the edifying of the body of Christ.” 
 
 4, Meier, Schott, Riickert, and Erasmus also regard the two 
 clauses introduced by eis as dependent upon that beginning 
 with wpos. 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 Svaxovia, in such a connection, never signi- 
 fies service in general, but official service; and his objection 
 
316 EPHESIANS IV. 12. 
 
 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—eis—for the work of the ministry, 
 and—-eis—for the edifying of his body—zpés—in order to 
 the perfecting of his saints.’ Lllicott and Alford follow 
 Meyer, and we incline now to concur in this opinion, though 
 the order of thought appears somewhat inverted. Jelf, 
 § 625. 38. It is amusing to notice the critical manceuvre 
 of Piscator—eis épyov, says he, stands for év épyw, and 
 that again means 6¢ épyov—the perfecting of the saints by 
 means of the work of the ministry. 
 
 The verbal noun catapticpos is not, as Pelagius and Vata- 
 blus take it, the filling up of the number of the elect, but as 
 Theodoret paraphrases— rédevos €v aot Tpdypact. The verb - 
 KataptiCev—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; Mark 1.19; 
 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. xii. 11. The meaning of dyos has been 
 explained under i. 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 conformity. 
 
 eis pyov Siaxovias—“ for work of service.” For the ety- 
 mology of the second term, see under ii. 7. These various 
 office-bearers have been given for, or their destination is, the 
 work of service. “Epyov is not superfluous; as Koppe says, 
 it is that work in which the dvaxovia busies itself. Winer, 
 § 65, 7; Acts vi. 4, xi. 29; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 12, 18, 
 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 olKodopnY TOU THmaTos TOD Xpictov— for the building 
 up of the body of Christ.” This second parallel clause is a 
 more specific way of describing the business or use of the 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 13. a1 
 
 
 
 Christian ministry—a second purpose to which the office- 
 bearers are given. In ii. 21, oixodou 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 Xpictod have been given under 1. 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 preaclies 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.) Méype xatavtjicwpev ot tavres—“ Until we all 
 come.” Méyps measures the time during which this arrange- 
 ment and ministry are to last, and it is here used, without av, 
 with a subjunctive, a usage common in the later writers and 
 in the New Testament. Winer, § 413, b; Stallbaum, Plato, 
 Philebus, p. 61; Schmalfeld on” Eas, § 128. Kiihner, § 808, 2. 
 This formula occurs only in this place; aypis ob being the 
 apostle’s common expression. The insertion of the particle 
 av would have given such an idea as this, “till we come 
 (if ever we come).”’ Hartung, i. p. 291; Bernhardy, p. 400. 
 The subjunctive is employed not merely to express a future 
 aim, as Harless says, but it also connects this futurity with 
 the principal verb—édwxe—as its expected purpose. Jelf, 
 § 842, 2; Scheuerlein, § 36,1. ‘“ We alk,” 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. 
 Katavrdw needs not to be taken in any such sense as to 
 intimate that believers of different nations meet together ; nor 
 can mavres denote all men, as Jerome, Morus, and Allioli 
 understand it, but only all the saints—dysor. The meaning is, 
 
 
 
 1On éxe and uéxg, see Tittmann, de Synon. p. 33; and on the various forms of 
 the words, Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 14; Fritzsche ad Rom. i. p. 308. 
 
318 EPHESIANS IV. 13. 
 
 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 eés— 
 els THY EVOTNTA THS TioTews Kal THS éeTUvyvOcEws TOV VIOD 
 tov Weov—“ to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of 
 the Son of God.” Katavrde is followed by eis in a literal 
 _ sense, as often in Acts, and here also in a tropical sense. See 
 under Phil. ii. 11. Very different is the sense from that 
 involved in the view of Pelagius—ejus plenitudinem imitar?. 
 Every noun in the clause has the article prefixed. We take 
 the genitive Tod viod Tod Oecod as that of object, and as governed 
 both by wictews and éruyvecews— the faith of the Son of 
 God, and the knowledge of the Son of Cod.’ Winer, § 30. 
 But we cannot adopt the view of Calvin, Calovius, Bullinger, 
 and Crocius, that ris émuyvacews is epexegetical of ris micTews, 
 for it expresses a different idea. Nor can we with Grotius 
 regard eis as meaning éy—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 dif- 
 ference 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. Jor 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 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 13. 319 
 
 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 perman- 
 ence, as well as in object, is an attainable blessing. 
 
 Unity of knowledge is also specified by the apostle. 
 "Exiyveors is a term we have considered under i,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—jides implicita developing into fides 
 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 vivd tod Oecod 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 
 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€ TeNevdT TOs ev TO éAXOVTL Biw Tevéopucba 
 —has been adopted by Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and Holz- 
 hausen. On the other hand, the belief that such perfection is 
 
320 EPHESIANS IV. 13. 
 
 attainable here, is a view held by Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 and Cicumenius, by Jerome and Ambrosiaster, by Thomas 
 Aquinas and KEstius, 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. 18. 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 one only.’’ 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 labonr 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 tédevov—“ to a perfect man.”? This expres- 
 sive figure was perhaps suggested by the previous cdma 
 Xpicrod. The singular appears to be employed as the con- 
 crete representative of that unity of which the apostle has 
 been speaking. ’Avyp réAevos is opposed to vos in the 
 following verse, which probably it also suggested, and is used 
 in such a sense by the classics. Tédevos is tropically con- 
 
 1 Augustine says, Nonnulli propter hoe quod dictum est—donec occurramns omnes in 
 
 virum perfectum, nec in sexu femineo resurrecturas feminas credunt—sed in virili.— 
 De Ciwitate, xxvii. 16. See also Aquinas and Anselm. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 13. 32t 
 
 trasted with wjreos in 1 Cor. ii. 6 and iil. 1, and it stands 
 opposed to 7d é« 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&jowpev of the 
 15th verse, thus separating it from any connection with the 
 previous fa, 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 expres- 
 sion— 
 
 els wétpov HruKklas ToD TANPwLaTos ToD Xpictod— to the 
 measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” The im- 
 portant term 7dcx/a is rendered “ full age ””—etas virtlis—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 dvyp 7éAev0s 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 jézpov, as in the well-known 
 phrase, %8ns 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, Lmag. p. 8, 
 Opera, vol. vi. ed. Bipoint. The words are but an appro- 
 priate and striking image of spiritual advancement. The 
 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 #Avc/a the sense of stature. Luther, 
 x 
 
528 EPHESIANS IV. 14. 
 
 Calvin, Beza, Morus, and others, take wAjpwpa as an adjec- 
 tive—jrucla TeTAnpoLern or HrLKia TANpebévtos Xpiotod. 
 Luther renders in der masse des vollkommenen Alters Christi 
 —“the measure of the full age of Christ.”” Calvin gives it, 
 etas 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 
 mrjpouwa. It is completely out of place on the part of Storr, 
 Koppe, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to understand w)xjpwpua of 
 the church, for the phrase qualifies 7Avx/a, and is not in simple 
 apposition. Nor is the attempt of Gicumenius and Grotius at 
 all more successful, to resolve wAjpwpa into the knowledge of 
 Christ. For wAjpapa see under i. 10, 23. Xprorod is the 
 genitive of subject, and 7Anpépatos that of possession; the 
 connection of so many genitives indicating a varied but linked 
 relationship characterizing the apostle’s style. Winer, § 30, 35 
 Obs. i.; Eph. i. 6, 19. The church, as we have seen, is 
 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 #Auc/a 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 
 His death. Augustine, De Civit. lib. xxii. cap. 15. Another 
 purpose is— 
 
 (Ver. 14.) “Iva pynnére Ope vijrvoc-— In order that we may 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 14. ove 
 
 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&jcapev— 
 implying that reXevdTys 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 pourtrayed, in order that in the meantime 
 we may be no longer children. Nozjvos is opposed to avy 
 Téevos. Polybius, Mist., v. 29, 2. Myxére is employed after 
 iva. Gayler, Part. Grac. Neg., cap. vu. A, 1-8, p. 168. We 
 have been children long enough—let us “ put away childish 
 things.” 
 
 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— 
 
 KAvowriomevot Kal TrEepipepomevot TravTl avéu@ Tis d:dac- 
 cadias—“ tossed and driven about with every wind of teach- 
 ing.” Krvdwrifouevor—tossed about as a surge 3 kAvdwvl- 
 Cowevoe iS passive; instances may be found in Krebs and 
 Wetstein. Heb. xii. 9; James 1.6. 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 avéuq, dative of cause (Kriiger, § 48, 15), 
 is applied to ddacKkadia—not to show its emptiness, as 
 Matthies explains it by windig-leere Hinfalle, but to describe 
 its impulsive power. The article tis before didacKadias 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 direc- 
 tion only, but blowing from any or “every ” quarter, causes 
 the imperfect and inexperienced to surge about in fruitless 
 commotion. The moral phenomenon iscommon. Some men 
 have just enough of Christian intelligence to unsettle them, 
 
acd EPHESIANS IV. 14. 
 
 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. Deci- 
 sion and firmness are indispensable to spiritual improvement. 
 Only one form of teaching is beneficial, and all deviations are 
 pernicious. More pointedly— 
 
 év TH KuBela TOv avOporav— in the sleight of men.” 
 KvuBela 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, swh voce. The rabbins have the word 
 also in the form of »xp. Schoettgen, Hore Heb. p, 775; Bux- 
 torf, Lex. Tal. p. 1984. Salmasius renders the term aetio 
 temeraria ; Beza, varie et tnepte 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 zap- 
 ovpyla. 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. 
 Oi avOpe7o are men, in contrast not with Christ’s office- 
 bearers, but with the ‘Son of God.” The next clause is 
 parallel and explanative— 
 
 év mavoupyia mpos tiv peOodelav tis mdvns—“ in craft 
 with a view to a system of error.’’ Codex A adds Tod dvaBorov. 
 “ Craft’ is the meaning which is uniformly attached to the 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 15. o2e 
 
 first noun in the New Testament. 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2, 
 xi. 3. [[pés indicates the purpose of the zavovpyia which is 
 not followed by any article. The craft is exercised in order 
 to carry out the tricks of error; 7Advys being genitive of 
 subject and defined by the article. Me@ode/a is rendered by 
 Hesychius téyvyn, and by Theodoret unyar7}, plan or settled 
 system. Aquila renders my, “to lie in wait,” (Exod. xxi. 13) by 
 peOodevoe. 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 case of such English words as 
 “ prevent” and “resent,” showing man’s evil nature. This 
 false teaching, 7) 7A avn, has a systematic process of deception 
 peculiar to itself—7) weode/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— 
 mavoupyia. 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 antici- 
 pated 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, de- 
 manded 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.) "AdnOevovtes dé, ev ayarn avénowpev eis adtov 
 7a Tavta— But imbued with truth, that in love we should 
 grow up to or into Him im all things.” The construction 
 still depends upon iva in ver. 14, dé placing the following 
 positive clauses in opposition to the preceding negative ones. 
 
326 EPHESIANS IV. 15. 
 
 We must hold against Meyer, that the context requires a\7- 
 Gevov 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 ddoypara, 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 
 Syriac... A0wo ——— —hbeing “confirmed in love.” The 
 Gothic renders swnja tesisedp atic doing truth,” and the 
 Vulgate—veritatem facientes. Many of the pace 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 aydzy 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 mutuce 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 aydamn—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 
 aydrn to the verb av&éjowperv—for the words in the con- 
 clusion of the following verse have plainly such a connection. 
 Besides, in Pauline style, though Alford denies it, qualifying 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 15. 32% 
 
 clauses may precede the verb. See underi. 4. The chief 
 element of spiritual growth is love—év aydzry being repeated. 
 
 Avéjoowpev is used not in an active, but in an intransitive 
 sense, as icumenius, Theophylact, and Jerome understood it. 
 The verb has reference at once to the condition of the v7zroe 
 —children immature,and ungrown, and to the pérpov 7duKias 
 —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 
 crafty teachers. 
 
 Harless connects eis adrov with év ayarn— in love to 
 Him.” But the position of the words forbids such a connec- 
 tion; and though the hyperbaton were allowable, the idea 
 brought out-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 dydmn 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 es avrov 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 
 Wahl, Holzhausen, Koppe, and Schrader, in making ta 
 
——"\ 
 
 328 EPHESIANS IV. 15. 
 
 mavra equivalent to of mavtes, cannot be received. The 
 words mean “as to all””—xard being the supplement, if one 
 were needed; but such an accusative denoting “ contents or 
 compass ”’ often follows verbs which cannot govern the accu- 
 sative 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 évérns, of ver. 13. 
 Stier, giving the article the same retrospective reference, 
 includes faith, knowledge, truth, and love. That 7a vavta 
 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. 86; 1 Cor. viii. 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 
 xvil. 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. Meyeyr’s idea is, that ra 
 wavra 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 per omnia, or prorsus. The article gives wdvyta an 
 emphatic sense—“ the whole;”’ and as the reference of the 
 apostle is to a growing body, ta wdvta 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—ddnbevortes ; 
 then he describes the peculiar temperament in which this 
 growth is secured and accelerated—éev aydzry ; then he speci- 
 fies its aim and end—els adrov; and, lastly, he marks its 
 amount and harmony—ra@ mdvta. 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 
 inculeates 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. 329 
 
 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— 
 
 Os éotw 9 Kepady, Xpiotos—“ who is the Head—Christ.” 
 D, E, F, G, K, L, prefix the article to Xpuords, but A, B, 
 and C, with other authorities, read Xpuords 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 xepads in such a connection has been already 
 explained; i. 22. That Head is Christ—Xpuords 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—7d rdvta 6uod OedAfoat elrety;” 
 but we may say that the language of this verse is as com- 
 pacted as the body which it describes. 
 
 e€ ov —“ 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 avtov in the previous verse, and now it is é€ od. The 
 growth is to Him and the growth is from Him—Himeelf 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— 
 
 Tay TO GOpAa cvvappLoroyovmevoy Kal cuvvGiBatouevov— 
 “all the body being fitly framed together and put together.” 
 The verb connected with céyua as its nominative is rovetrac. 
 The first participle occurs at ii. 21, and is there explained. It 
 
330 EPHESIANS IV. 16: 
 
 denotes—“ being composed of parts fitted closely to each 
 other.”” The second participle is used in a tropical sense in 
 the New Testament (Acts ix. 22, xvi. 10; 1 Cor. 11. 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— 
 
 dua Taons adjs THs éemvyopnylas—“ by means of every 
 joint of the supply.’ ‘This clause has originated no little 
 difference of opinion. We take it as closely connected by dud 
 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 zroveiras. 
 The Greek fathers, followed by Meyer, render ady by aic- 
 @nou—touch, sense of touch; tactum subméinistrationis is 
 found in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 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. uu. 19, and as the Vulgate 
 renders it—junctura. ’E7vyopnyia denotes aid or assistance, 
 and is taken by Flatt, Rickert, 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 ésvyo- 
 pnyias as the genitive of use—compacted together by every 
 joint which serves for supply. John v. 29; Heb. ix. 21; 
 Winer, § 30,2 b. "Esvyopnyla is thus the assistance which 
 the joints give in compacting and organizing the body. So 
 in Col. ii. 19—O1a tv addy Kat cvvdécpwv érvyopnyovpevov. 
 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— 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 16. 331 
 
 Kar évépyetav év métp@ Eévds Exdotov pépouvs—* according 
 to energy in the measure of each individual part.” The MSS. 
 A and ©, with others of less note, along with the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, and Syriac versions, and Chrysostom, Jerome, and 
 Pelagius, read pédovs, which fits the passage so well as an 
 explanation of wépovs;,that we can easily conceive how it was 
 introduced. MRiickert and Bretschneider take xaz’ évépyevav 
 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 wétp~— 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 curBiBafouevov. Such a con- 
 nection is, we think, fallacious, for the compactness and the 
 union of the body depend on 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 émvyopnylas, 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— 
 
 TI avénow Tod comaTos Troletrac—* carries on the increase 
 of the body.” Col. ii. 19. Though céma was the nominative, 
 g@uarTos is repeated in the genitive—the body maketh increase 
 
oun EPHESIANS IV. 17. 
 
 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 so long, the noun is repeated, especially as éavrovd occurs 
 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— 
 
 eis oixodopmay éavtod év ayarn— for the building up of 
 itself in love.” The phrase €v dydrn, however, plainly 
 connects this verse with the preceding one. Meyer errs in 
 connecting éy ayd7n 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 is not 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 17. 333 
 
 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 
 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 
 a sentinel. 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.” Hach 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 har- 
 monious growth only is required. For the “energy” is in 
 every part at once, but in every part in due apportionment. 
 So the church universal has in it a divine energy, and that in 
 all its parts, by which its spiritual development is secured. In 
 
334 EPHESIANS IV. 17. 
 
 pastors and people, in missionaries and catechists, in instructors 
 of youth and in the youth themselves, this divine principle 
 has diffused itself, and produces everywhere proportionate 
 advancement. And no ordinance or member is superfluous. 
 Blessing is invoked on the word 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 builta temple. Joseph 
 provided a tomb. Mary the mother gave birth to the child, 
 and the other Marys wrapt the corpse in spices. Lydia 
 entertained the apostle, and Phoebe 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 mys- 
 tical 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—ap 70 c@pa. 
 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 com- 
 pose but one growing structure “in love :”— 
 “Tm 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 otv Aéyo—“ This, then, I say.” The 
 apostle now recurs to the inculeation of many special and 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 17. 335 
 
 important duties, or as Theodoret writes—zanduv avéraBe; and 
 he begins with the statement of some general principles. The 
 singular rodTo 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 examples 
 may be seen in Winer, § 23,4. Ody is not merely resumptive 
 of the ethical tuition begun in ver. 1, (Donaldson, § 548), but it 
 has reference also to the previous paragraph from ver. 4 to 16, 
 which, thrown out as a digression from ver. 3, runs at length 
 into an argument for the exhortations which follow. Grant- 
 ing, as Ellicott contends, that grammatically 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— 
 
 éyo Kal papTipopat ev Kupiw— I say and testify in the 
 ond om iia 1s 1h Théss..ivi4;1 Tim, yi 21 32 ‘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 
 charge is delivered— 
 
 pnkére twas Tepimateiy Kabws Kal Ta Nowra EOvn TepiTTaTEl 
 —“that ye walk no longer as also the other Gentiles walk.” 
 1 Peter iv. 3. It is to the Gentile portion of the church that 
 the apostle addresses himself. The adverb pnxérz “no longer,” 
 is here used with the infinitive, though often with tva and the 
 subjunctive. The infinitive which grammatically is the object 
 of Aéyw, expresses not so much what is, as what ought to be. 
 Bernhardy, p. 371; Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 371; Winer, § 45, 2 ; 
 Donaldson, § 584. They once walked as Gentiles, but they 
 were to walk so no longer. The verb vepirarety, in its refer- 
 ence to habits of life, has been explained under ii. 2. The 
 kat after caOeés means “also.” Hartung, i. p. 126. In some 
 such cases kai occurs twice, as in Rom. i. 13, on which see 
 
336 EPHESIANS IV. 17. 
 
 the remarks of Fritzsche in his Comment. A, B, D', F, G, 
 the Coptic, the Vulgate, and most of the Latin fathers omit 
 Aourd. But the great majority of MSS. retain it, such as D?, 
 D3, EK, K, L, and the Greek fathers, with the old Syriac version. 
 We therefore prefer, with Tischendorf, to keep it, and we can 
 easily imagine a finical reason for its being left out by early 
 copyists, as the Ephesian Christians seem by oz to be reck- 
 oned among Gentiles yet. But being Gentiles by extraction, 
 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 patawTntt ToD voos av’tav—“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, Seelent. 
 p. 49 &c.; Delitasch, 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, iil. 9; “hid their heart from understanding,” 
 Job, xvii. 4; “the desires of the mind,” Eph. ii. 3, &e. 
 That mind was characterized by “vanity.” Its ideas and 
 impulses were perverse and fruitless. We do not, with some 
 exegets, restrict this vanity to the Hebrew sense of idolatry— 
 ba—or as Theodoret thus defines it—ra pr) dvta OcotrovobvTa. 
 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 his 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 
 
EPHESIANS, IV. 18. 337 
 
 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.” 
 (Ver. 18.) “Eoxoticpévos 7h Savoia, dvtes amrndXoTpi@pévor 
 THS Cons tov 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 
 ovtes 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 edu/ 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 
 is the force of the sentence broken, as Alford contends. For 
 the first participle, éoxoticpévos, assigns a reason for the pre- 
 vious clause—“‘darkened, inasmuch as they are darkened;” 
 and the second, anXotpimpévor, parallel to the first, adjoins 
 another reason and yet more emphatically —évres—being alien- 
 ated and remaining so. Winer, § 45, 5. The gender is changed 
 to the masculine, agreeing in meaning but not in form with 
 Ta Nowra EOvn, and the entire sense is often said to be a 
 species of parallelism, which might be thus arranged— 
 
 
 
 Having been darkened in their understanding, 
 
 By the ignorance that is in them, 
 
 Forasmuch as they have been alienated from the life of God, 
 By the hardness of their heart. 
 
 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 igno- 
 
 rance that is in them” must be regarded as the cause or 
 Z 
 
338 EPHESIANS IV. 18. 
 
 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 a@yvora 
 is rather theoretic ignorance, while the first clause has closer 
 reference 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, andi. 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 dis- 
 tinguished from vods before it and xapd/a 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 amrnAXoTpr@pévor has been explained 
 in our remarks on ii. 12, and there it occurs also in a descrip- 
 tion of Gentile condition. Zw tod Ocod is not a life according 
 to God— cata Gedv fw7, 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—fios—but to the element or prin- 
 ciple of divine life within us. Vémel, 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 @eod 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. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 18. 339 
 
 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 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— 
 
 dua THY ayvovav THY OvcaV ev avTOts, Sia THY TOPwaoLY THS 
 Kapdias avtov— 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—first, 
 ignorance of God, His character, and dispensations; this 
 ignorance being “in them ”’—7t7v ovaay (dvtes 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 dvd assigns a co-ordinate and expla- 
 natory second reason for their alienation from the life of 
 God—the hardness of their hearts. Ilépeo1s—obtuseness or 
 callousness, not blindness, as if from awpds (Fritzsche ad 
 Rom. xi. 7), is a very significant term—their r@pwars having, 
 as Theodoret says, no feeling—ova 70 wavTedas vevexpoabat. 
 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 immer 
 
340 EPHESIANS IV. 19. 
 
 condition, while that in the preceding chapter characterizes 
 principally the want of external privilege with its sad results. 
 
 (Ver. 19.) Olttwes aandynKotes, Eavtovs Trapédmxay TH 
 acenyeia— Who as being past feeling have given themselves 
 over to uncleanness.” For dmydynxores, the Codices D, EH, 
 read amnamuxores, and F, G, adydmuxéres; the Vulgate with 
 its desperantes, and the Syriac with its Go1.ach aa_coe%, 
 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—A? sunt, qui postquam pecca- 
 verint, non dolent. ‘The heathen sinners are described as being 
 a class—oltwes—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 lasciviousuess ; éavtous being placed, as Meyer says, 
 mit abschreckendem Nachdruck—with terrific emphasis. Sub- 
 jection to this species of vice is represented as a divine pun- 
 ishment 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, xvii. 13, 1; Plutarch, Alezbiades, 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, xi. 13; 2 Cor. xu. 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. 
 
 els €pyaciay axalapoias maons— to the working of all 
 uncleanness.”” Eis denotes purpose, “in order to ”’—zraons: 
 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, Exodus xxvi. 1; 1 Chron. vi. 49. 
 "Axa0apoia 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 lascivi- 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 19. 34] 
 
 ousness, 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 pur- 
 suits. The naked statues of the goddesses were not exempted 
 from rape (Lucian, 2mores, 15, p. 272, vol. v. ed. Bipont.), and 
 many pictures of their divinities were but the excitements of 
 sensual gratifications. The most honoured symbols in their 
 processions 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 revelations in Tholuck’s 
 Tract on Heathenism, published in Neander’s Denkwiirdig- 
 keiten, and translated in the 2nd vol. of the American Bib. 
 Repository. Who can forget the sixth satire of Juvenal ? 
 "Ev weoveE(a— 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, 
 Bengel, Koppe, Chandler, Stolz, Flatt, Meier, and Baehr. 
 2. The Greek commentators educe the sense of awetp/a—insa- 
 tiableness; and also Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Hstius, Réell, 
 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. vy. 10; Hph. v. 3—as in 
 the first instance it is disjoined by # from zrépvos, but joined. 
 by «aé to the following dpmaéw according to preponderant 
 authority. In this epistle, vy. 2, mopveia and daxafapoia 
 are joined by «ai, but dissociated from wAcove&ia by 7—and 
 
342 EPHESIANS IV. 20. 
 
 in v. 5, wAeovéxtns is termed an idolater. See under Col. 
 ii. 5. See Ellicott. 3. Olshausen takes it as meaning 
 “ physical avidity, pampering one’s self 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 wAeoveE/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 
 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’s 
 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 in its irrepressible thirst of 
 gold. There might be reckless and profligate expenditure on 
 wantonness and debauchery, but it was combined with insa- 
 tiable cupidity. Its sensuality was equalled by its sordid greed 
 —-m)éov, more; that point gained, wAéov—more still. Self 
 in everything, God in nothing. 
 
 (Ver. 20.) “Twets € oy ob rws ewabere Tov Xprotdv—* But 
 ye did not thus learn Christ.’ Aé is adversative, and bets 
 is placed emphatically. Xprords is not simply the doctrine 
 or religion of Christ, as is the view of Crellius and Schlich- 
 ting, nor is it merely dper7j—virtue, as Origen conceives it 
 (Catena, ed. Cramer, Oxford, 1842), but Christ Himself. Col. 
 u. 6. See also Phil. iii. 10. Harless even, Riickert, Meier, 
 and Matthies, take the verb pavOdve 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—otrws. 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 21. 343 
 
 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—apels dé ovy ovTws [€ore|—“ but ye are not so; ’— 
 ye have learned Chyjst. Yet such an exegesis has the great 
 names of Beza and Gataker in its support. Adversarta Sacra, 
 p- 158. 
 
 (Ver. 21.) Hive avtov nxovcate—“ If indeed Him ye have 
 heard ;” not in living person, but embodied and presented in 
 the apostolical preaching. 1 Cor. 1.23. The particle eiye does 
 not directly assert, but rather takes for granted that what is 
 assumed is true. See under ili. 2. 
 
 Kal év avT@ ebvdayOntre—* and in Him were taught.” ’Ev 
 avT® signifies, as in other previous portions of the epistle— 
 “in Him,” that is, “in union with Him;” i. 7, &c. It does 
 not mean “by Him,” as is the rendering of the English ver- 
 sion, and of Castalio, who translates—ab eo, and of Beza, one 
 of whose versions is—per 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 
 
344 EPHESIANS IV. 21. 
 
 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 Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, preceded by Anselm, Vatablus, and Bullinger, 
 however, connect d7ro0éc@a in the following verse with adjOeva 
 —it is “the truth in Jesus, that ye put off the 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 ad7@eva has the same 
 signification as the term vdyuos employed by the historian. 
 Meyer lays stress on the tuds, but it is added to mark the 
 antithesis between their present and former state. It is cer- 
 tainly 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 paptvpouas in ver. 17, for in 
 that case there would be a long and awkward species of paren- 
 thesis. “ Taught”— 
 
 Kabos éotw adjOaa év TS Inood—“ 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 @A7Geva 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 erit et in nobis qui didicistis Christum ; nor is the 
 paraphrase of Estius greatly dissimilar. The notions of the 
 Greek fathers are narrower still. Qicumenius makes it the 
 same as Suxatoctyvn. It means 7d dp0as Biodv, says Chry- 
 sostom ; and the same view, with some unessential variety, is 
 expressed by Luther, Camerarius, Raphelius, Wolf, Storr, 
 Flatt, Riickert, Meier, and Holzhausen. But the noun 
 adnPea does not usually bear such a meaning in the New 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 21. 345 
 
 Testament, nor does the context necessarily restrict it here. 
 It is directly in contrast not only with amdtns in the next 
 verse, but with év watastntTi—éoKotTiopévolt—ayvota in vers. 
 17,18. Nor can the word bear the meaning assigned to it by 
 those who make dmo@éo@at 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 ad7Oeva in its common meaning of spiritual truth, 
 that truth which the mediatorial scheme embodies—truth in 
 all its own fulness and circuit; that truth especially which 
 lodged in the man Jesus—aA7jGeva and é€v t@ Inood being one 
 conception. The words év 7@ “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 illumina- 
 tion of their minds as well as in the renewal of their hearts 
 and the direction of their lives.) Why, then, should this 
 same dd7jOeva 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, ca@as éotw ardnOea év TH Inood, points out 
 the mode of tuition which they had enjoyed. The meaning 
 of xa8@s may be seen under i. 4, and here it is a predicate of 
 manner attached to the preceding verb. It stands in contrast 
 to ovy ores in ver. 20—“ ye have not so learned’”’—ye have 
 not learned Him in such a way—ovy otrws—as to feel a license 
 
346 EPHESIANS IV. 22. 
 
 to walk like the other Gentiles, but ye heard Him, and in Him 
 were taught in this way—«a0os—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, 
 Piscator, Wolf, and others, who give xa@as the sense of “that”’ 
 —quod ; ye have been taught that there is truth in Jesus, or 
 what the truth im 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@és 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.) ’AzrofécOat tuas— 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, § 172, 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 buds 
 as governed by azofécGai—“ that you put off yourselves!” 
 and it is a dilution of the meaning to supply dey, with 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 22. 347 
 
 Piscator. ’Arro0écOar and évdicacGai are figurative terms 
 placed in vivid contrast. ’A7roéc@au is to put off, as one puts 
 off clothes. Rom. xiii. 12-14; Col. ii. 8; James, i. 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 
 race-course, or the initiation of proselytes. Selden, de Jure 
 Gentium, &c. lib. u. 5; Vitringa, Observat. Sac. 139. “That 
 you put off ’— 
 
 KaTa& THY TpoTépay avactpodiy Tov Taraiov avOpwtrov— 
 “as regards your former conversation, the old man.” It is 
 contrary to the ordinary laws of language to translate these 
 words as if the apostle had written—tov wadawov dvOpwrrov 
 TOV KaTa TpoTépayv avactpodyv. Yet this has been done by 
 Jerome and Cicumenius, Grotius and Estius, Koppe, Rosen- 
 miiller, and Bloomfield. "Avactpép@ occurs under ii. 3. Gal. 
 1.13; 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”—rov tradaiov avOpwrov. 
 Rom. vi. 6; Col. iii. 9. The meaning of a somewhat similar 
 idiom—o €ow dv@pwros—may be seen under iii. 16. Rom. 
 vu. 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,” &c. 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,” 
 
348 EPHESIANS IV. 22. 
 
 not simply old in sin, as Jerome and Photius imagine—éy 
 Tats dpaptiats TadawOeis—-but as existing prior to our con- 
 verted state, and as Athanasius says—rov dad Tis mTécews 
 Tov “Addm yeyevynuévov—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—r75 dpaptias évépyea. With all 
 his instincts and principles, he is to be cast off, for he is de- 
 scribed as— 
 
 Tov P0eipopevov Kata Tas émivpias THs atratns— being 
 corrupt according to the lusts of deceit.” Kara tas ém- 
 Oupias stands in contrast with cata Oedv in ver. 24, and Tis 
 aratns with tis adnOelas of the same verse. The old man is 
 growing corrupt, and this being his constant condition and 
 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 
 in 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 verses 17 and 18. But the apostle adds more 
 specifically— according to the lusts of deceit.” The prepo- 
 sition xara 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, a. ’Esv6upia 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 éiuyia 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; 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 23. 349 
 
 Tit. ii. 8. The genitive—rijs amarns—may be, as Meyer 
 takes it, the genitive of subject, awarn 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 seduc- 
 tive 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- 
 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 swmmum bonum. “TI will pull 
 down my barns, and build greater,” said another in the idea 
 that he had “ much good laid up for many years;”’ and yet, in 
 the very night of his fond imaginings, “his soul was required of 
 him.”’ Belshazzar drank wine with his grandees, and perished 
 in his revelry. The prodigal son, who for pleasure and inde- 
 pendence 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.) ’Avaveoto@ar d€ T® TvEvpaTL TOD voos tuav— 
 “ And be renewing in the spirit of your mind.” This passive 
 (not middle) infinitive present still depends on éd.dayOnre—dé 
 being adversative, as the apostle passes from the negative to 
 
350 EPHESIANS IV. 23. 
 
 the positive aspect. As Olshausen has observed, all attempts 
 to distinguish between dvaveodcbar and dvaxaivodcGat are 
 needless for the interpretation of this verse. See Trench, Syn. 
 xvil.; Col. ui. 10; Tittmann, p. 60. The ’ava, in composi- 
 tion, denotes again” or “ back’”’—restoration to some previous 
 state—renovation. See on following verse. Such moral reno- 
 vation had its special seat ‘‘in the spirit of their mind.” This 
 very peculiar phrase has been in various ways misunderstood. 
 Cicumenius, Theophylact, Hyperius, Bull, and Ellicott under- 
 stand wvedua of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit renewing the mind 
 by dwelling within it—éua tod mvevpatos Tod év TO Vol Huav 
 Katouovyvtos. See Fritzsche ad Rom. vol. ii., p. 2. But, 1. 
 The wvedua 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 
 mvevpua is not “ the Holy Spirit exclusively, or per se, but as in 
 a gracious union with the human spirit.” This idea is in cer- 
 tain aspects theologically correct, but is not conveyed by these 
 words—rvedua in such a case cannot mean God’s Spirit, for 
 it is called tod vods tuadyv; 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 zvedua 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 Gfrérer, that 
 mvevua is but the rabbinical figment of a mx», founded on a 
 misinterpretation of Gen. ii. 7, and denoting a kind of divine 
 “breathing” or gift conferred on man about his twentieth 
 year. Urchrist. 11. p. 257. 5. Augustine, failing in his usual 
 acuteness, identifies wvedua and vods—quia omnis mens spiritus 
 est, non autem omnis spiritus mens est, spiritum mentis dicere 
 voluit eum 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. 
 G6. Lvedya is not loosely, as Riickert and Baumgarten-Crusius 
 take it, the better part of the mind, or vods ; nor can we by 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 23. 351 
 
 any means agree with Olshausen, who puts forth the following 
 opinion with a peculiar consciousness of its originality and 
 appropriateness—“ that mvedua is the substance and vods the 
 power of the substance.” Such a notion is not supported by 
 the biblical psychology. 7. I[vedua is the highest part of that 
 inner nature, which, in its aspect of thought and emotion, is 
 termed vods. So the apostle speaks of “soul” and “ spirit” 
 —vrvy7 often standing to cdma, as rvedpua 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—77v opynv Tod vods mvev- 
 patixny elpnxe. 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 rvedpa das 
 menschliche ist—that mvedua being—das Hohere Lebensprincip. 
 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 receiving 
 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 puifsuit. 
 Tht 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 
 
352 EPHESIANS IV. 24. 
 
 power which, when changed itself, radically alters the entire 
 sphere and business of the inner mechanism. 
 
 (Ver. 24.) Kal évévcacOar tov Kawwov avOpwrov— And 
 put on the new man.” Col. ii. 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 Kavos, not véos—recent. The apostle in Col. iii. 10, says 
 Tov véov Tov avaxawovpevov ; here he jos dvaveoto@ar with 
 Tov Kawov av@pwrov. In the other epistle the verbal term 
 from xawds is preceded by véos; in the place before us the verbal 
 term from véos is followed by xasvds. Neéos generally is recent 
 —oivoyv véov, wine recently made, opposed to madasov made 
 long ago—dcxovs xawovs—fresh skins—opposed to 7radauods, 
 which had long been in use. Matt. ix. 17. So cawn dvaOjnn 
 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, urvnpetoy xawdv—not a tomb of 
 recent excavation, but one unused, and thus explained é&v @ 
 ovdérr@ ovdels €TéOn. 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 famey 
 of Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Hilary, De Trinitate lib. xii. 
 The origin of the “ new man” is next shown— 
 
 Tov Kata Qeov xticbévta—“ who was created after God.” 
 Winer, § 49 and a. 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, 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 24, 353 
 
 for he is created—xara ®éov, “according to God,” or in the 
 likeness of God; or, as the apostle writes in Col. iii. 10, 
 Kat eixova Tod xticavtos avtov. Hofmann’s exegesis is 
 feeble and incorrect—von dem gittlicher 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 Siinde, vol. ii. p. 482, 3rd ed. The apostle characterizes 
 the new man as being created— 
 
 é€v Sixavoctvyn Kal oowryte THs adHnOevas—“in the right- 
 eousness and holiness of the truth’’—the elements in which 
 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 eds, 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. 
 Acxatocvvy 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. ‘Oovdrys, on 
 the other hand, is piety or holiness—Ta mpos tods dvOpedrrous 
 Sikata kal Ta mpds Tods Oeods Sova. 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; Titus, i. 8. The new 
 
 man has affinities not only with created beings, but he has a 
 2A 
 
354 EPHESIANS IV. 24. 
 
 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— 
 
 THs adnOevcas— of the truth.”’ John 1.17; Rom. 1. 25, 
 ui. 7. This subjective genitive is not to be resolved into an 
 adjective, after the example of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bodius, 
 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—xai adOeva. These 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 
 in harmony with truth (De Economia Foederum, p. 15), is as 
 truly against all philology as that of Cocceius, that it denotes 
 the studious pursuit of truth. “H ada in connection with 
 the new man, stands opposed to 4 dadrn in connection with 
 the old man, and is truth in Jesus. While this spiritual crea- 
 tion 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 char- 
 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 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 25. 355 
 
 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. 432, Edinburgh, 1852. See 
 under ii. 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.) Avo azroféwevor 76 Yreddos— “* Wherefore, having 
 put away lying.” By dv0——“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—ad7Geva; the vice and habit of falsehood—feddos 
 —are to be dropt. Col. ii. 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— 
 
 NanrelTe GdHOevav, ExacTos weTAa TOD TANTioy avToU—“ speak 
 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 zpos of the Septuagint which represents the particle in 
 wytms. 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 ex~ 
 aggeration. No promise is to be falsified—no mutual under- 
 standing 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 
 tan 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 
 
356 EPHESIANS IV. 26. 
 
 which it merited. And the apostle adds as a cogent 
 reason— 
 
 dtt éopuev AXAjr@V pwéd\n—“ 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 ?” &e. 
 
 (Ver. 26.) "OpyifecOe Kai mi) auaptdvere—“ Be ye angry 
 and sin not.” This language is the same as the Septuagint 
 translation of Psalm iv. 4. The verb x 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, Zttert. 
 The Hebrew verb is of the same stock with the Greek dpy1 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS IY. 26. - 357 
 
 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 ju. 
 It is objected to this view by Olshausen and others, that anger 
 is forbidden in the 31st verse. But the anger there repro- 
 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. If a 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 HdLos pun érriOvéTO err) TO Trapopyiope tuav—* let not 
 the sun go down upon your indignation.” Similar phraseology 
 occurs in Deut. xxiv. 15; in Philo, and in Plutarch. See 
 Wetstein, in loc. Ilapopyiopos, a term peculiar to biblical 
 Greek, is a fit of indignation or exasperation ; 7apa—referring 
 
358 EPHESIANS IV. 27. 
 
 to the cause or occasion ; while the opy%, to be put away from 
 Christians, is the habitual indulgence of anger. 1 Kings xv. 
 30; 2 Kings xxiii. 26; Neh. ix. 18. Tlapopysopos is not 
 
 in this clause absolutely forbidden, as Trench wrongly sup- — 
 
 poses (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 cir- 
 cumstances 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 dis- 
 cipleship—“ 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—pérpov axe 76 Ovo 
 THS Huépas TO wétpov. The Pythagorean disciple was to be 
 placated, and to shake hands with his foe—rrpiv 7 Tov yin 
 ddvat. Plutarch, de Am. Frat. 488, b.} 
 
 (Ver. 27.) M8 didote TOTOv TO StaBorw— Also give no 
 place to the devil.” Myédé, 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 injunc- 
 tion, more closely than what Klotz calls fortuwitus concursus. 
 Ad Devar. ii. p. 6. Hartung, i. 210; Buttmann, § 149; 
 Winer, § 55, 6; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157. ‘O ésaBonros 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 ver- 
 sion, Luther, Er. Schmid, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, 
 
 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 in 
 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; not under- 
 standing 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 lasts 
 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. 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 28. 359 
 
 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 ascendancy over individuals. To “ give place to,” is to 
 yield room for, dare locum. Luke xiv. 9; Rom. xii. 19; Cicero, 
 de Natura Deorum,*ii. 383. 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 KrXértwv unkére KreTTéToO—“‘ 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 
 Jurabatur, by Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Cramer, and others. 
 Even some MSS. have o xrAéfas. ‘O xrértoy is the thief, 
 one given to the vice of thieving, or, as Peile renders it, “the 
 thievish person.” Winer, § 45,7; Bernhardy, p. 371; Gal. 
 i. 23. It is something, as Stier says, between xréyas and 
 Kher7ns. Some, again, shocked at the idea that any con- 
 nected 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 prac- 
 tised by a section of the idle population of Ephesus. Accord- 
 ing 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—o Aodopovpevos ws KrAérTNS ov TdvU 
 ayavaxtet. See 1 Cor. v. 1, and 2 Cor. xii. 21, for another 
 class of sinners in the early church. The apostle’s imme- 
 
360 EPHESIANS IV. 28. 
 
 diate remedy for the vice is honourable industry, with a view 
 to generosity— 
 
 Maro Sé KoTLATH Epyalopevos Tails idiats yepolv To ayalov 
 —)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. tals yepoiv is omitted, 
 and in others To aya@ov. Clement reads simply To dayaGor, 
 and Tertullian only tats yepoiv. Some insert idéas before 
 xepoiv, and others affix avrobd after it. Several important 
 MSS., such as A, D', E, F, G; the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, 
 and Ethiopic Armenian; Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, Epi- 
 phanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius—read tats idiass 
 yepalw To ayaov. Lachmann adopts this reading; K inverts 
 this order, 76 ayaGov Tats idiaus yepoiv; but Tischendorf, Hahn, 
 and Alford read 76 aya@ov tais yepoiv, with L and the great 
 majority of MSS., Chrysostom, Theophylact, G&cumenius, 
 and the Received Version. B has tats yepoly 76 ayadov. 
 We agree with Stier in saying that Harless and Olshausen 
 overlook the proof, when at once they prefer the shortest 
 reading, and treat to dya0ov as an interpolation taken from 
 Gal. vi. 10. Madnrov d€—but “rather or in preference ” let 
 him work, and with his own hands, rais (Sais yepoiv. 18éos, 
 like proprius in Latin instead of suus or ejus, is here used 
 with distinct force. Matt. xxv.15; John x.3; Rom. viii. 32; 
 Winer, § 22, 7. Manual employment was the most common 
 in these times. Acts xx. 34; 1 Thess. iv. 11. To dyadov 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 €xn petad.dovar 7 xpelav éxovt.—“ that he may have 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 29. 361 
 
 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.) Ilds Aoyos campos ek TOU oTOmaTos buoY mh 
 éexmopeveoOa— Let no filthy word come out of your mouth.” 
 This strong negation contained in the use of was with ju}, is a 
 species of Hebraism. Winer, § 26, 1; Hwald, Heb. Gram. 
 § 576. The general meaning of cazpds is foul, rotten, use- 
 less, though sometimes, from the idea of decay—old, obsolete, 
 ugly, or worthless. Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, p. 377. In Matt. 
 vii. 17, 18, xii. 33; and in Luke vi. 48, 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 ayaOos. 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 for- 
 bidden. It signifies what is noxious, offensive, or useless, 
 and refers to language which, so far from yielding “ grace” 
 or benefit, has a tendency to corrupt the hearer. 1 Cor. xv. 33 ; 
 Col. iv. 6. Chrysostom, deriving his idea from the contrast 
 of the following clause, defines the term thus—0 jx) Tv (diay 
 xpelav mAnpot; 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 
 condemned? All falsehood and equivocation; 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”— 
 
 GXN el tus ayabds pos otKodopny TAS ypelas— but that 
 which is good for edification of the need.” Instead of xpecas, 
 
362 EPHESIANS IV. 29. 
 
 some MSS. as D?, E’, F, G, and some of the Latin fathers, 
 read iotews, which is evidently an emendation, as Jerome 
 has hinted. "AryaOos, followed by mpés, signifies “ good,” in 
 the sense of “ suitable,” or rather serviceable for, examples of 
 which may be found in Kypke, Odservaé. 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.” Xpedas, as the genitive of object, is almost personi- 
 fied. To make it the genitive of “point of view,” with 
 Ellicott, is a needless refinement. The paraphrase of Eras- 
 mus, gud sit opus—and that of Casaubon, quoties opus est, are 
 defective, inasmuch as they suppose the need to be only inci- 
 dental 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. Justa, 
 says Jerome, juxta opportunitatem loci, temporis, et persone 
 edificare audientes. Conversation should always exercise a 
 salutary influence, regulated by the special need. Words so 
 spoken may fall like winged seeds upon a neglected soil, and 
 there may be future germination and fruit. ‘Trench on Author- 
 ized Version, p. 120. 
 
 iva 6@ yap Tois akovodow—that it may give grace to 
 the hearers.” Xdpis is taken by some to signify what is 
 agreeable or acceptable. Theodoret thus explains it—iva 
 avy Sextds toils axovovor— 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 ydpis may bear such a meaning 
 is well known, but does it bear such a sense in such a phrase 
 as yapw didovac? In Plut. Agis. c. 18—dedwxota yapw ; 
 Euripides, Medea, v. 702——riyvde cor Sodvar yapw ; Sophocles, 
 Ajax, 1354—péwrno’ orroiw dott tiv ydpw Sidws ; and in 
 
 —— a 
 
EPHESIANS LY. 30. 363 
 
 other quotations adduced by Harless, ydpw Sovvat is “ to 
 confer a favour—to bestow a gift.” Ast, Lew Platon. sub voce. 
 So we have the phrase in James iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5; and it is 
 found also in the Septuagint, Exod. i. 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. xxv. 11. 
 
 Ver. 30. Kai pu) Aveite TO Hvedpa To dytov tod Ocod— 
 “ And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.” The term IIvedya, 
 and the epithet &ysov, 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 unrufiled 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. 
 Ilapogivew is used in a similar passage in Isa. lxiii. 10 
 by the Seventy, but it is not a perfect representation of the 
 original Hebrew—azy. 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 farther 
 declaring with Rieger, that the term Spirit may be referred 
 to—des Menschen neugeschaffenem 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 a Christian point of view. 
 
364. EPHESIANS IV. 30. 
 
 It is the Holy Spirit of God within us (not in others, ag 
 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, and to the cultivation of holiness—and 
 since for this purpose He has infleshed Himself and dwells 
 in us as a tender, watchful, and earnest guardian, is He not 
 grieved with the cotituinady and rebellion so often manifested 
 against Him? Nay more— 
 
 ev © éagpayicOnte eis épav aroduTpdcews— 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, 
 2a. For the meaning of the verb éogpaylaOnre, 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 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 30. 365 
 
 be specially intended in the preceding verse. Ini. 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 a@rodvtpeéais 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 Schlichtingius 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 as Aretius, join him. The Fathers held a similar 
 view. Theophylact warns—p2 Avons tiv oppayida. See 
 also the Shepherd of Hermas, ii. 10, where the phrase occurs 
 —prtrote evtevEntat TO Oe@ Kal arrootTy ard cod. Ambrosi- 
 aster says— Quia deserit nos, co 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 hold the opposite doctrine, or what he calls—predestina- 
 tianisches Missverstindniss. 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. lxiii. 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 
 
 — 
 a 
 
366 EPHESIANS IV. 31. 
 
 were correct—7rapofivere would have been the more natural 
 expression. The apostle appeals not to their fears, lest the 
 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 oppayis. 
 
 Ver. 31. Ilaca rixpia, cal Oupds, Kal opyi), Kal Kpavyn, Kat 
 Pracdnula, apOnto ap tyuav, ov macy Kaxia— Let all 
 bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speak- 
 ing 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. 
 
 Tluxpfa— 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; James iii. 14. Wetstein, under Rom. iu. 14, 
 has adduced several examples of the similar use of muxpia 
 from the classical writers. Aristotle justly says—ou d€ mixpot 
 SucSidAvToL, Kai ToAdY Ypovoy dpyitovTaL, KaTéEYoVEL Yap TOV 
 Ovpov. Loesner has also brought some apposite instances 
 from Philo, Observat. ad N. T. p. 345. vos is that.mental 
 excitement to which such bitterness gives rise—the commo- 
 tion or tempest that heaves and infuriates within. Donaldson, 
 New Cratylus, § 476. ’Opyy (Deut. ix. 19) is resentment, 
 settled and dark hostility, and is, therefore, condemned. See 
 under iv. 26. ‘O @Oupos yevyntixds éote THs opyns—is the 
 remark of Gicumenius. See Trench, Synon. § 37; 'Tittmann, 
 
 ‘ 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 31. 367 
 
 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 impe- 
 tuous invective that mark a man in a towering rage. Ira 
 furor 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.” Bracdnuia—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 xpavyy, 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. iii. 
 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 badheartedness, 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 
 any apology or indulgence. The adjective waca belongs to 
 the five sins first mentioned, and acy to the last. Indeed, the 
 Coptic version formally prefixes to all the nouns the adjective 
 miGen—* all.” They are to be put away in every kind 
 and degree—in germ as well as maturity—without reserve 
 and without compromise.! 
 
 1 Wetstein.on Rom. iii, 14. We cannot but quote, from Jeremy Taylor, the 
 following paragraph, unequalled in its imagery and magnificence :—‘‘ Anger sets 
 
368 EPHESIANS IV. 32. 
 
 (Ver. 32.) DivecOe 5€ els addjrous ypnotoi— But become 
 ye kind to one another.” The dé has been excluded by Lach- 
 mann, on the authority of B, but rightly retained by Tischen- 
 dorf. Aé—“ But’”—passing to the contrast in his exhortation, 
 he says—“ become ye kind to one another ”—ypnoroi—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 
 and censoriousness are opposed to this plain injunction. That 
 there should be any allusion in ypnords to the sacred name 
 Xpiotds, is wholly incredible. 
 
 Kiorrayyvor—(1 Pet iii. 8; Col. iii. 12)—“ tender-hearted”’ 
 —the word being based upon the common and similar use 
 of mm in the Old Testament. The epithet is found, as in 
 
 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, and a 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 I 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 libra- 
 tion 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 removed, 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 holy dove, and dwells with God, till it returns, like the useful bee, loaden 
 with a blessing and the dew of heaven.”—Works, The Return of Prayers, vol. v. 
 pp- 69, 70. Lond. 1822. 
 
EPHESIANS IV. 32. 369 
 
 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 intereourse— 
 
 Xapilouevor éavtois— forgiving one another.” ‘Eavrois 
 is used for dAAjAos. This use of the reflexive for the recip- 
 rocal pronoun has sometimes an emphatic significance—for- 
 giving one another, you forgive yourselves—and occurs in 
 Mark x. 26; John xii. 19; Col. iii. 13,16; and also among 
 classical writers. Kiihner, § 302, 7 ; Jelf, § 54,2; 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. ii. 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— 
 
 KaQas Kali 0 Beds év Xpicto éyapicato tuiv— as also God 
 in Christ forgave you.”” Some MSS. as B?, D, E, K, L, the 
 Syriac, and Theodoret read jiv; others, as A, F, G, I, and 
 Chrysostom in his text, read duiv. The latter appears the 
 better reading, while the other may have been suggested by 
 v.2. Kaéeas xai—“as also” —an example with an implied 
 comparison. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 635. But the presentation 
 of the example contains an argument. It is an example which 
 Christians are bound to imitate. 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- 
 2B 
 
370 EPHESIANS IV. 32. 
 
 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 Xpuor@ is “in Christ” 
 as the element or sphere, and signifies not “ on account of, or 
 by means of Christ,” but 6 eds év Xpuor@ 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 
 under i. 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 
 onve enjoins imitation, and furnishes the pattern. God is 
 presented, as Theophylact says—eis brddevywa. 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- 
 rous as ten thousand talents ; while the offences of our fellows 
 toward ourselves are trivial as pence, nay, as trivial and as few 
 as a hundred pence. If the master forgive such an immense 
 amount to the servant so far beneath him, will not the forgiven 
 servant be prompted, by the generous example, to absolve 
 his own fellow-servant and equal from his smaller debt? 
 Matt. xviii. 23-35. 
 
CEAP.. 
 
 * 
 
 (Ver. 1.) Divec@e oby ppntai rob Ocod—“ Do ye then 
 become followers of God.” The collective ody connects this 
 verse with the preceding exhortation, and its yiveoOe 5é— 
 indeed punts is usually accompanied with yivowa. 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 wepirratetre, which is so commonly employed, need not 
 be taken as resumptive of mepuratjoa in iv. 1. The words 
 piunrat Tod Beod 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, xi. 1; 1 Thess. 
 1.6, 1.14; Heb. vi.12. Ye should forgive, as God forgives, 
 and thus be imitators of Him, or, as Theodoret says—frAdéoare 
 Tip ouyyéverav. And they are enjoined to study and perfect 
 this moral resemblance by the blessed thought that, in doing 
 SO, = feel and act— 
 
 @s Téxva ayatrnta— as children beloved; 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— 
 
iz EPHESIANS V. 2. 
 
 Oe 
 
 “ 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.) Kat wrepuraretre év ayamn—“ 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 introduceed— 
 
 Kaas Kal o Xpirtos HyadTyncev Huas— as also, or even as, 
 Christ loved us.” Tischendorf, after A and B, reads duas, 
 and on the authority of B reads also duév 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 ili. 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 vailed the splendours of divinity ; 
 more to Him than heaven, for He left it; more to Him than 
 the conscious enjoyment of His Father’s countenance, for on 
 the cross He suffered the horrors of a spiritual eclipse, and 
 cried, ‘“ Why hast thou forsaken me ;’’ more to Hin, 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— 
 
 Kal Tapédoxev éavtov brrép Huov— and gave Himself for 
 us’—in proof and manifestation of His love—xaié being 
 exegetical. The verb implies full surrender, and the prepo- 
 sition d7rép 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. 13; Rom. v. 8; 
 Gal. ii. 20. The general idea is, that Christ’s love led to His 
 
 1 Td pty Sinny drciteiv roy Adixnxoree, cvOedmivay, TO OE My comdvertocs, PiAbcOGoy, TO DE Hal 
 eveoyerinus cpeiceaOcs Avimoy Ydn Ociov wad pspenraes Tov ty oeavois Llareds ros ynyevess dro- 
 guivoy.—Ep. 193. See also the epistle to Diognetus, cap. 10; Justin. Martyr, Opera, 
 vol. ii. p. 496; Ed. Otto, Jenez, 1843. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 2. | 373 
 
 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 
 t7rép shows that this is the meaning. The manner of His 
 self-sacrifice is defined in the next words— 
 
 mpochopav kat Oueiav—“ an offering and a sacrifice” —obla- 
 tionem et hostiam. Vulgate. ‘The words are in the accusative, 
 and in apposition with éavrdv, forming its predicate nouns. 
 Madvig, § 24. A similar combination of terms occurs in Heb. 
 x. 5, 8, while déépa, a noun of kindred meaning, is used with 
 @vcia in Heb. v. 1, vill. 3, 1x. 9. Adpov usually represents 
 in Leviticus and Numbers the Hebrew yn;7, and is not in sense 
 different from wpoogopd. Deyling, Observ. 1. 352. The first 
 substantive, rpoodopa, represents only the Hebrew anys, 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. Q@voia, as its 
 derivation imports, is the slaying of a victim—the shedding 
 of its blood, and the burning of its carcass, and frequently 
 represents nu in the Septuagint; Exod. xxxiv. 15: Lev. 11. 
 and iii. passim, vii. 29; Deut. xii. 6, 27; 1 Sam. i. 14. 
 Matt. ix. 13; Mark xu. 33; Luke ii. 24, xii. 1; Acts vii. 
 Ate 4A2..1; Cor, x18; Heb: vil: 27, ix. 23,:26,.x. 12. It 
 sometimes in the Septuagint represents nxen sin-offering, and 
 often in representing m7 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 rpoodgopa covers the whole transaction, 
 
374 EPHESIANS V. 2. 
 
 while that contained in @vo/a is a distinct and characteristic 
 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 unparal- 
 leled suffering as Christ endured as our sacrifice, proves the 
 depth and fervour of His affection, and brightens that example 
 of love which the apostle sets before the Ephesian church. 
 
 TO Oc@ cis dopiv evwdias—“to God for the savour of a 
 sweet smell ’’—the genitive being that of characterizing qua- 
 lity. Winer, § 34,2; Scheuerlein, § 16,3. Some, such as 
 Meyer and Holzhausen, join 7@ Ge@ to the verb wapédmxer, 
 but the majority connect them with the following phrase :— 
 1. They may stand in close connection with the nouns 7poo- 
 gopav Kat Ovoiav, with which they may be joined as an ethical 
 dative. Harless says indeed, that eis @dvarov is the proper 
 supplement after wapédwxe, but @voia here implies it. Eis 
 @dvarov may be implied in such places as Rom. iv. 25, vii. 32, 
 but here we have the same preposition in the phrase eis oopjv. 
 The preposition e¢s 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, xupi@ follows evwdias, so that the 
 connection cannot be mistaken. 2. Or the words t@ Ge@ may 
 occupy their present position because of their close connection 
 with dou, and we may read—“ He gave Himself an offering 
 and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.” It is 
 not easy to say which is preferable, 7@ @ed 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—ninrm. Gen. vill. 21; Lev. i. 9, 13, 
 17, ii. 9, 12, iii. 5. 1t is used tropically in 2 Cor. 11. 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 
 Jesus exhibited in His sufferings and death. ‘This idea of 
 
 I 
 
EPHESIANS V. 2.° 375 
 
 Olshausen is to some extent similar to that of several recent 
 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 one-sided 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 aet 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 
 
376 EPHESIANS VY. 2. 
 
 doctrine of our Lord’s propitiation, and in direct antagonism 
 to the theology taught us in the inspired oracles. “ It pleased 
 the Lord to bruise him ”’—‘ Worthy is the Lamb that was 
 slain ’’—“ He suffered once for sins,” &c., &c. 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 
 love 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 had righteously incurred. The love on which 
 sinners 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, 
 why should death have been endured? or would a love that 
 fainted not in a mere martyrdom and tragedy be a stay for a 
 
 ! Theological Essays, p. 128. Cambridge, 1853. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 2. SUC 
 
 convicted spirit? No; it is atoning love that soothes and 
 blesses, and the objective or legal aspect of the work of 
 Christ is not to be merged in any subjective or moral phases 
 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 Schlichting, 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—trép—l1 Cor. 
 _ Xv. 3; died for us—dtaép—l Thess. v. 10; gave himself 
 
 for our sins—epi/—Gal. i. 4; died for the ungodly—orep 
 aceBov—Rom. v. 6; died for all—iaép ravtav—2 Cor. v. 
 14; and a brother is one on whose behalf Christ died—d: ov 
 Xpiotds aréGavev—1 Cor viii. 11. His death is an offering for 
 sin—rpoopopa mepi—Heb. x. 18; one sacrifice for sin—piav 
 trrép awaptiav Ovciay—Heb. x. 12; the blood of Him who 
 offered himself—ro aipa, ds éavtov mpoonveyxev—Heb. ix. 14; 
 the offering of His body once for all—sva tis mpoopopas Tob 
 copmatos épdrraé—Heb. x.10. His death makes expiation— 
 els TO iANdoxecOar—Heb. ii. 17; there is propitiation in His 
 blood—iracrnprov—Rom. iii. 25; we are justified in His 
 blood—éicarwbévtes év TH aipate avtoo—Rom. v. 9; and we 
 are reconciled by His death—xatyndrdynuev—Rom. v. 10. 
 
 1 ; rok is : 
 Baur, Geschichte der Versthnungslehre, p. 30. Compare, too, some expressions of 
 Gregory of Nyssa with those of Athanasius and Augustine, and Gregory the Great. 
 
378 EPHESIANS V. 2. 
 
 He gave himself a ransom—av7i/Avtpov—1 Tim. i. 6; He 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for 
 us—ryevouevos vUmép nuav Kkatdpa—Gal. ii. 13; Christ our, 
 passover was sacrificed for us—dt7rép jay érv0n—1 Cor. 5. 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 
 Schriftb. ii. 329. See Ebrard, Lehre von der stellvertretenden 
 Genugthuung, Kénigsberg, 1857, or a note in his Commen- 
 tary on 1st 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 Versohnung und Rechfertigung, mit Beziehung auf 
 den Hofmann-Philippischen Streit iiber die Versohnungs-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 
 exegesis of Stier, that the last clause of the verse stands in 
 close connection with the first, as if the apostle had said— 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS V. 3. 379 
 
 “ 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 
 pleasing to God. 
 
 (Ver. 3.) Llopveia &€, cat twaca axalapoia, i) wrEeove&la— 
 “But fornication, and,all uncleanness, or covetousness.” Again 
 the apostle recurs by dé which is not without a distinct 
 adversative force, to vices prevalent in the heathen world. 
 IIcpveta— fornication,” a sin which had eaten deep into the 
 Gentile world (Acts xv. 20, 29)—x«ai axa@apocia—“ and 
 uncleanness”’—7raca—in every form and aspect of it. ID\eo- 
 ve&ia is not insatiable lust, as many maintain, but “ covetous- 
 ness.” Seeiv. 19. The word was the matter of a sharp 
 encounter between Heinsius (Hvercitat. Sac. 467) and Sal- 
 masius (De Fanere Trapezitico, 121), the latter inflicting on 
 the former a castigation of characteristic severity, because he 
 held that adeoveEia denoted inordinate concupiscence. The 
 apostle uses the noun in Col. 11. 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 devel- 
 opment from the same unholy root. It is a dreadful scourge 
 —seva 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 mAcoveE(a in the meaning of covetousness 
 “ vields 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— 
 
 poe ovopaléc Ow ev bpiv—“let it not be even named among 
 you.” Mndée—“ not even.” Mark i. 2; 1 Cor. v.11; Hero- 
 dotus, i. 138—zrovdew ov« EEcott, TadTa ove Néyew eLeoTw. 
 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 
 
380 EPHESIANS V. 4. 
 
 sins should not soil Christian lips. For the apostle assigns a: 
 reason— 
 
 KaQ@s tpémer wylous— 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 
 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 underi. 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 aicypérns— And filthiness ”—immunditia, 
 Vulgate. Some MSS., such as A, D', E!, FG, read 4} aicyporns, 
 and there are other variations which need not be noted. 
 Tischendorf retains the Textus Receptus on the authority 
 of B, D*, G?, K, L, and almost all MSS. Some, such as 
 (Ecumenius, imitated by Olshausen, Riickert, Meier, and 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, regard, without foundation, atoyporns as 
 equivalent to aicyponroyia. Col. 111. 8. Aiaypotntos yéwoucay 
 THY uxny eidev—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. 
 
 kal wwoporoyla— and foolish talking.” The MSS. just 
 quoted insert 7 before this noun too, but cai 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 stultiloquium 
 in Plautus (Jhles Gloriosus, ii. 3, 25, the scene of which 
 drama is laid out 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. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 4. 381 
 
 9 evtpamrenta—“or jesting”’—the disjunctive being employed. 
 This noun is a draé Neyouevov as well as the preceding. It 
 denotes urbanity—wrbanitas—and as its derivation implies, 
 dexterity of turning a discourse—rapa 70 eb TpémecOau Tov 
 Noyov; then wit or humour; and lastly 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) pwporoyla, coupons, amrawWevoia 
 —levity, or grossness. Chrysostom’s amplified definition is— 
 0 TroLKiNOS, 6 TAVTOSATIOS, 0 MOTAKTOS, O EVKOAOS, O TaYTA YyWO- 
 foevos—‘ the man called evtpazredos is the man who is ver- 
 satile, of all complexions, the restless one, the fickle one, the 
 man who is everything or anything.” Jerome also says of it 
 —vel urbana verba, vel rustica, vel turpia, vel faceta. It is here 
 used evidently in a bad sense, almost equivalent to Bwpordoyos, 
 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 wwporoyla and evtpazrenia is indicated 
 by the Latin terms, stultiloquiwm 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 Naséaywyos. Allusions 
 to such ‘‘jestings’”’ are not unfrequent in the classics. Even 
 the author of the “ Ars 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, &c. 
 
 Ta ovk avyxovta— which are not becoming things”’— 
 in opposition to the concluding clause in the previous verse. 
 Another reading—a ov« dvfixev—is supported by A, B, and 
 C, while Chrysostom and Theodoret, following the reading in 
 Rom, i. 28, read ta pu KaOjxovta—but wrongly ; for here 
 
382 EPHESIANS V. 4. 
 
 the apostle refers to an objective reality. Winer, § 55, 5, Butt- 
 mann, Gram. des Neutest. Sprach. § 148, 7. Suidas defines 
 aviixov by mpérov. The Vulgate confines the connection of 
 this clause to the term immediately preceding—scurrilitas que 
 ad rem non pertinet. All the three vices—but certainly, from 
 the contrast in the following clause, the two previous ones— 
 may be included. Such sins of the tongue are to be super- 
 seded by thanksgiving—? 
 
 GAA padrov evyapiotia, “but rather giving of thanks.” 
 There is a meaning which may attach to ebyapiotia, 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—Forsitan igitur gratia- 
 rum actio in hoe loco non ista nominata juata quam gratias 
 agimus Deo, sed juxta quam gratt, sive gratiosi et salst apud 
 homines appellamur. So Clement of Alexandria—yapcev- 
 TisTéov TE OV yeXwTOToNTéoV. This opinion has been followed 
 by Calvin, Cajetan, Heinsius, Salmasius, Hammond, Semler, 
 
 Michaelis, Meier, and by Wahl, Wilke, and Bretschneider. 
 
 1 Fergusson says, “honest and sometimes piercing ironies were used by holy men 
 in scriptures.” 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 vari- 
 ously 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 ambi- 
 guity of their sense, or the affinity of their sound: sometimes it is wrapped in a 
 dress of humorous expression: sometimes it lurketh under an odd similitude ; some- 
 times 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: some- 
 times 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 represeniation of persons or things, a counterfeit 
 speech, a mimical look or gesture passeth for it: sometimes an affected simplicity, 
 sometimes a presumptuous bluntness giveth it being: sometimes it riseth from a 
 lucky 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 answer- 
 able to the numberless rovings of fancy and windings of language.”— Works, vol. i. 
 p. 131. Edin. 1841. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 5. 383 
 
 However consonant to the context this interpretation may 
 appear, it cannot be sustained by any analogies. Such exam- 
 ples as yur.) xdpetos or yuv7) evydpioros belong not to New 
 Testament usage. We therefore prefer the ordinary signi- 
 fication, “ thanksgiving,” and it is contrary to sound her- 
 meneutical discipline on the part of Bullinger, Musculus, and 
 Zanchius, to take thé term in both acceptations. ‘The verb 
 usually supplied is é>rw—“ but let there be rather thanks- 
 giving.” Examples of such brachiology are numerous. 
 Kiihner, ii. § 852, i.; Jelf, § 895; Winer, § 66, 1,2. But 
 why may not dvouatéc Ow still guide the construction ? “Rather 
 let thanksgiving be named’’—let there be vocal expression to 
 your grateful emotions. Bengel, justified by Stier, supplies 
 avyKet, 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 continu- 
 ous 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 tote ywvdoxovtes, ‘ For this ye know— 
 being as you are aware.” Winer, § 45, 8. dp states a 
 reason, and an awful and solemn one it is. For the éore 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 (scttote intelligentes), Coptic, and several of the 
 Fathers. “Iore yuveoxovtes 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—ywvao- 
 Kov yvoon, and Jer. xlii. 19'—ryvovtes yveoeoGe, are there- 
 fore not in point, as fo7e is the second person plural of oféa. 
 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, 
 
 1 In Jer. xlii. 19, Theodotion reads—iere yivdionovres. 
 
384 EPHESIANS V. 5 
 
 Riickert, Matthies, and Stier. Wickliffe renders—“ Wite ye: 
 this and vndirstonde”’ (see under verse 3). Ye know— 
 
 6Te Tas TOpVOS, 7) akdOapTos, 7) TEOVEKTNS, Os EoTW Eidwo- 
 Aatpns —“ that every whoremonger or unclean person, or 
 covetous man who is an idolater.’’? Col. ii. 5. IWnyeovéerns 
 is explained under the preceding verse. ie under iv. 19. 
 The differences of coming are these :—Griesbach, Lach- 
 mann, and Alford read 6 after B and Jerome who has quod. 
 Other MSS., such as F, G, have eiSwdoXarpela, which read- 
 ing is fe in the ree 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 mAcoveE/a. 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, 
 aud 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 bad as an heathen,” as 
 in the loose paraphrase of Barlee—but it means, that the 
 covetous man deifying the world rejects the true Jehovah. 
 Job viii. 13; Matt. vi. 24. Every one of them— 
 
 ovK éxer KAnpovouiav— has no inheritance,” and shall or 
 can have none; the present stating a fact, or law unalterably 
 determined. Woes 40, 2. Ilas . ... ov. Winer, § 26; 
 see under iv. 29—and for cAnpovouia, see under i. 11; ii. 6. 
 And the very name of the inheritance vindicates this exclu- 
 sion; for it is— 
 
 év TH Baciheta Tov Xpiotod Kat Ocod—“ in the kingdom of 
 Christ and God.” Phil. iii.19. F and G read eés tiv Bacirelay 
 tod ®eod kat Xpictrod—an evident emendation. The geni- 
 tive Xpiorod, has its analogy in the expressions used Matt. 
 xvi. 28; 2'Tim.iv. 1,18. Bacirela and éxxrnola have been 
 sometimes distinguished, as if the first referred to the church 
 
EPHESIANS V. 6. 385 
 
 in heaven, and the other to the church on earth, while others 
 reverse this opinion. Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbeg. 352; Koppe, 
 Exeursus I. ad Thessalon. But such a distinction cannot be 
 sustained. Saovdela is used with perfect propriety here ; 
 exxAnota is the church called and collected together, into 
 which one of these bad characters may intrude himself; but 
 Pactra is the kingdom under the special jurisdiction of its 
 King, and no one can or dare enter without His sanction ; 
 for it is, as Origen calls it, wédus edvououpévn. 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 possessed of Divinity, yet He is 
 distinct from God. Jerome, indeed, says—ipsum Deum et 
 Christum intelligamus . . . ubi 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 of God—“ in the kingdom which is Christ’s 
 and God’s.” ©eés 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 7 Tod Oeod, as 
 such phraseology might imply that there were two kingdoms ; 
 nor, as Stier remarks, does he even say—rod @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 Titus 11.13; 2 Peteri.1; Jude 4, in all of which 
 the pronoun 7uev is inserted, while in two of them cwTHp is 
 an attributive, and in one of them Seo7érns has a similar 
 meaning. ©eod 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~ 
 2¢ 
 
386 EPHESIANS V. 6. 
 
 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 
 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.) Mnéeis buds aratdtw Kevois NOyous— Let no one 
 deceive you with vain words.” Whatever apologies were 
 made for such sensual indulgences were vain words, or soph- 
 istry—words without truth, pernicious in their tendency, and 
 tending to mislead. See-examples from Kypke tn loc ; Septua- 
 gint—Exod. v. 9; Hos. xii. 1. The Gothic reads—uslusto, 
 concupiscat. It is a refinement on the part of Olshausen to 
 refer 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—Hrant apud Ephesios 
 homines corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui hec salu- 
 taria Det pracepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt : humanum 
 esse quod faciant amatores, utile quod feneratores, facetum quod 
 joculatores, et iccirco Deum non usque adeo graviter anim- 
 
EPHESIANS V. 6. 387 
 
 advertere in istiusmodi lapsus.. They were to be on their 
 guard— 
 
 dua Tadra yap Epyetat % dpyn ToD Ocovd él tovs viods Ths 
 atretOeias—“ for because of these things cometh the wrath of 
 God on the sons of disobedience.” The phrase 8a tadta, 
 emphatic in position, vefers not to the “ vain words,” but more 
 naturally to the vices specified—“ on account of these sins.”’ 
 Col. iii. 6. The Greek commentators, followed by Stier, 
 combine both opinions, but without any necessity. The noun 
 stands between two warnings against certain classes of sin and 
 sinners, and naturally refers to them by tadra. ’Opyy has 
 been illustrated, and so has viol ameeéas, under ii. 2, 3. 
 Suicer, sub voce. Many, such as Meyer, restrict the mani- 
 festation of the divine anger to the other world. His argu- 
 
 1 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 wees ris yAsd7s wdrav— of the softness and luxury of the Ephesians ;’ and 
 from Euacles in his book de Ephesiacis, who saith—év’Egéow lege idgicnrSos Eraign 
 ’Ageodir7u—‘ 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, ood: éy«—vyile works were done.’ (Lib. xiv. p. 640.) 
 Among the heathens, simple fornication was held a thing indifferent; the laws 
 allowed and provided for it in many nations; whence the grave Epictetus counsels 
 his scholars, ‘only to whore—#s véusuey érrs—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 ances- 
 tors, 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 & 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. Il 
 déclare qu’elle est wne idolatrie. Qu’importe, en effet, qu’on n’adore pas des idoles 
 dor et d’argent, comme les paiens, si l’on adore l’or et l’argent 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 espere? Hélas! la grande idole du siécle est encore la statue 
 dor, comme du temps de Nébucadnézar; c’est vers sa figure ¢blouissante 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  Epitre de S. Paul aux Ephésiens, p. 124. 
 Paris, 1852. 
 
388 “EPHESIANS V. 8. 
 
 ment is, that opy7 Oeod is in contrast with Bacudela Oeod. 
 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—épyerar. It is thus, on the other hand, too narrow a 
 view of Calvin, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to confine 
 this dpy7 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 
 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.) M2) ody yivecOe cuvpéroyou adtav— Become not 
 then partakers with them.” The spelling cuvyéroyou has the 
 authority of A, B', D', F,G; see also under ii. 6. The mean- 
 ing 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. Ody is collective: because they are addicted 
 to those sins on which divine judgment now falls, and con- 
 tinued indulgence in which bars a man out of heaven—become 
 not ye their associates. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) "Hre yap moré sxdtos—“ For ye were once dark- 
 ness,” As Chrysostom says, he reminds them tis mpo- 
 Tépas Kaxias. dp introduces a special reason for an entire 
 separation between the church and the Gentile world. Their 
 past and present state were in perfect contrast—ijTe moré 
 aKxotos—“ ye were once darkness—7re—emphatic ;” and 
 deeds of darkness were in harmony with such a state. Sxotos 
 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 
 day-spring from on high” had visited them— 
 
 viv Sé pas év Kvpio— 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. Aé is adversative, “ now” 
 
EPHESIANS V. 9. 389 
 
 being opposed to “once.” Chrysostom says—évvojcartes 
 TL TE ToTe Upels Kal TL yevovate vov. Pes, 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 Kupio 
 —‘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 1. 5, 6,7. For Kupsos as 
 applied to Christ, see i, 2, 3. Such being the case, there fol- 
 lows the imperative injunction— 
 
 os Téxva Pwros TepiTatetre—“ walk as children of light.” 
 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. Tids is often used in a 
 similar connection. See récvoy under i. 8. 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. v. 5. 
 Negatively they were not to be partakers ; but neutrality is 
 not sufticient—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. Iepizareite, 
 under ii. 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 Kapros Tod pwros— For the fruit of the light.” 
 Instead of dwrds the Textus Receptus has Hvevparos. For 
 gwtos we have the authority of A, B, D, E', F, G, and the 
 Vulgate ; while the Stephanic text is found in D’, KE’, K, L, 
 the majority of MSS., in the Syriac too, and in two of the 
 
390 EPHESIANS V. 9. 
 
 Greek commentators. Internal evidence here can have but 
 little weight. One may say that dwrds was inserted in room 
 of IIlvedparos, to give correspondence with the dds of the 
 preceding verse; or one may say, on the other hand, that 
 IIvetparos supplanted ¢wrds 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 Taon aya0wovvy— in all goodness.” We cannot say, 
 with so many expositors, that éore being supplied, the mean- 
 ing is—the fruit of the Spirit is in, that is—ponitur—consists 
 in, all goodness, &c. In that case, the simple nominative 
 might have been employed. We understand the apostle to 
 mean, that the fruit is always associated with goodness as 
 its element or sphere. Winer, § 47 2 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. ’AyaOwovvn 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 reprobating—xakia. 
 
 kat dixatootvn—* and righteousness.’ This is integrity or 
 moral rectitude (Rom. vi. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 11), and is in con- 
 trast not only with the theft and covetousness already con- 
 demned, 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 déc«ia. For the 
 spelling of this and the preceding noun, see Htymol. Mag. 
 sub voce dixaios. See under iv. 24. 
 
 kal adnOcia—“ and truth.” Truth stands opposed to in- 
 sincerity and dissimulation—eddos. 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 11. 391 
 
 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.) Aoxiudfovres ti éotw evdpectov TS Kupio— 
 “ Proving what is well-pleasing to the Lord.” Rom. xii. 2; 
 Phil. i. 10; 1 Thess..y. 21. The participle agrees with the 
 previous verb wepurateite, 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. Evdpeotov— well-pleasing ”— 
 what the Lord has enjoined and therefore approves. The 
 obedience of Christians is not prompted by traditionary or 
 unthinking acquiescence, but is founded on clear and discri- 
 minative perception of the law and the will of Christ. And 
 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, 
 Ts it pleasing to the Lord, or in harmony with His law and 
 example? This faculty belongs, as Theophylact says, to the 
 perfect—roy Terelwy éotl Tov Kpivew duvvapévor. 
 
 (Ver. 11.) Kat pr) cvveowwvette tots Epyots Tots axdptros 
 tov oxorous— And have no fellowship with the unfruitful 
 works of darkness.” The spelling cuvcowwveire 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 
 xlvi. Kaé connects this clause with zepiateire. Phil. 
 iv. 14; Rev. xviii. 4. “Axdpzros is plainly in contrast with 
 KdpTros in ver.9. These épya have no good fruits—their only 
 fruit, as Theophylact says, is death and shame. See the con- 
 trast between épya and xdpzros in Gal. v. 19,22. xoros has 
 been explained under the 8th verse. This admonition is 
 much the same as that contained in the 7th verse. Rom. vi. 21, 
 vul. 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— 
 
 parrov S€ Kal édéyyere. Marrov d€¢ xai— Yea, much 
 more ’’—or better, ‘‘ but rather even’”’—a formula which gives 
 
392 EPHESIANS V. 12. 
 
 special intensity to the antithesis. Fritzsche, ad. Rom. viii. 34 ; 
 Hartung, i. 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 kpuph ywopeva tr adtav aicypov éotwv 
 kat éeyerv— for the things in secret done by them it is 
 shameful even to speak of.” Such a use of «ai discursive is 
 explained in Hartung, vol. i. 136, and more fully by Klotz 
 ad Devarius, vol. ii. 633, &c. The adverb xpudq occurs only 
 here, and according to some should be written «pudq, with 
 iota subscribed. Ellendt, Lea. Soph. sub voce; Passow, sub 
 voce. Deut. xxviii. 57; Wisdom xviii. 9. The connection 
 of 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—It 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 Cicumenius, take the clause as giving a reason why the 
 deeds of darkness are not specified like the fruit of the light: 
 ““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. 
 24-325 1 Cors-vi. 9, 10; Gal. vs 19215) 1 Tims 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 oxdrtos 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. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 12. 393 
 
 Meier’s notion is, that A¢yeey 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 €deyEis necessitates,)’ 6. Holzhausen imagines that in the 
 phrase Ta xpudf yvoueva 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 
 are referred to. 7. Stier’s idea, which is that of Photius, 
 Theophylact, and Erasmus, is, that édéyyev cannot mean 
 verbal 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. 
 Matt. v.16; Phil. iv. 15. ‘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 &éyxo 
 signifies other than verbal rebuke, cannot be proved. Where 
 the verb may be rendered “ convince’’—as in 1 Cor. xiv. 24; 
 James ii. 9—language 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 cvyxowwveite, 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 oxdtovs with ta xpudn) 
 ywwopeva—the latter being a special class of the former. 
 Lastly, Musculus, De Wette, Meyer, and Olshausen, connect 
 the verse immediately with padrov dé Kal édéyyere—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 
 
394 EPHESIANS V. 13. 
 
 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 5é mdvta édeyyopeva, bd Tod Pwtos have- 
 povrac— 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 statement. 
 Olshausen remarks, that the words have gnomenartige Kiirze. 
 We take 7a 6€ wavra as referring to the Ta kpuph ywwopeva, 
 and not, as Riickert does—in a general sense, or all things 
 generally. Jerome thus understands it—haud dubie quin ea 
 quee 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 Theologice 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 
 a 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 i775 tod datos be asso- 
 ciated? 1. De Wette, Crocius, Bloomfield, and Peile, join 
 them to the participle édeyyoueva—all “ these reproved by 
 the light.’’ Our objection to this connection is, that as 
 agrees more naturally with davepodrar—the idea being homo- 
 geneous, for light is the agent which reveals. De Wette’s 
 objection, that rebuke is not uniformly followed by such 
 
EPHESIANS V. 13. 395 
 
 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. és 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. Philo- 
 sophy was only “ darkness visible’ around them. 
 
 Tav yap TO pavepovpevov Pas éotiv. lav ro. Winer, § 18, 
 4, The meaning depends greatly on this—whether davepov- 
 pevov 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. The 
 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 das 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—ézresdav dé pavepwOy, yivetar Pas. 
 Harless renders, “‘ what has been revealed is no longer a 
 hidden work of darkness: it is ight.” 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 Bretsch- 
 neider. 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- 
 
396 EPHESIANS V. 14. 
 
 cess they themselves who were once darkness become light. 
 De Wette’s explanation of the same rendering is—without 
 das there is no pavepovdpevov, and where there is davepodjpevov 
 there is light. But the apostle does not utter such a truism 
 —where every thing 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 pave- 
 povpar 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; John i. 31, ix. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11; 
 Jelf, § 367, 2. Olshausen takes up the exegesis of Grotius, 
 which 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- 
 tation 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 
 Christianity 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. Avo Xéyeo—“ Wherefore He saith.” See under iv. 8; 
 
EPHESIANS V. 14. 397 
 
 610 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 
 in any portion of the Hebrew oracles. Grotius and Elsner 
 propose to make das the nominative to Néyec—“ wherefore a 
 
 man of light—one of: these reprovers says ;”’ an opinion not 
 very remote from Seiler’s version—die Erleuchteten sollen 
 sprechen—those who are light themselves should speak to the 
 children of darkness in the following terms—‘‘ Awake thou 
 that sleepest, and arise from the dead.” An early opinion, 
 reported by Theodoret as belonging to twés Tay EppevevTar, 
 has been adopted by Heuman, Peeile, ii. p. 396; Michaelis, 
 Dopke, Hermeneuttk, p. 275. Leipzig, 1829; Storr, Stolz, 
 Flatt, and Bleek, Stud. und Krit. 1853, p. 331. It is that 
 the quotation is taken from one of the hymns of the early 
 Christian church. Michaelis regards it, indeed, as an excerpt 
 from some baptismal formula. Of such a supposition there is 
 no proof; and the reference to 1 Cor. xiv. 26, is certainly no 
 argument in its favour. In a similar spirit Barnes says— 
 “IT see no evidence that Paul meant to make a quotation at 
 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. Ix., and therefore warranting 
 the dvd Aéye, 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 the 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 
 
398 EPHESIANS V. 14. 
 
 to which Jerome has also alluded, and which Bugenhagen and 
 Calixtus have adopted, that the nominative to Néyer 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 éyee 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 gyoi 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 are 
 —“The 6vd Aéyes shows that Paul intended to quote from a 
 canonical writing, but as the citation is not from any canoni- 
 cal book, he adduced, through lapse of memory, an apocryphal 
 passage, which he, citing from memory, took to be canonical. 
 But out of what apocryphal writing the quotation is taken we 
 know not.” 
 
 Assuming that the quotation is made from the Old Testa- 
 ment, as the uniform use of 61d Aéyer implies, the question 
 still remains—what place is cited ? Various verses and clauses 
 have been fixed upon by critics, the majority of whom, from 
 Thomas 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 
 Klausen, 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. 1x. 1—six axa x DP 
 mm TY Tir tan— 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 
 lix. 10, the figure of darkness is employed by the prophet, 
 as well as in the 2d 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 14. 399 
 
 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 ;’1—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 apostle meant to make no direct or verbal 
 quotation. But the entire subject of New Testament quota- 
 tion is not without its difficulties. Gouge, New Testament 
 Quotations, London, 1855; Davidson, Hermeneutics, p. 334. 
 We find that similar examples of quotation, according to spirit, 
 are found in the New Testament, as in James iv. 5; 2 Cor. 
 vi. 16, 17; Matt. ii. 23. The prophecy is primarily addressed 
 to Zion, as the symbol of the church. Nor do we apprehend 
 that the application is different in the quotation before us, as 
 the words are addressed still to the church—as one that had 
 been asleep and dead, but the divine peal had startled it. It 
 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 “ sometime 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 Kabeviwv— awake thou that sleepest.” For the 
 case, see Winer, § 14, 2. Lachmann reads éyespas 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 
 
 1 See the respective commentaries of Vitringa, Gesenius, Henderson, Hitzig, and 
 Alexander on the passage. 
 
400 EPHESIANS V. 19. 
 
 is man’s duty, for he is commanded to obey, and he does obey 
 under the influence of the Divine Spirit. 
 
 Kat avdota éx Tov vexpov— and arise from the dead.” 
 The meaning of vécpos so used may be seen under i. 1. 
 Bornemann, in Luc. p.97. ’Avaora is a later form for avdo- 
 70. Winer, § 14, 1-h. 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 1 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. 
 
 kat érupavoet cot 6 Xpiotos— and Christ shall enlighten 
 thee.” The various spellings of the verb, and the change of 
 @ into , have arisen from inadvertence. On the different 
 forms of this verb, see Fritasche on Mark ii. 11, Winer, § 15. 
 This variation is as old as the days of Chrysostom, for he 
 notices it, and decides for the common reading. The verb 
 itself occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though it is 
 once found in the “ Acts of Thomas”—érégavoe yap wor— 
 § 34. This light Christ flashes upon the dead, and startles 
 them into life. And the apostle continues— 
 
 (Ver. 15.) Brérere, odv, axpiB@s TepuTateite. “Take 
 heed then how ye walk correctly.” Calvin has been felici- 
 tous in his view of the connection—si aliorum discutere tene- 
 bras fideles debent fulgore suo: quanto minus caecutire ipst 
 debent in proprio vite instituto? In this view ody 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 connection 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. .Odv 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 
 
 ——— 
 
EPHESIANS V. 165. 401 
 
 should walk. Winer, § 41,4; or videte igitur . . . quomodo 
 ellud efficiatis ut provide vivatis. Fritzschiorum Opuscula, p. 
 208-9, 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 Wa as 
 mm, Cor. xvi. 10, and it stands after Brérretwm in 1 Cor. 
 iii. 10. The verb is followed by azo in Mark viii. 15, and 
 by a simple accusative in Phil. ii. 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 adxpuBas, which qualifies not Bré7reTe 
 but wepurareire, 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—zpos tovs é€w, a phrase which 
 Olshausen supposes should be understood here. 1 Thess. iv. 1. 
 The first meaning is more in accordance with the prevailing 
 usage of the word in all other places of the New Testament. 
 Matt. 1.8; Lukei.3; Acts xvi. 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— 
 
 py @S aoopot, AX ws copoi— not as unwise, but as wise 
 men ;” first a negative, and secondly a positive aspect. Kypke, 
 p- 350; Winer, § 65, 5. The subjective w) connects the 
 clause with qepurareite. 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 intelligence— 
 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 
 2D 
 
402 EPHESIANS V. 16. 
 
 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&€ayopafowevo. tov xarpov— 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 pharaphrase of Ambrosiaster is similar—sctre quemad- 
 modum unicunque respondeat. The verb denotes to buy out 
 of—éx; and the middle voice intimates that the purchase is for 
 one’s self—for one’s own personal benefit. Kavpos, probably 
 allied to Keipw, is not ypdvos, simply time, but opportunity. 
 Tittmann, De Synon., p. 39; Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 
 320; see, however, Benfey, Wurzellex. vol. ii. p. 288. This 
 opportunity 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 
 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 curi- 
 ously 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, Estius, Zanchius, Riickert, and Stier, 
 who understand by the alleged price the offering of all earthly 
 
 1“ Mitylena oriundus Pittacus sum Lesbius, 
 Viyvwrxe xosgdy qui dixi sententiam. 
 Sed iste zaseds, tempus ut noris, monet: 
 Et esse zasedv, tempestivum quod vocant. 
 Romana sic est vox, VENITO IN TEMPORE.” 
 —<Ausonius, Opera, p. 145. Biponti, 1785. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 16. 403 
 
 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 
 — 23, pmX xxv, rendered—dre Kaipov vyels eEayopatere. 
 Even though we were obliged to agree with Dathe, Rosen- 
 miiller, Gesenius, Maurer, and Hitzig, that the phrase meant 
 there, to buy up or to prolong the time, or seek delay, yet 
 here the article prefixed by the apostle gives the noun a defi- 
 nite speciality. Sese (id quod difficillimwn fuertt) tempus 
 ipsum emisse judicit sur. Cicero in Verrem, il. p. 240; Opera, 
 ed. Nobbe, Lipsie, 1850. The “ unwise” allow the propi- 
 tious 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 at whatever sacrifice their own, and 
 thriftily turn it to the best advantage. They redeem it, as 
 Severianus says—Oote kataypyjoacbar ait mpds evoéBevav. 
 The apostle adds a weighty reason— 
 
 bt al nwépar Tovnpat etovv— 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 
 
AOA EPHESIANS V. 17. 
 
 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 opportunities 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. ii.4; 1 Tim. 
 iv. 1. The Greek fathers are careful to remark that the apostle 
 calls the days evil, not in themselves—r)v ovoiav—as they 
 are creatures of God ; but on account of the events with which 
 they are connected. 
 
 (Ver. 17.) Aud todo pi) yiverOe appoves—“ On this account 
 become not senseless.” On this account—not because the 
 days are evil—ézeid) 1) movnpia avOci—as is supposed by 
 (Ecumenius, Menochius, Zanchius, Estius, Riickert, and De 
 Wette ; but because we are summoned to walk wisely, redeem- 
 ing the time, the days being evil, therefore we are to possess 
 a high amount of Christian intelligence. The epithet afpav 
 characterizes a man who does not use his rational powers. 
 Ast, Lex. Plat., sub. voce. It differs from aaodos which has 
 reference more to folly in action and daily walk; whereas it, 
 as this verse intimates, signifies a non-comprehension of the 
 principles on which that walk is to be regulated. Tittmann, 
 De Synon, 148. 
 
 are cuvievtes Ti TO OEAnwa TOD Kupiov—“ but understand- 
 ing what the will of the Lord is.” The participle is variously 
 read, A and B read in the imperative, ovviere, which Jerome 
 follows, a reading also approved by Lachmann and Riickert, 
 though it is probably an emendation conforming to the other 
 imperatives; while cvmovtes 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— 
 cuvievtes. We have no objection to the common reading, 
 which is retained by Tischendorf. The participle signifies 
 knowing intelligently, and means more than ywooxew. Luke 
 xii. 47. That will which it is their duty to understand is the 
 
EPHESIANS V. 18. 405 
 
 authoritative expression of the mind of Christ, who embodied 
 in His own example the purity and benignity of all His pre- 
 cepts. Codex B adds 7uav, 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 0éAnua see under i. 5,9, 11, and 
 for Kupuos, under i. 2, 3. 
 
 (Ver. 18.) Kal px) peOvonecOe olvw— 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 injunc- 
 tion. By xaé transition is made from a general counsel to a 
 particular instance, and the injunction thus becomes climactic. 
 The dative oivm 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 Holz- 
 hausen, that the apostle alludes, as in 1 Cor. xi., to any abuse 
 of the old love-feasts, or of the Lord’s Supper. Oivos (with 
 the digamma—vinwm, Wein), as the common drink of the 
 times, is specified by the apostle as the means of intoxication. 
 And he adds— 
 
 €v ® éotiv aowtia—“‘in which is dissoluteness,’’ or profli- 
 gacy —Luxuria ; Vulgate. Tittmann, De Synon. p. 152; 
 Trench, Synon. § 16. Prov. xxviii. 7; Tit. i. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 4. 
 The antecedent to is not oivos, but the entire previous 
 clause. The Syriac borrows. simply—)}e40o) The term 
 aow7os, trom a privative and c#fw, 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 ’—zrapa 70 
 calw (Htymolog. Mag.) ; oftener one qui servare nequit. The 
 adverb dots 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—rd $Oelpew tHv ovoiar, 
 —or again, dowtia éotw brepBorr) Trepl ypyuata—or again, 
 Tous axpateis kal éus axodaciav Satravynpols aowTous KadodpeEv. 
 Cicero (De Finibus) says—nolim mihi fingere asotos, ut soletis, 
 
406 EPHESIANS V. 18. 
 
 gut im mensant comant, p. 1006, Opera, ed. Nobbe. Theophy- 
 lact, alluding to the etymology, says—ov ower adn’ amrorrdv- 
 oW ov TO CHa povoy aNrA Kat THY Wruyyv; and the drunkard’s 
 progress, described by Clement in the first chapter of the 
 second book of his Pedagogue, is a series of tableaux without 
 veil or reserve. Referring to the origin which he assigns to 
 the term, he also says—Acortous Te avtods of Kahécavtes ev 
 peor Soxovow aivittecOar TO TéXOS AUT@Y, ATw@aTOUS avTOS, 
 Kata ExOXupwy ToD © oTOLYElov 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 libidinous indulgence 
 is only one element of the dowtia. ‘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 peri- 
 odical 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 
 
 ? Bammidbar rabba sect. 10, fol. 206, 3. wy >» ww cipe bs nny: Ubicunque 
 est vinum, nimirum quod abundanter bibitur, ibi est immunditia, scortatio, et 
 adulterium. 
 
 Thidem fol. 208, 3. Si homo unum poculum bibit, nempe py quarta pars 
 rationis ab ipso recedit. Si duos bibit, duz partes rationis abeunt. Si tres, toti- 
 dem partes rationis abeunt, et cor ipsius conturbatum est, et statim ejusmodi 
 verba loquitur, que nulli rei quadrans. Si vero quatuor bibit, tunc omnis ratio 
 abscedit, et renes ejus (in quibus ex mente Judorum etiam pars quedam rationis 
 residet) perturbantur, et cor diripitur, et lingua officium non facit, vult quidem 
 aliquid proferre, sed non potest. 
 
 Post pauca ibid. PT PO RAY AW PRs Non egreditur bonum quid e vino. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 18. 407 
 
 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.’4 
 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,” &. . . . . . In fine, at Ephesus was 
 I born, not among the Apulians, not at Animula” *—(there 
 being in this last term a difference of reading). 
 
 adra TAnpovobe ev Ivedpats~— but be filled with the 
 Spirit.” The terms oivos and rvedua 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 
 
 1“ Hoe oppidum Ephesu’st: inde Miles meus herus, 
 Qui hine ad forum abiit, gloriosus, impudens, 
 Stercoreus, plenus perjurii atque adulterii.”—Act ii. sc. 1. 
 2“ Et ego amoris aliquantulum habeo, humorisque meo etiam in corpore: 
 Neque dum exarui ex amcenis rebus et voluptariis. 
 Vel cayillator facetus, vel conviva commodus 
 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 conyivio. 
 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. se. 1, 
 
405 EPHESIANS V. 19. 
 
 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; Acts ii. 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 Chris- 
 tians, and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and peace; 
 genuine elevation and mental freedom ; superiority to all de- 
 pressing 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.) Aadobdvres éavtots— Speaking to one another.” 
 Under the relaxing influence of wine the tongue is loosened, 
 and the unrestrained conversation too often passes into that 
 species of language, the infamy of which the apostle has already 
 exposed. The participle is connected in syntax with A7- 
 povoGe, for this “speaking” is the result of spiritual fulness. 
 ‘Eavtois is for addjdous, as in iv. 82, and cannot signify, as 
 Morus. and Michaelis would render it—“ with yourselves,” 
 or “within you,” but “among yourselves,” or ‘in concert.” 
 The verb Aadet has the general signification of “ using the 
 voice,” and is specifically different from eézreiv and déyewv, 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 19. 409 
 
 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.” Aadobdvres éavtois, different 
 from Néyovtes mpos éavtov’s, 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, 
 xi. 8, says, that such a practice was handed down from the 
 apostles—ryv tay avtipovev curvyiPecav dvebev aTrogTOXwY 1 
 exrAnoia tapéraBe. Theodoret traces the same custom to 
 the church at Antioch (Hist. Eccles, ii. 24), while Socrates 
 ascribes the origin of it to Ignatius. Hist. vi. 8. Augus- 
 tine, however, carries such responsoria no higher than the epis- 
 copate 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 
 practices. Peedagog. 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 :— 
 
 rarkpwots—“‘ in psalms’’—the dative being what Winer 
 calls “the simple dative of direction.” § 31-4. This term, 
 from yddrewv—to strike the lyre, is, according to its deriva- 
 tion, a sacred song chaunted to the accompaniment of instru- 
 mental music. So Basil rightly defines it—o Wards, Novos 
 €aTl povorkes, Stay edipvOuws KaTa TOs apuoviKOds Néyous 
 mpos Td Spyavov xpovntat. On Ps. xxix. The definition of 
 Gregory of Nyssa is similar—arpos eat 7 dud Tod dpydvov 
 TOU fovotkod perwdia. ‘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 
 vio. It denotes sometimes the Book of Psalms (Luke xx. 
 42; Acts i. 20, xiii. 33; and in one place it signifies the im- 
 
410 EPHESIANS V. 19. 
 
 provised effusion of one who possessed some of the charismata, 
 or gifts of the early church. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. 
 
 rat buvows— 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. ii. 12. The term corresponds to the 
 Hebrew words vs and ntnn. Deyling Observat. Sacer. 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 Dei laudes. The idea of dmprovisation is 
 not necessarily implied in the word, but belongs rather to the 
 following term. The hymn is thus defined by Phavorinus— 
 duvos, » Tpos Oeov oO ; and by Gregory of Nyssa—dpvos, 7 
 T@ O€@ evpnuia. ‘The same meaning of the term is found in 
 Axrian—ipvor péev és tovs Geods trovobvrar, &e.— ‘hymns 
 are composed for the gods, but eulogies for men ’”’—ézratvou 88 
 és dvOpwrrous. Haped. Alex. 4. Augustine on Ps. lxxxii. says 
 —s? sit laus, et nisi sit Det, non est hymnus ; si sit laus, et Dei 
 laus, et non cantetur, non est hymnus. Oportet ergo, ut si sit 
 hymnus, habeat hee tria, et laudem, et Det, et canticum. The 
 Coptic version translates the noun by— 2 AMC RLOE — 
 ** doxologies.” 
 
 Kal w@dais mvevuatixais— and spiritual songs.”  Tlvevpa- 
 Tikats 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 them. 
 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 under i.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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 19. 411 
 
 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 chaunted in 
 their assemblies or churches, as the Spirit gave utterance. 
 Acts x. 46. Tertullian says in his Apology—ut quisquis de 
 Scripturis Sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur 
 in medium Deo canere. Many hymns which were originally 
 private and personal, have thus become incorporated with the 
 psalmody 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 
 far better than that of Baumgarten-Crusius, who understands 
 the terms as denoting ‘“‘songs of thanks, of praise, and lyrics.” 
 Jerome says—Hymni sunt qui fortitudinem et majestatem pre- 
 dicant Det, et ejusdem semper vel beneficia vel facta mirantur. 
 Quod omnes psalmi continent, quibus Alleluja vel prepositum, 
 vel subjectum est. Psalmi autem proprie ad ethicum locum per- 
 tinent, ut per organum corporis, quid faciendum et quid vitandum 
 sit, noverimus. Qué vero de superioribus disputat et concentum 
 mundi omniumque creaturarum ordinem atque concordiam sub- 
 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, 
 
412 EPHESIANS V. 19. 
 
 that besides the Psalms, other compositions were sung in the 
 churches. ‘They were to be— 
 
 adovtes Kal dddovTes ev TH Kapdia buev— singing and 
 making melody in your heart.” Some MSS. such as A, D, 
 EK, F, G, read xapdéas, but they are counterbalanced by 
 Codices B, K, L, the Syriac version, and the Greek fathers. 
 The previous XaXodvtes is defined by ddovtes 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. Wdandeu, 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 yox, 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 which 
 was to be felt as the result of this fulness of the Spirit. But 
 it seems to be to the open and audible expression of Christian 
 feeling that the apostle refers in the phrase AadobyTes—xal 
 aéovres; while coupled with this, he adds with emphasis— 
 “ playing in your hearts.” The words, indeed, denote secret 
 melody, but may not the secret and inner melody form an 
 accompaniment to the uttered song? The phrase, as Harless 
 says, does not mean heartily, or é« «xapdias would have been 
 employed. Compare Rom. i. 9—év 7 mvevpati pov. 'Theo- 
 doret comes nearer our view when he says—“ He sings with 
 his heart who not only moves his tongue, but also excites his 
 mind to the understanding of the sentiments repeated,’”— 
 ANNA Kal TOV VodY els THY TOV Neyoméevwv KaTaVvonow SiEeyElpwv. 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 19. 413 
 
 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 nat and ae that haw may 
 sing after the fashion of the theatre in the shukeli He that 
 ies 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, 
 puccdScecucoouDeeT Content to hear 
 (O wonderful effect of music’s powers !) 
 Messiah’s eulogies, for Handel’s sake.” 
 
 T® 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 
 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. 880. One of these very old and venerable relics, 
 the Morning Hymn preserved in the Liturgy of the Church 
 
 1“ Audiant hee adolescentuli: audiant hi quibus psallendi in ecclesia officium 
 est, Deo non voce, sed corde cantandum: nec in trageedorum modum guttur et 
 fauces dulci medicamine colliniendas, ut in ecclesia theatrales moduli audiantur et 
 cantica, sed in timore, in opere, in scientia Scripturarum. Quamvis sit aliquis, ut 
 solent illi appellare z«xégavos, si bona opera habuerit, dulcis apud Deum cantus est.” 
 
 2 “ Sic cantet servus Christi, ut non vox canentis, sed verba placeant que leguntur : 
 ut spiritus malus, qui erat in Saule, ejiciatur ab his, qui similiter ab eo possidentur, 
 et non introducatur in eos, qui de domo scenam fecere populorum.” 
 
414 EPHESIANS V. 20. 
 
 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.) Edyapsototvtes Tavtote trép TavtTov—* Giving 
 thanks always for all things.’’ Many collocations as mrdavtote 
 —ravrev are given by Lobeck, Paralip. vol. i. pp. 56, 57. 
 This clause is still connected with 7Anpotabe év Lvevpare, 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— 
 mavrote vTép Tavtwv. ‘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 
 q7avtwyv 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’’—dzép rijs 
 yeévyns avtis. Whether this extreme sentiment be just or 
 not, it is foreign to the context, for the apostle speaks of “ all 
 things ’’ now possessed by us, or sent upon us—ovy b7rép TaV 
 ayabav povov, says Theophylact ; etiam in tis 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 20. 415 
 
 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 chas- 
 tisement—so much merey is mingled up 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 dvomate Tod Kupiov nuav Inood Xpuorod— 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 Td 
 évowa. ‘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 eis TO Gvowa, Matt. xxvii. 19; Acts xix. 5; 1 Cor. i. 
 13,15; but év 7@ ovowate has a very different meaning, as 
 may be seen in John xiv.13; Acts iv. 12, x. 485; Col. iu. 
 17; 2 Thess. 11.6; 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 given 
 only a sample. Thus in His name miracles are done, Luke 
 x. 17; Acts. ili. 6, iv. 10, xvi. 18, James. v. 14; ordinances 
 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. 88; blessing is enjoyed, Acts iv. 12, 1 Cor. vi. 11; 
 the spiritual rule of life is enjoined, Col. ii. 17; a yds 
 charge is made, 2 Thess. ili. 6; reproach is born, 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 sic 
 ac st Christus faciat. Giving thanks— 
 
 T® @c@ cai Uarpi—“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 
 
416 EPHESIANS V. 21. 
 
 the first term. Winer, § 19, 3, note. See under i. 3. As 
 to the relation of Ilat#p, 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.) ‘Yzrotaccépevor add pros ev POB@ Xpictod— 
 “ Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.” 
 Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 13, v. 5. The authority for Oeod 
 is so slight, that it needs 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 tzotaccopevor forbids 
 such a supposition. Chrysostom joins the clause to the former 
 verses, and his arrangement is followed by Riickert, Meier, 
 Estius, Meyer, Harless. Winer, § 4,6. 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 tzotaccépevor is joined to 7AnpodaGe, 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 ¢68@ Xpuorod describe the 
 element of this submission. It is reverential submission to 
 Christ. Actsix. 31; 2Cor.v. 11; vii. 1; 1 Pet. 1.2. @oBos 
 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- 
 
EPHESIANS V. 22. 417 
 
 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 Chris- 
 tian 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. iii. 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 Tots idiots avdpdow, os TO Kupio— wives 
 submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” 
 The sentence has no verb, and it afforded, therefore, a fair oppor- 
 tunity for the ingenuity of the early copyists. Some MSS., 
 such as D, E, F, G, add trordocecde after yuvaixes. Scholz 
 and Hahn place the same word after dvépdow, while A and 
 some minusculi add témotaccécbwocav—a reading followed 
 by Lachmann. There are other variations in the form of 
 attempted supplement. Jerome proves that there was 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, 
 eyery tyro will acquiesce in the reason given by Jerome—éx 
 
 xowov resonat. Jelf,§ 391. The idea conveyed in the participle 
 25 
 
A18 EPHESIANS V. 22. 
 
 of the previous verse guides the sense. Wives, in the spirit of 
 this submission, are to be directed in their duty to their hus- 
 bands. The noun dyp, often signifies a husband, as “man” 
 does in vernacular Scotch. Matt. i. 16; John iv. 16-18 ; Homer, 
 Od. xxiv.195; Herod.i. 140. So also wx in Hebrew, Deut. 
 xxii. 23. The precise meaning of id/os in this connection 
 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 (d/ovs merely stands for the common pos- 
 sessive pronoun. But in all such injunctions in which ééddous 
 is used, as in 1 Cor. vii. 2; Col. iii. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 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, &c. Winer, § 
 22,7; Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, 441. The duty of submission 
 is plainly based on that tenderness, specialty, or exclusiveness 
 of relationship which (é/o1s 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— 
 
 Ilioa yee OovAn réQuney avOgis 4 CwDEaY yuvy,t 
 1 OF [uy ODE vole Tov Evv6vd’ UarepDeover. 
 
 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— 
 
 os To Kupio—“as to the Lord.” Pelagius, Thomas 
 Aquinas, and Semler capriciously regard this noun as standing 
 for the plural cupéois, and render it “as to your masters,” refer- 
 ring to their husbands. Rickert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, 
 and 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 edduta 
 éte T@ Kupiw dovrevere. The adverb ws denotes the character 
 
 1 Kuripides, dip. Fragm. Opera, cura Dindorf, ii. p. 923. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 23. 419 
 
 of the obedience enjoined, and such seems to be the grammatical 
 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 Hrasmus, 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 hus- 
 band. 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 :— 
 
 “For contemplation he and valour formed — 
 For softness she and sweet attractive grace: 
 He for God only, she for God and him.” 
 
 (Ver. 23.) “Ore avnp éotw kepada Tis yuvaitds, ws Kal Oo 
 Xpiotos Keharyn THs éxxrAnoias—“ 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 o before dvijp, 
 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 yuvacxos pointing 
 out the special relation—“ his wife.” “Orc introduces the 
 reason why wives should be submissive—“ as to the Lord.” 
 In the phrase @s «al—as also””—x«a/ is not superfluous, 
 though it occurs only in the second clause and marks the 
 sameness of relation in cedar. Klotz-Devar. vol. i. 6385. 
 The meaning of the sentiment, Christ is the Head of the 
 church, has been already explained under i. 22, and again 
 under iv. 15,16. The reader may turn to these explanations. 
 
420 EPHESIANS V. 23. 
 
 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. ii. 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 of 
 the man,” but ‘the man is the image and glory of God.” 
 1 Cor. xi. 3-12; 1 Tim. ii. 14. 
 
 avTos cwTnp TOU copatos— Himself Saviour of the body.” 
 The words «ai and éote in the Received Text are found in 
 D?, D?, K?, K, L, in the majority of MSS. and in the Syriac 
 and Gothic versions. Tittmann and Reiche also hold by the 
 longer reading, but the words are wanting in A, B, D!, Et, 
 IF’, G, while Codex A reads 6 cwryp. Adtos is emphatic and 
 can refer only to Xpioros. “Christ is Head of the church— 
 Himself, and none other, Saviour of the body.’ Winer, 
 § 24,4 b, note. Some refer it to avjp. Chrysostom’s exposi- 
 
EPHESIANS V. 24. 421 
 
 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 capa under i, 23, iv. 15, 16. 
 The paronomasia is imitated by Clement, ad Corinth. xxxviii. 
 —cotécbw odv dv Orov TO cua é€v Xptot@ "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 cwr/p 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, adrds separating 
 it from what is said before. There is a comparison in cedandy, 
 that is, in the point of position and authority, but none in 
 awtnp; for the love and protection which a husband may 
 afford a wife can never be called cwrnpia, and has no resem- 
 blance to Christ’s salvation. Some even suppose that the 
 wife is here called cya, basing their opinion on the language 
 of ver. 28. There is no warrant for supposing that im the 
 apostle’s mind there was any etymological affinity between 
 cetyp and capa, which in Homer signifies a dead body. See 
 Stier in loc. ; Benfey, Wurzellez., i., p. 412 ; and the two deri- 
 vations in Plato, Cratylus, § 38, p. 233; Op., vol. iv., ed. 
 Bekker. 
 
 (Ver. 24.) "AAN &s 4 éxxAnola broTdcceTar TO XpicTe— 
 “ But as the church is subject to Christ.” The reading @o7ep 
 has no decided authority. The commencement of this clause 
 occasions some difficulty. The hypothesis of Harless—not 
 unlike that of Riickert, that.dAXd 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. 
 
422 EPHESIANS V. 24. 
 
 that addXa@ does often follow a digression, but there is none 
 here; and even if the words were a digression, they form but 
 a single clause, and did not surely necessitate a formal add. 
 To give, with Zanchius and others, this particle the meaning 
 of “now” or “wherefore,” cannot be allowed, however such 
 a meaning may seem to suit the reasoning. ‘“AAd, 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, 1 a, says that add 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 add 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 a)\dd, 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 
 “‘ 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 toward 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 24. 423 
 
 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, &c.”—you are 
 to obey your husbands, who can never have claims on you 
 like Christ. The choice is between this and giving dAX\a 
 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. i. 31, viii. 837; 1 Cor. vi. 8, 1x. 12. And without a 
 question, such usage, implying a suppressed negative answer, 
 is prevalent. Compare Luke xxiii. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 7, xiii. 4; 
 Gall ai. 33; Philos, 18, iy 17 3° VDimeid 15, 163" Vigeruss 
 De Idiotismis, cap. viii. §1. A singularly acute paper on ovd« 
 ara 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—daAd\d—but as the church is subject to 
 Christ— 
 
 ovTwS Kal ai yuvaixes Tois avdpdow év Tavti (bmoTtaccéc- 
 Qwcav)—“so let the wives be subject to their husbands in 
 everything.” “Idéots, which in the Received Text stands before 
 avopdow, is properly rejected from the text. The words év 
 mdvrTt 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 
 
424 EPHESIANS V. 25. 
 
 law of marital government is a voyos dypados. Even the 
 heathen poets, as may be seen in the following quotations from 
 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— 
 
 "Ayadas yuvaimes éorw, tect 
 
 My? xpeirrov civas 7 avOpis, HAA vornxooy. 
 
 Their images are humiliating— 
 
 Ta devregeta ryv yuvaina dev Ayer, 
 
 and the feminine consciousness both of weakness and degrada- 
 tion occasionally breaks out— 
 
 "AAD ewosiv x67) roto puny, yuvaiy ors 
 "EQuuev, ws wpb avdpas ob waroumeva. 
 
 (Ver. 25.) Ot dvdpes, ayaTrate Tas yvvatxas éavTov—" 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., as F and G, read 
 vuov instead. But there is not sufficient ground to reject it. 
 As wives are summoned to obedience, so husbands are com- 
 manded 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, 
 
EPHESIANS V. 26. 425 
 
 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— 
 
 Kabeos kal 0 Xpiotds nyarnoey Thy éexxAnolav— as also 
 Christ loved the church.” For xaos, see 1. 4, and xabas nai 
 iv. 32 and v. 2; and for éxx«Anola, 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 2d 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— 
 
 Kal éavTov Tapédwxev bTrép advTAs—“ and gave Himself for 
 her.” This phraseology has also occurred in the 2d 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 adtiy dyidon, KaBapicas TO ovTPO Tod 
 
 
 
436 EPHESIANS Y. 26. 
 
 Bdatos év pnuati—‘ 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 d@yos under i. 1, will serve so far to explain the 
 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. 11.11. Calvin, Beza, Harless, and 
 Meier take the verb in the former sense. Others, such as 
 Piscator, Rickert, 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 ceili 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 éavré or TO Ged 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 
 guilt. It is true that dyidfm is used in the Septuagint for 
 the Hebrew—») (Eixod. 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, &c., xi. 11, 12. 
 See Delitzsch n loc. Comment. zum B. an die Hebréer, p. 71, 
 and Bleek in loc., Der B. an die Hebriier, who hold our view. 
 Moreover, if xaapicas 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 ayudon. 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 ayidon 
 from xa@apioas, as if the last were the negative and the first 
 the positive aspect of the idea. The distinction is baseless, 
 
EPHESIANS V. 26. 427 
 
 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—xa@apioas being a 
 further definition of dyidéon. Hofmann, loc. cit., connects Kada- 
 picas immediately with iva wapactjon, but very needlessly. 
 This exegesis is as baseless as is the Syriac version and our 
 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, pre- 
 fers indem—*“ since that.” The meaning is not different, if 
 the participle be thus supposed to contain a _pre-existent 
 cause. 
 
 The idea expressed by ca@apicas is that of purification, and 
 its nature is to be learned from the following terms expressive 
 of instrumentality. That the phrase t@ AovTp@ Tod bdatos 
 refers to the rite of baptism, is the general and correct opinion, 
 the genitive being that of material, and the dative that of instru- 
 ment, while the two articles express the recognized prominence 
 as well of the water as of the laver. But as the entire para- 
 graph 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—)outpov vuudixov. Bos (Ezercitat. p. 186), Elsner, 
 Wetstein, Flatt, Bengel, Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, and 
 Stier, concur in the same representation. The washing of 
 water in baptism was the sacrament expressive of purification. 
 Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16; Heb. x. 22. Baptism is called Xourpov 
 maduyyevesias—“the laver of regeneration,” a phrase farther 
 explained by the following words—dvaxawocews tvevparos 
 ayiou—“ the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Tit. iii. 5. 
 
 But the additional words, év pias, 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 
 
428 EPHESIANS V. 26. 
 
 the church. Schriftb. vol. 11. 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 phate pyot; then he puts the question, zroi@ ? “in what 
 word ?” and his ready answer is, “ In the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But it is not at all 
 probable that f7jua should stand for dvoua ; and if it did, we 
 should expect, as Harless intimates, to have it emphasized 
 with an article prefixed. Nor has the word such a significa- 
 tion in any other portion of the New Testament. 
 
 II. Semler would strike out the words altogether ; Michaelis 
 would regard fjua as a Pauline Cilicism for fedua; while 
 Ernesti and Koppe, imitated by Stolz, join the words éy 
 pnuate wa together, and suppose that they stand for the 
 Hebrew formula—rex 127 y—“ in order that.” The Seventy, 
 however, never so render the Hebrew idiom, but translate it 
 by é&vexev. Gen. xx. 6,11; Num. xvi. 49; Ps. xliv. 6. 
 
 Ill. Some join év fjyare to the verb dysdon— 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 b, a. But the position of éy prjare at the 
 very end of the verse, forbids such an exegesis. It is a 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 pyuate is joined to To 
 houTp® Tov datos, 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 signification. 
 The common argument against this and similar constructions, 
 to wit, that the article should have been repeated before év 
 pyar, has many exceptions, though in such a proposed con- 
 struction its insertion would appear to be necessary :— 
 
EPHESIANS V. 26. 429 
 
 1. Augustine (Zractatus 1xxx. in Johannem), Estius, Bodius, 
 Roéll, Crellius, Slichtingius, Flatt, Holzhausen, and the critics 
 generally who are enumerated under No. IV., take pia 
 as signifying the gospel. Augustine says—accedit verbum 
 ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. Sacramento simul et fidet, 
 says Estius; or again, aque baptismo per verbum evangelit 
 ereditum ac fide susceptum mundat. Bodius writes—verbum 
 ut diploma, sacramentum ut sigillum. These meanings give 
 év an unwonted sense of “ along with, or by means of.” Had 
 the apostle meant to say that the efficacy of baptism hes in 
 faith in the word, surely other language wonld have been 
 employed. The view of Knapp (Vorlesungen iiber die Christ. 
 Glaubenslehre, ii. § 140) is of the same nature, and is liable 
 to similar objections. ‘The Word,” he says, “is the evan- 
 gelical 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 Det visibile.” 
 
 2. Others look on pia as denotive of divine agency in 
 baptism. This was Luther’s view, as expressed in his Smaller 
 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 caplicatur. . . In verbo tantum valet atque 
 per 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 éy 
 pypare might have been expected. Olshausen looks upon év 
 phate as equivalent to év Ivedwatc— 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 
 not 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 7d 
 Aovtp~—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 pha the sense of mandate—prescriptum. 
 
430 EPHESIANS V. 27. 
 
 “The apostle,” says Peile, “declares water-baptism to be 
 the divinely-instituted sign or sacrament whereby men are 
 regenerated.” This notion gives év the strange sense of “in 
 conformity to.” 
 
 V. and lastly. Others, such as Bengel, Matthies, and Har- 
 less, join the words év pyar with xabapicas. To this opinion 
 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 
 pnuea 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 dia; and by pha 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 7T@ Aovtpe@ in the simple dative 
 may denote the instrument (Bernhardy, p. 100) ; and év pjyare 
 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 pro- 
 perly 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 trapacticn adtos éavTt@ évdoEov tiv éxKNy- 
 olav— in order that He might present, Himself to Himself, 
 the church glorious.” Avrds, supported by the authority of 
 
EPHESIANS V. 27. 431 
 
 A, B, D!, F, G, L, and many versions and Fathers, is decidedly 
 to be preferred to the adrjv 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 iva as 
 co-ordinate, The allusion is still to a nuptial ceremony, and 
 to the presentation of the bride to her husband—avtos—éauTo. 
 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 éav7@ would be out of place 
 in the theory of Harless—Jesus presenting an oblation to Him- 
 self! The word wapactjon occurs with a similar meaning 
 in 2 Cor. xi. 2—“ that I may present you as a chaste virgin 
 to Christ.” Adtds—éavré—He and none other presents the 
 bride, and He and none other receives her to HtMsELF. No 
 inferior agency is permitted; a proof in itself, as well as His 
 ‘ death, of His love to the church. ”Evdo£ov—“ glorious ;’’ the 
 epithet being a tertiary predicate and emphatic in position. 
 Donaldson, § 489. The same idea occurs in Rey. 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— 
 
 pay Exoveav orrirov, 7) putioa, } Te TOY ToLoUTev—“ having 
 neither spot, or wrinkle, or any one of such things.” =7i- 
 dos, which ought to be spelled with a simple accent—ozridos 
 (aomtdos forming a dactyle), is a stain or blemish, and is one 
 of the words of the later Greeks. 2 Pet. ii. 13. Aéye d€ xnXris, 
 as the older attic term, says Phrynicus, (p. 28.) ‘Puris 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 
 
432 EPHESIANS V. 27. 
 
 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 reliquiw peccatorum ut pravae inclinationis, motus 
 involuntarti et multiplicis ignorantie. Not only negatively 
 but positively — 
 
 aX’ va h ayia Kal duwpmos— but that she should be 
 holy and without blemish.” One might have expected aX’ 
 odaay, but it is as if wa pi éyn omdov had stood in the 
 previous clause. The syntax is thus changed, no uncommon 
 occurrence in Greek composition, as may be seen in John vii. 
 53; Rom. xii. 1,2. On the oratio variata, compare Winer, 
 § 63, 2,1; Kiihner, § 844. The syntactic change here, with 
 the repetition of tva 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 real- 
 ized. 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 28. 433 
 
 phrase—‘ redemption of the purchased possession,” i. 14.) 
 Augustine and Jerome among the Fathers, Primasius, Bernard, 
 and Thomas Aquinas among scholastic divines, along with 
 Estius, 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 
 church as a species of present operation. The loose language 
 of the Greek commentators seems to intimate that they held 
 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.) Odtrws kai ot dvdpes dpethovow ayaray Tas 
 EAUTOV YUVaikas, MS TA EavTaY Topata— 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 obras 
 carries us back to «a@os, 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, 
 2F 
 
434 EPHESIANS V. 28. 
 
 and Alford, to make it refer to #s 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 oftws takes up the 
 comparison between the husband and Christ, the wife and the 
 church. “Thus,” that is, in imitation of Christ’s love, ‘hus- 
 bands 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 
 oUTws, in reference to pracedentia. ‘There is no 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 os 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 argu- 
 ment. 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 i love her as being his body. | 
 And therefore— 
 
 0 ayarav THY éavTodD 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 
 Clase 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. 
 
EPHESIANS VY. 29. 435 
 
 (Ver. 29.) Ovdels yap wore tiv éavtod capka éwionoev— 
 “For nobody ever hated his own flesh ;” (fools and fanatics 
 excepted). This isa general law of nature. Eccl. vi. 7. Tap 
 is argumentative, and cdp£ is used by the apostle rather than 
 aa@ua, 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 
 one’s self.” Every one loves his own flesh, and in harmony 
 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, 
 
 GrXa extpéger kal Odrrev adriv—“ but nourisheth and 
 cherisheth it.” “Exaoros 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—éex—referring to result; and the latter literally to 
 supply warmth, but really and generally to cherish—more 
 than Bengel’s—¢d 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. 
 
 Kaas kal 6 Xpictos THY éxxrAnoiav—“ as also Christ the 
 church.” On the authority of A, B, D', K, F, G, the Syriac, 
 and Vulgate, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, Xpuorés is the 
 preferable reading to Kvpvos, 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 nowrishes the church 
 by his Spirit, and clothes it with virtues.” Something more, 
 therefore, than food and clothing is demanded from the hus- 
 band to the wife; he is to give her love and loyalty, honour 
 
436 EPHESIANS V. 30. 
 
 and support. As Christ nourishes and cherishes His church, 
 and as every man nourishes and cherishes his own flesh 5 so 
 the bidding of nature and the claim of religious duty should 
 lead the husband to nourish and cherish his wife. 
 
 (Ver. 30.) “Ore pwédn éopev tod copatos avTod, éx THs 
 capkos avTov, Kal éx TOV doTéwy ad’tod— 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 672; but they are 
 found in D, H, F, G, K, L, almost all MSS., in Chrysostom 
 and 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 opuovotéXevtov ; avToD . . . avTod, 
 or because they 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 c@ma the actual personal 
 body of Jesus—the body of His glorified humanity. But in 
 what sense are or can we be members—péAyn—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 con- 
 jugal duties, and he has, in subordination to this, introduced 
 Christ and His church as bridegroom and bride; therefore 
 his mind reverts naturally to the imagery and language of the 
 original matrimonial institute, and so he adds—“ we are mem- 
 
 bers of His flesh and of His bones.” Gen. ii. 23.1 The argu- 
 
 1 It is too cold an interpretation, whereby some men expound our being in Christ 
 to import nothing else, but only that the self-same 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 in His church, 
 as by nature we are in those our first parents. God made Eve of the rib of 
 
EPHESIANS VY. 30. 437 
 
 ment 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.” What is really meant by 
 the striking phraseology has been a subject of no little dispute. 
 
 1. Cajetan, Vatablus, Calovius, Bullinger, Vorstius, Grotius, 
 Zanchius, and Zachariae, refer the words to the origin of the 
 church from the flesh and bones of Christ, nailed to the cross, 
 and there presented to God. Such an idea is neither prominent 
 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 Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, @icumenius, Bengel, 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. (cumenius says 
 —€£ avtod Sé xa0d arrapy) par, ote THs Sevtépas TAdTEwS 
 aomep €x TOU Addy Oia Thy TpeTnv. 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 inter- 
 pretation 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 
 
 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, 
 
438 EPHESIANS V. 30. 
 
 a reference to that identity of nature which Christ and His 
 
 people possess. ‘They are partakers of one humanity. Chry- 
 sostom and Theophylact also give this view; Irenzeus, Augus- 
 tine, 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 objec- 
 tion is, that this simple community of nature 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 (the- 
 anthropic) 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, “Inthe 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 consubstan- 
 tiation, 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 insti- 
 
 tute, 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 expres- 
 sion 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 con- 
 
EPHESIANS V. 31. 439 
 
 jugal duties which he is inculeating in the parargraph 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 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 tovtov, katareiper dvOpwtros Tov Tatépa 
 avTov Kal THY uNTépa, Kal TpoTKOAAHOHGETAL Tpos THY yUvaiKa 
 avtTod, Kal évovtat ot Svo els cdpka 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 zy, as well as avtod, but the longer 
 reading has A, D?®, EK, 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 pos tv yuvaica found in B, D*, E, K, 
 L, 7H yvvacxi is read in D1, 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. "Av@pw7os is without the article (not used for drnp), 
 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, 
 § 46,6. The Septuagint has &vexev tovtov changed by the 
 apostle into av7i tovrov “on this account” (Winer, § 47, a; 
 Donaldson, § 474, d, a), and these words are in this place no 
 introduction to the quotation, but simply a portion of it; and, 
 
AA() EPHESIANS V. 31. 
 
 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 lan- 
 guage 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 lan- 
 guage has been directly applied to Christ. Jerome’s interpreta- 
 tion is the following :—primus homo et primus vates Adam hoc 
 de Christo et ecclesia prophetavit; quod reliquerit Dominus 
 noster atque Salvator patrem suum Deum et matrem suam ceeles- 
 tem Jerusalem, et venerit ad terras propter suum corpus eccle- 
 stam, et de suo eam latere fabricatus sit et propter illam Verbum 
 caro factum sit. Such is the view of Heinsius, Balduin, Ben- 
 gel, Bisping, who explains wntépa by die synagogue, 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, there- 
 fore, 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,’ &c.4 Such an exegesis, which may be found 
 also in Jeremy Taylor’s sermon of The Marriage Ring, 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 
 
 1 “ Deshalb, weil wir Glieder Christi, yon seinen Fleisch und von seinen Beinen 
 sind, 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) wnd vereiniget werden mit seinen Weibe (mit der Gemeinde), 
 und (und dann) werden die Zwei (der Mann und die Frau, d. i. der herabgestiegene 
 Christus und die Gemeinde) zw Hinem Fleische sein.” Der Brief an die Epheser, p. 
 234. Géttingen, 1853. 
 
EPHESIANS V. 31. 44] 
 
 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. 1. 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 Olshausen, who conceive in the phrase a 
 reference to the Lord’s Supper, and Olshausen illustrates his 
 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 sur- 
 mounted 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 fire’’— 
 “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 
 
 1 “ They are one now, and one for ever: he is greater than Omnipotence who 
 can rend that tie; that ‘marriage was made in heaven!’ Alone—it was in the 
 
442 EPHESIANS V. 32. 
 
 doctrine of marriage must have excited surprise when divorce 
 was of scandalous frequency by an action of drondevlus or 
 aroreuyis in Grecian states, and with less formality under 
 the emperors in the West, by diffarreatio and remancipatio. 
 See Harless, thik, § 52, and his Die Eheschetdungsfrage. 
 Eine erneute Versuch der Neut. Schriftstellen. 1860. 
 
 (Ver. 32.) To puotipiov todTo péya éotiv, éyo Sé eyo 
 
 2a) byr: x eed NEY 9 / aa : : 
 
 els Xptotov Kat els Ti éxkdAynolav— This mystery is a great 
 one, but I speak concerning Christ and concerning the church.” 
 Mvornypiov is rendered in the Vulgate sacramentum, and the 
 Popish church regards marriage as one of its sacraments.' 
 Cajetan and Hstius, 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 
 conjugium esse sacramentum. Non enim diwit, esse sacramen- 
 tum, sed mysterium. Bisping more guardedly says that the 
 sacramental character of marriage cannot be proved directly 
 and immediately. rasmus is yet more cautious. Neque nego 
 matrimonium esse sacramentum, sed an ex hoc loco docert possit 
 proprie dict sacramentum quemadmodum baptismus dicitur, 
 excuti volo. 'The phrase trax, ‘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 
 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. 
 
 1 Council of Trent, Sess. 24. 
 
 2 Yet in an encyclical letter in 1832 occurs the statement—‘ Marriage is, accord- 
 ing to St. Paul’s expression, a great sacrament in Christ and in the church.” 
 
EPHESIANS V. 32. 443 
 
 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 rovro? 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 Har- 
 less, Olshausen, and others, take the last clause, “ they two 
 shall be one flesh,” as referring to Christ and His church, 
 say 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 uvorjpiov 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 rhs 
 aicOrjcews 0 vos, Tay avTH SovAwOh, Katariry Kal Tov TaTépa, 
 Tov ddNov Geo, Kal THY ENTEpa TOY GUpTaYT@Y, THY apeTV Kal 
 copiav Tov Oeod, Kal TpotKkoddGTar Kal évodTat TH aicOynoe, 
 Kat avanverat els aicOnow, iva yivevta pla cape, kal &v 7d0os, 
 ot dvo. “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 exter- 
 nal sensation, so that the two become one flesh and one pas- 
 sion.” 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 
 pvotnpsov 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 
 
444 EPHESIANS V. 32. 
 
 interpret it as havmg reference to Christ;” a paraphrase as 
 untenable as that of Grotius—verba ista explicavi vobis non 
 kata 706as, sed sensu pvotixc@tépo. But Scripture affords us 
 no warrant for such notions ; nor is such allegorization any por- 
 tion of the apostle’s hermeneutics. 4. Hofmann, loc. c7t., 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 the clause, “ they two shall be one 
 flesh ;”’ or rather to the special image which that clause illus- 
 trates, 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 relationship, 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 application guarding against mistake. The meaning 
 of pvortjpov the reader will find under i. 9. The word is 
 used in the same sense as here in vi. 19; 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 
 éy@ 5€é Néyw eis Xptorov Kal eis THY exxdAynolav—* 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 5é is not simply explicative, but has also an adver- 
 sative meaning, as if the writer supposed in his mind that the 
 phraseology employed by him might be interpreted in another 
 and different way. Aéyq, introducing an explanation, is fol- 
 lowed by the eds of reference (von der Richtung, Winer, § 48), as 
 in Acts 1. 25; and €AdAnoev has a similar complement in Heb. 
 vil. 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 
 
EPHESIANS V. 33. 445 
 
 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 con- 
 jugal 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 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, Ixi. 10; Ezek. xvi. 8. The 
 same imagery is found in 2 Cor. xi. 2, and in the conclusion 
 of the Apocalypse. 
 
 (Ver. 33.) [Dj Kai tpels ot ka? Eva, Exactos tiv éavtod 
 yuvaika ots wyaTatw ws éavrov—“ Nevertheless also as to 
 every one of you, let each love his wife as himself.” The 
 word 7A does not indicate, as Bengel, Harless, and Ols- 
 hausen wrongly suppose, any return from a digression. The 
 preceding verses are no digression, but an interlinked and 
 extended illustration. As Meyer insists, 7Ajv means, “ yet 
 apart from this;” that is, apart from this illustration of the 
 conjugal relationship of Christ to His church. The term, 
 therefore does not indicate a return after a formal digression, 
 but rather a return to the starting thought. The «ai 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. Oc «a@’ 
 éva. 1 Cor. xiv. 27-31; Jelf, § 629; Winer, § 49, a. The 
 verb ayardtw is singular, agreeing with écacros and not 
 tpets—a mode of construction which individualizes and inten- 
 sifies the injunction. 
 
 K os éavtov—“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.” 
 
446 EPHESIANS V. 33. 
 
 7 Sé yurn wa Porat tov avdpa—“ 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, 2. In such an idiom yur}, 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 
 vil. 40, and that is all we meant to say. Aé may be slightly 
 adversative, the conjugal duties being in contrast. The verb 
 to be supplied, and on which, in the mind of the writer, 
 iva depends, is furnished by the context (Meyer on 2 Cor. 
 vil. 7, and Osiander on the same place), as, “I command,” 
 or, “let her see.” In such a case dzras is used by the classical 
 writers. Raphelius, Annotat. 488. The wife is to reverence 
 her husband—numquam enim ert voluntaria subjectio nisi 
 precedat reverentia. Calvin. One peculiarity in this injunction 
 has been usually overlooked. What is instinctive on either 
 side is not enforced, but what is necessary to direct and hal- 
 low 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—p2) Sovdomperds. 
 Heumenius. ‘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 yield- 
 ing 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. xv. 
 
CHAP. VI. 
 
 Tae 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, braxovere Tots yovedow bud év Kupip 
 —“Children, obey your parents in the Lord”—that is, “in 
 Christ.” The words év Kupé@ 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 yovedow—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 ; uni- 
 versal, and not capricious in its choice of parental precepis. 
 
 TobTo yap éotw Sixavov— for this is right;” the vd éped- 
 kvotiKov in éotw, and other similar verbal forms being a 
 
448 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 Meod vouov—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— 
 dice Sixavoy, 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.) Tiwa tov matépa cov Kai thy pntépa— Honour 
 thy father and thy mother ”’—a quotation from the fifth com- 
 mandment—yoxny yurny we. Exod. xx. 12;% Deut. v. 16. 
 This citation does not, as Harless supposes, give the ground 
 of the preceding injunction, for d/kavoy 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. ii1., Op. ed. Gihler. 
 
 iris €otly évtod) mpotn év érraryryedia— for such is,” or “ as 
 it is the first command with promise;” #rus giving expla- 
 nation, or expressing reason. Winer, § 48, a. Some critics 
 give mporos 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 
 
 
 
 ee 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 2. 449 
 
 cannot surely be deemed absolutely the most important which 
 God has ordained with promise. Matt. xxii. 38, 39; Rom. 
 xii. 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 77p@rn as meaning first in a certain position; and 
 the last affirms that évrod7 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. xi. 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 separ- 
 ately, 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 rpern with éy 
 érrayyenia, and render— which is the first command with a 
 promise,” év 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. 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 govern- 
 ment, and that this is really, therefore, the earliest or first of 
 the ten commands with a promise—first, as Chrysostom says, 
 not 7H Ta&er adda TH errayyedia. It has been objected that 
 there is only one command with a promise in the decalogue, 
 and that the apostle, if he thought of the decalogue alone, 
 would have said, not the “ first,’ but the “ only ” command 
 with promise. MHarless says that “ first” refers to what pre- 
 cedes, not to what follows; and Meyer suggests that Paul 
 
 included in his reckoning, not the decalogue alone, but other 
 26 
 
450 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 coe yévnta Kal éon paxpoyovios ért Tis 
 yis—“ That it may be well with thee, and that thou be long- 
 lived on the earth.” The quotation is from the Septuagint 
 version of Ex. xx. 12, but somewhat varied—y pm pow ys) 
 3. 7) PHY mr-wy now — the words omitted being — rijs 
 ayabAs hs Kupios 0 @eds cou Sidwai 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—xai a paxpoypovios yévyn. It had 
 been affirmed by Erasmus, and has been reasserted by Winer 
 (§ 41, b 1) and De Wette, that the apostle drops the construc- 
 tion with iva and uses éoy in the simple future. We agree 
 with Meyer, that there is no genuine grammatical ground for 
 separating éoy from iva, since the apostle has in some instances 
 connected fva with the future (1 Cor. ix. 18), and there isa 
 change of construction similar to that which this verse presents, 
 in the Apocalypse, xxi. 14. Klotz-Devarius, vol. 11. 630.1 
 The future é>y stands here in its proper significance, but still 
 connected with va; 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 wellbeing, and 
 this being the case, “ thou shalt live long on the earth.” The 
 
 1 A similar construction with ¢7#s occurs in classical Greek. Dawes indeed laid 
 it down as a rule that rw: 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. 451 
 
 longevity is the result and development of its being well 
 with thee. 
 
 Maxpoypovos 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 péculiar 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 
 land 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 pur- 
 pose 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 
 pakpoxpovios 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 pro- 
 nounces 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 alter- 
 native, 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 commandment because he 
 presumed that his readers were well acquainted with it—a 
 
452 EPHESIANS VI. 3. 
 
 presumption we can scarcely admit in 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 appli- 
 cable 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, ubi 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 pro- 
 vidence 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 
 1. 3 the reader will find a reference to the place which tem- 
 poral blessings occupy under the Christian economy. Godli- 
 ness has “ the promise of the life which now is.” Matt. vi. 25, 
 &c.; Mark x. 29, &e. 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 will be long, guoad sufficienttam— 
 for obtaining salvation ; or as in the maxim, sat viait diu, 
 quem nec pudet vixisse, nec piget mori. 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, 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 4. 453 
 
 “'The fear of the lord prolongeth days, but the years of the 
 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 snd 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. Cicumenius says—ri yap d0Tepov 
 Talat THS “waKpoxpovias ? 
 
 (Ver. 4.) Kai of rratépes, un mapopyitere ta Téxva buaov— 
 “ 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, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Robinson, Wahl, and Bretschneider erroneously hold 
 it. Ilarépes can scarcely be supposed to change its significa- 
 tion from that which it bears in the 2d verse, and why should 
 the apostle not have employed yovets, as in the Ist verse ? 
 Fathers are here singled out, not, as Riickert wrongly holds, 
 because mothers were in no high position in the East. Prov. 
 xxxi. 10, &c. 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 
 
454. EPHESIANS VI. 4. 
 
 to the education of adolescent children, which, from the nature 
 of the case, belongs to fathers 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 Chrysostom remarks, He does not say—love 
 them—rtodTo yap Kal axdvtoy avtav » va érioTatat. 
 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 zrapopyif@ signifies to irritate—to throw into a 
 passion. See under iv.*26. In Col. iii. 21 the apostle uses 
 épeOifere—“ 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 treatment, 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— 
 
 GAG extpépete adTa év Tradela Kal vovOecia Kupiov— 
 “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 physi- 
 cal support. Iadée/a may not signify discipline in itself, 
 but rather the entire circuit of education and upbringing 
 which a zraés requires, and of which discipline is the necessary 
 and prominent element. The sense of chastisement was taken 
 from the Hebrew -5», which it represents in the Septuagint. 
 Lev. xxvi. 18; Ps. vi. 1; Isa. liti. 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. Nov@eola (vovbérnois being the earlier 
 form—Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 512), as several expositors have 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 4. 455 
 
 remarked, is one special element or aspect of the vadela. It 
 denotes, as the composition of the word indicates, “ putting 
 in mind, admonition, or formal instruction.” Job iv. 3; Rom. 
 xv. 14; Col. i. 28; 1 Thess. v. 12 ; 2 Thess. iii. 15; Plutarch, 
 De Cohib. Ira, 2; Xenophon, Mem. i. 2,21. Jerome says— 
 admontionem magis et*eruditionem quam austeritatem sonat. 
 Trench, Synon. § 32. Koppe, as usual, makes the two words 
 synonymous. ‘lhe philological commentators, such as Kypke, 
 adduce some peculiar phraseology from the classical writers, 
 but not with great pertinence, such as from Plutarch —oi pa8Soe 
 vovietovot, and from Josephus—pdotiEw vovereiv. 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—nn2im om— the rod and reproof.” The 
 genitive Kupiou belongs to both substantives, 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 Krasmus, Beza, 
 Kstius, 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.0s or pic OwTos, and is opposed in verse 8 to the €AevHepos. 
 Slavery existed in all the cities of Ionia and Asia Minor, and 
 
456 EPHESIANS VI. 4. 
 
 in many of them slaves were greatly more numerous than 
 freemen.’ In fact, the larger proportion of artisans and manu- 
 facturers, and in general of the industrial classes, were in 
 bondage. There is little doubt that very many of these bond- 
 men 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— 
 €pioupyovs Kal oKUTOTOMoUS Kal Kvadeis—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 kind- 
 ness 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 €uuvyov dpyavov—a tool with 
 a soul in it; and the Roman law had sternly told him he had 
 no rights, guia nullum caput habet—because he was not a per- 
 son. He may have been placed on the rpatip AOos—“ the auc- 
 tion block,” and sold like a chattel to the highest bidder; the 
 brand—oréya, 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 rest; there 
 
 1 Ample information on this subject may be found in such writers on Greek 
 antiquities as Wachsmuth, Béckh, and Becker; in Reitermeier’s Geschichte der 
 Sclaverei in Griechenland, Berlin, 1789; and in Histoire de V'Esclavage dans 
 T Antiquité, par F, Wallon, Paris, 1847. 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 5. 457 
 
 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 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 cheer- 
 fulness 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. 11. 22; 
 Titus 11. 9; The apostle Peter also refers to it in 1st Ep. ii. 18. 
 
 (Ver. 5.) Ot Sodd00, braxovete Tois Kuplows KaTa odpKa. 
 “Slaves, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh.” 
 The phrase cata cdpxa, though the article be not repeated, 
 qualifies xuplows, and so some MSS. such as A, B, read trois 
 KaTa capka Kupiots, imitating Col. ii. 22. Koppe, Olshausen, 
 and Meyer suppose in the phrase a tacit contrast to a—xvpuos 
 kata mvetpa. 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 capa plainly denotes 
 a corporeal or external relationship. 1 Cor. 1. 26; 2 Cor. v. 
 16, &c. 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 dec7rote/a tpdc- 
 Katpos Kal 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.” 
 
458 EPHESIANS VI. 5. 
 
 Not less an inference is the thought of Calvin, “ mitigat quod 
 potutsset esse nimis asperum in statu servili.” If the relation 
 of master and slave be only cata cdpxa, 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. ven 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 refrac- 
 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 (Zp. 47) had led him to say—Arrogantie proverbium 
 est, totidem esse hostes quod servos. Non habemus illos hostes, 
 sed facimus. ‘The apostle urges this obedience to be— 
 
 peta PoBov Kat Tpowov— 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 wera indicates that such emotions were to be the 
 regular accompaniments of obedience :— 
 
 év amnoTnTe THS Kapdias budv—in singleness of your 
 heart.”” While nerd 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 ; dadods, quasi plicis carens. Tittmann, De Syn., 
 
 p. 28; Beck, Seelend. p. 166; Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. viii. 2, 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 6. 459 
 
 ix. 11; Jamesi. 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 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 bedone— 
 
 @s TO Xpicto—“ as to Christ;” the dative governed by 
 the verb bvaxovere. 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.) Mi car’ ofOarpodovrciav, es avOpwrdpecxor— 
 “Not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers;” xara, 
 Winer, § 49, a. 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, 42) @s dbOadpddovdo0s aXN ws PidodecrroTos. 
 Apostol. Const. iv. 12, p. 98, ed. Ultzen, 1853. The second 
 noun belongs to the later Greek. Ps. lit. 5; Lobeck ad Phryn. 
 p- 621. Eye-service is labour when the master is present, but 
 relaxation and sloth so soon as he is gone, labour only—rT@ 
 oynpuatt. Theophylact. Need we add that this is a vice 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 inducement, 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’ as Sodhot Xprcrod—“ but as the slaves of Christ” — 
 His by peculiar purchase and special proprietorship. The 
 article in the Received Text before Xpuorod is struck out on 
 the authority of A, B, D4, F, G, &c. 
 
460 EPHESIANS VI. 6. 
 
 TovoovTes TO OEAnua Tod Ocod ex wuyjs—“ 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 
 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« yuyijs has been disputed. Numer- 
 ous 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 Gicu- 
 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. ii. 23. 
 The phrase é« Wuyfs 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 é« yuyfs be joined to 
 the next verse, its first clause will then have the aspect of 
 tautology, €« yruyis, per’ evvolas Sovrevovtes. Had there 
 been a xaié connecting the two nouns, this exegesis might 
 have had some probability. Harless distinguishes the two 
 nouns thus, that é« yruyfs points out the relation of the 
 servant to his work, and pert’ edvodas characterizes the relation 
 
 J 
 
: EPHESIANS VI. 8. 461 
 
 of the servant to his master. See Passow, Liddell and Scott, 
 and Pape, sub vocibus ; Xenophon, Gconom. p. 673; Cyrop. 
 iii. p. 54; Elsner, i. p. 228. But though such a distinction 
 be 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« wuyijs speaks 
 of work to be done, and that cordially ; while the next clause, 
 to which per’ edvoias 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.) Mev’ edvolas SovNevovtes—“ 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— 
 
 as T® Kupio, kai ovk avOpetrois— as to the Lord, and not 
 to men ;” the phrase being in contrast with “ men-pleasers.” 
 The particle os, not found in the Received Text, is now right- 
 fully inserted, on the authority of A, B, D1, 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 hard- 
 ships of their condition would be greatly lightened. Menander 
 has also said—édevbépws Sovreve, Soros ovK &an—“‘ 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 quota- 
 tion by Stier, “ when a servant-maid sweeps out a room, she 
 can do a work in God.’’? 
 
 Ver. 8.) Etédres 67 6 day tt Exactos roujon ayabov, TodTO 
 KouicetatTrapa K upiov, ele SovNos, el Te EXeUOepos— Knowing,” 
 
 1 “ 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.” 
 
462 - EPHESIANS VI. 9. 
 
 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, &e., reads 
 dt Exactos 0 édv trownon; 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 vv are separated by a tmesis, and édy stands after the rela- 
 tive for av. Winer, § 42, 6, Obs. Instead of couicetar, which 
 is supported by A, B, D*, F, G, the Stephanic text has 
 Komvetrat, on What appears to be the minor authority of D4, 
 K, K, L, and the texts of Basil and Chrysostom. The 
 received Text has the article tod before Kupéov, but without 
 sufficient evidence. Todro, “this,” and not something else, the 
 verb being in the middle, and really meaning “ shall receive 
 back for himself.”? Col. iii. 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, ct xipiot, Ta abta roeite mpos avTobs— 
 “And, ye masters, do the same things toward them.” Ka/ 
 indicates an immediate connection, for the duties were recip- 
 rocal. ‘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 char- 
 acter, because aman may so easily wrong them with impunity. 
 
 1 Aicdnros yee 6 pices xol on TAnoTis cECOV Thy Dizny, Miordiv DE BvTwS FO LDdixoy Ev TodTOIs 
 raiv dvOedray ev o1s adra pediov odizeiv.—Plato, Leges, lib. vi. Opera, vol. viii. p. 245; 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 9. 463 
 
 The apostle had stooped to the slave, and he was not afraid 
 to speak with erect attitude to the master. The masters are 
 summoned to do the same things—ra avrd—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 
 earmest, 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 evvo/a already recommended. Many other commentators 
 confine and enfeeble the meaning, by specifying too minutely 
 the reference of ra avrd. The Greek commentators refer the 
 words at once to douvrevorTes 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’’—dAW ovx« eizre, SovdeveTE, KalTOL YE 
 elT@V Ta aUTa TOTO édyjAwoe. Flatt restricts the reference to 
 doing the will of God, that is, “so demean yourselves towards 
 your slaves, that ye accomplish in reference to them the will 
 of God.’’ De Wette refers to the clause 70 @yaov rrovetv in 
 ver. 8, as if there were a paraphrastic allusion to the rv 
 
 a / 1 
 toOTHTA. 
 
 ed. Bekker, London, 1826. (Macrobius, Saturnalia i. cap. 11, vol. i. p. 144; ed. 
 Bipont.) 
 
 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 
 
464 EPHESIANS VI. 9. 
 
 avievtes THY atrecdjv— forbearing threatening.” Chrysos- 
 tom, Calvin, Harless, and Baumgarten, take these words too 
 vaguely, as if, sub una 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. ’AzretA7 is a feature 
 of mastership so well known, that the apostle defines it as 
 7 atevkn—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 instru- 
 ment 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— 
 ‘“‘yemember your slaves are men,” says Cato; but Lactantius 
 goes further, and adds what Cato’s pen would have shrunk 
 from—eos et habemus et dicimus spiritu fratres religione con- 
 servos. And this is the motive— ; 
 
 elooTes OTL Kal ad’Tov Kal buav o Kupids éotiv év ovpavois 
 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 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. 
 
EPUESIANS VI. 10. 465 
 
 —“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 adray tov, and L has tpuev 
 kat avtav. The readings have arisen from homoioteleuton 
 and other causes. Tlie 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 capri- 
 cious 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 tem- 
 porary 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 ? 
 
 Kal TpocwoToAnupla ovK éott Tap avTa@— 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—vy xv. In the New 
 Testament the word is always used with a bad sense. Matt. 
 xxii. 16; Mark xii. 14; James ii. 1, &c. 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 Aowrdv, aderpol wou— In conclusion, my 
 brethren ”—a reading of far higher authority than Tod Aourod, 
 adopted by Lachmann after A and B, and meaning— hence- 
 
 forward.” Madvig, § 66. It is as if he said, What remains 
 2H 
 
466 EPHESIANS VI. 10. 
 
 for me to tell you but this? The address, adedqpot 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 the 
 patristic writers. They seem to have been introduced from 
 other passages where they occur in connection with To Nouzrov. 
 2 Cor, amy TL} Phil, ii), ive Seed Thess: ives 22 hese. 
 iii. 1. Olshausen says, that the apostle never in this epistle 
 addresses his reader by such an appellation as ader¢od, 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 Preetorium 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 
 exliv.; 2 Cor. x.4; 1 Thess. v. 8. The primary charge to 
 the spiritual militia is— 
 
 évouvamodabe év Kupio Kai év T@ Kpadret THs taxvos 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. lii. 7, and in Acts ix 22; Rom. iv. 20; 2 Tim. 
 ii. 1; Heb. xi. 834. “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. u. 13, 
 iv. 13. The second clause—«xai—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. More- 
 over, soldiers have an invincible courage when they have con- 
 fidence in the skill and bravery of their leader ; and the power 
 of His might, in which they are strong, has proved its vigour 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 11. 467 
 
 in routing the same foes which they are summoned to encoun- 
 ter. 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— 
 
 (Ver. 11.) ’Evdtcac9e tiv TravorXiav Tod Ocod— 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, Ilavom)/a is 
 complete armour, as the name implies. Luke xi, 22. It is also 
 found in the Septuagint (2 Sam. ii. 21; Job xxxix. 20), and in 
 2 Mace. ii. 25; Jud. 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 cod, as Har- 
 less erroneously supposes. Did the emphasis lie on Tod @eod, 
 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, Qcod, is that of origination: God 
 provides the armour. Winer, § 30. It cannot mean, as Anselm 
 dreams, such armour as God uses. LEHach 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 Realwirt; Kitto’s 
 Cyclopedia; Smith’s Dictionary, sub voce. 
 
 mpos To Svvacbar buds othvar Tpos Tas peOodcias TOD dia- 
 forxou—* in order that ye may be able to stand against the 
 stratagems of the devil.’ The reading peAodias has good 
 
468 EPHESIANS VI. 12. 
 
 authority; A, B-, D', HE, G, K, Le Winer, & 5, 40> The 
 first pds indicates purpose (Winer, § 49, h); but orivas 
 mpos 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- 
 vat. p. 847. Winer, § 49, h. Xenophon makes this contrast 
 —ov«étt lotavtat, adda devyovor. De Expeditione Cyri, i. 
 10, 1. The plural peOodecas seems to denote instances of 
 the abstract singular—Ausdruck Mannichfaltiger Arten und 
 Fiille—of which usage Bernhardy gives examples, p. 62. 
 MeOodeéa has been explained under iv. 14, and 8dBoros has 
 been considered under iv. 27. The great enemy of man, a 
 veteran fierce and malignant, has a method of warfare peculiar 
 to himself, 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 indis- 
 pensable 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 inflam- 
 ing 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 éotw hpi 1) Tarn Tpds aia Kal capa 
 
 fH For a struggle is not against flesh and blood.” The 
 reading tuiv, commended - Griésbach, “and adopted by 
 Lachmann, Riickert, and Olshausen, has the authority of B, 
 D1, F, G, but yt i supported by the preponderant nathoriter 
 of A, D%, E, K, L, &c., with other concurrent witnesses. 
 Olshausen’s argument for #uiv proves the reverse of his posi- 
 tion, for the temptation was to alter 7uiv to tyuiv, 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, 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 12. 469 
 
 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; HKusebius, Evang. 
 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—61z-—“ because.” The article is 
 prefixed to wah, not simply because the contest is already 
 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 way 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. 1. 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 
 eaters there is therefore all the"more need of the panc- 
 ply. ly of God. . The common notion, adopted also by Stier, 
 Passavant, and Burton, that the Sips 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 povev. Our struggle 
 is not against flesh and blood— 
 
 GAG Tpds Tas apyas, apes tas é€ovclas—“ 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 od« . . . ddd 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. 1, 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 
 
 
 
a 
 
 470 EPHESIANS VI. 12. 
 
 in heaven, and may still retain a similar place among the 
 hosts of SPOS angels. It is no ae herd of fiends we 
 and eae For we fight — 
 
 Mpos TOS KoTMoKpaTopas TOU GKOTOUS ToUToOV—“ against the 
 world-rulers of this darkness.” The Received Text interposes 
 Tov aiavos before T rovtou, but without valid proof. The words 
 are wanting in A, B, D?, F, G, and in many versions and 
 Fathers, though they are foundin D?, EH, K, L. It is wrong 
 on the part of Harless to sink the meaning of xocpos 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 0 dpywy Tod Kocpou 
 Tovrov in Tonk xu. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 11; and o Oeds tod 
 ai@vos TovTov in 2 Cor. iv. 4. The rabbins have also adopted 
 the word—vwxyini7. 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 x 
 
 
 
 dominion on éarth, out of -which-they~aré Toath to be dis- 
 
 ere hem 
 
 lodged, “ This se Sar is that spiritual, obscurity which so 
 peiAtally environs the church—that zone which surrounds an 
 unbelieving world with an ominous and lowering shadow, 
 The een obscurity of paganism and impiety is fitly presided 
 over by beings congenial in gloom and guilt. See ii. 2; v. 8; 
 
 ActS Xxvi. 18. The darkness, as Chrysostom says, 4g not 
 that of the night, but ris movnpias. 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 ungod- 
 liness—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—av@aipétws b7ro- 
 Sovrobévtwy ; not, says Theodoret, as if God gave them such 
 government—ovy ws Tapa Tod Deod tiv apxiv SeEapévors. 
 This dark spirit-world is anxious to possess and maintain 
 supremacy, and tlicrefore Christians must wage incessant war- 
 
 ———— ee oe 
 
¥ 
 
 EPHESIANS VI. 12. 471 
 
 fare with it. ‘The term xoopoxpatwp is used by lrenzeus as 
 synonymous with the devil—duaBonror, bv Kai Koop. Kadodot. 
 Contra Hereses, lib. i. cap. v. p. 64; ed. Stieren, Lipsiae, 
 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.” Odservat. p. 229. Not that the apostle 
 fancifully adopted either their nomenclature or their notions, 
 but these citations prove that the inspired language was well 
 understood and recognized in the Eastern world. 
 
 Tpos Ta Nias THs Tovnplas év Tots emoupaviows— 
 
 “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 tvevpatixa with darwoma, 
 which is really an adjective (§ 34, note 3). So we have 70 
 immuxov—the cavalry. Rev. ix. 16. Other critics compare 
 Ta dayoua to the Ta AnoTpLxd—band of robbers, Polyznus, 
 Strat. v. 14; 7d monstixdv, Herodot. vii. 1033 Ta vavticd, 
 &e. Kiihner, § 474, 6, § 479, 8; Bernhardy, p. 826; Winer, 
 § 34, 3; Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 378. The genitive will then 
 be that of character or quality—the spiritual cohorts of evil. 
 Scheuerlein, p.115. Their nature is evil, their commission is 
 evil, their_work is evil. "Evil and evil only & are they, alike , 
 ine essence. “and operation, is interpretation has the con- 
 currence of Harless, Meyer, Olshausen, Meier, Matthies, Stier, 
 Ellicott, and the Greek fathers Bis rte and Theophylact. 
 
 The fipefold repetition of mpés adds intensity to the senti- 
 ment, which displays the emphatic vehemence of martial 
 excitement. Not only is pds repeated, but the usual ca’ 
 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 
 
* 
 
 472 EPHESIANS VI, 12. 
 
 To rouse up the Christian soldiery, the apostle brings out into 
 hold “yelief thé 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 thei Office, their domain is “this dark- 
 ness” 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 pro- 
 ducing it. eh aati tun 
 
 _ €v tots étrovpavious—* in the heavenly places.” See under 
 i. 3, 20, ii. 6, iii. 10. It needs scarcely be remarked—1. That 
 the exegesis which makes 7a ésovpavia 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 CXicumenius, 
 by Cajetan, Heinsius, Glassius, Rosenmiiller, and Tyndale, 
 who renders — “against spretuall wickednes for hevenly 
 thinges,” giving éy an unsustainable signification. 2. We 
 need not stay to refute the notion of those who, like Schoett- 
 gen, 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 nyetv, OY 
 to connect them with zany, as is done by Riickert, Matthies, 
 and Baumgarten-Crusius, for perhaps they are too remote in 
 position. Or, 2, ra éovpavia may mean the seat of these 
 evil spirits. This view is maintained by no less names than 
 Jerome, who adds—hee autem omnium doctorum opinio est; by 
 
 Ambrosiaster, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, © 
 
 Hammond, Meier, Holzhausen, Meyer, Olshausen, Harless, 
 De Wette, Ellicott, and Alford. See Photius, Quest. Amphi- 
 loch. p. 94; Petavius, Dogmata Theol. lib. iii. c. iv. But 
 Jerome says—non quo demones in celestibus commorentur, sed 
 quo supra nos aér hoc nomen acceperit. But the “heavenly 
 
 Seceeienecd 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 12. 473 
 
 places” have been referred to by the apostle as the scenes of 
 divine blessing, of Christ’s exaltation, of His people’s eleva- 
 tion, and as the region | of unfallen_ and pure intelligences, and 
 low can 1 they I be. There the seat or abode of i 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 sgG the place of combat. Nor is 
 there any proof ¢ that ra | eroupavia means s heaven, in the sense 
 of the air or atmosphere. None of the other ancien in which 
 the phrase occurs can bear such a signification, and yet 
 such is the sense put upon the words by the majority of 
 those whom we have quoted. Allioli renders—in der Luft. 
 (Consult what is said under 11. 2, as to the meaning of dp.) 
 Ta érovpavia are the celestial spots occupied by the church ; 
 (i. 3, i. 6;) and in them this combat is to be maintained. 
 Those evil spirits have invaded the church, are attempting 
 to © pollute, diyide,...secularize, and SEES it; are con- 
 tinually tempting its, members...to.. sin..and sponioitee are 
 ever warring against goodness and obstructing its progress ; 
 and “ae ie must encounter them aul 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: tzovpaviow, for which unwarranted 
 emendation Erasmus and Beza had a kindly preference ; and 
 the version of Luther is—unter dem Himmel. he Syriac 
 
 also renders LasSaog A x»2:— under heaven.”? The 
 
 1 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. 
 
474 EPHESIANS VI. 13. 
 
 perplexity was felt to be so great, that no less a scholar than 
 Daniel Heinsius actually proposes the desperate shift of trans- 
 posing the words éy tots ézrouvpavious to the beginning of the 
 verse, and making out this sense—“ in heavenly things our 
 contest is not with flesh and blood.” Evzercitat. Sac. p. 472. 
 Neither of the renderings of Storr can be sustained—gui in 
 caelo fuere, or qui ceelestes 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 wickedness 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 tiberwalten, 
 wie der Himmel die Erde umspannt. Schriftb. i. p. 455. Not 
 much different from the view of Doddridge is that of Cocceius 
 and Calovius, who join zovnpias 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 right- 
 eous principality in the centre of heaven.” 
 
 (Ver. 13.) Ava todTo avadaBete tiv TavoTAlay ToD Ocod— 
 “Wherefore take up the panoply of God.” ‘ Wherefore,” 
 the foes being so f formidable in power, operation, and nature, 
 
 what need j is is there not to be fu Ht Y protected 1 with this complete 
 
 and divine suit of mail? The rae is repeated. from ver. 11, 
 and the words employed are the usual military vibes 
 as is shown by the illustrations of Elsner, Kypke, and Wet- 
 stein. Thus, Deut. i. 41—dvaraBovtes Exactos Ta oKEUN TA 
 moNeuika avtov; Jer. xxvi. 3; 2 Macc. x. 21. 
 
 iva duvnbre avriotivar év TH yépa TH Tovnpa—“ that_ye 
 may be able to withstand in the evil day.” The slater. is 
 
 Scilicet hoe maaan pe Fe inter et infima terre, 
 Quod patet ac vacuo. nubes suspendit hiatu, 
 Frena potestatum variarum sustinet, ac sub 
 Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis. 
 His colluctamur preedonibus; ut sacra nobis 
 Oris Apostolici testis sententia prodit.” 
 —Opera, vol. i. p. 578. Lon, 1824. 
 
 OO 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 13. A475 
 
 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 phraseolog ry is 
 found (Ps. xli. 1, xlix. 5) in the Septuagint version. If we 
 preserve the spirit ofthe imagery, we should at once be led to 
 conclude that it was the day of battle, or, as Theodoret calls 
 it—rijs mapatdéews. That is an evil day; for it may lead 
 to wounds, though it does not destroy life. It is not spe- 
 cially 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, Cicumenius, and Jerome 
 understand it—rov wapévta Biov — for there may be many 
 a lull during a campaign, and there may beea long cam- 
 paign ere a decisive battle be fought. Our view is that of 
 most modern commentators, 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. 841. 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 involyes—damaged 
 reputation, 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 drravta Katepyacdpevor orhvatc— and having done all 
 to stand.” Two distinct interpretations have been given of 
 the deponent middle participle catepyacdpevor:—I1. 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 carepyacdpevor is used for katarroveurjcavtes. 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 
 
A476 EPHESIANS VI. 14. 
 
 the word occurs often, there is no instance of such a sense in 
 the New Testament. Raphelius, 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 @avta 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 
 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. Tor, 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 
 otTivat would denote to stand victorious ; or, as Luther has it, 
 das Held 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 Vulgate—in omnibus perfecti—is a deviation, probably 
 borrowed from such a reading as Codex A presents—«ateup- 
 yaopévot. Jerome has omnia operati. 
 
 (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 minutiz of far-fetched resemblances, as is done by some 
 foreign divines, and by Gurnall (Christian in Complete Armour, 
 fol. Glasgow, 1763) and Arrowsmith (Tactica Sacra, Ato, 
 1657) and more elaborately learned than either, Lydius in his 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 14. 477 
 
 Syntagma sacrum de re militar’, 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, en 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 (Epitome Institutorum Rei 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— 
 oThTe ov tepilwodpuevor Thy oopiy tuav év adnbelga— 
 “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 orna- 
 mented with lamin 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 objective 
 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 convic- 
 tion 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 reception 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, mendactorum magna est laxvitas. 
 1 Sam. xxv. 13; Ps. xviii. 32, xlv. 4. 
 
478 EPHESIANS VI. 15. 
 
 kal évovodmevot Tov Odpaxa THs Sixarocbvns—< 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, Mist. Natur. xxxiii. 54. Roman soldiers 
 wore chain mail, that is, hauberks or habergeons— 
 
 “‘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 
 which forms this capd:optna€ 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 ducavocvvn has a special prominence, and we are 
 inclined with Harless, De Wette, Matthies, and Winzer (Pjinst- 
 programm, tiber Ephes. vi. 10, 17, Leipz. 1840), to understand 
 it as the righteousness of God, or of faith, or as “ justification 
 by the blood 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 defence what Turner unhap- 
 pily calls “his own righteousness ””—nil conseire sibi, nulla 
 pallescere 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. iii. 22. So that the dart thrown 
 at them only rings against such a cuirass, and falls blunted to 
 the earth. 
 
 (Ver. 15.) Kat trrodnodpevor rods médas év érorpacia tod 
 evayyediou THs eipyvns— And having shod your feet with 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 15. 479 
 
 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 oftener the sandal itself is put 
 in the accusative. The last genitive is that of contents (Bern- 
 hardy, 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 the—spoxvnpides— calige or 
 sandals, which were worn by the 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.” ‘The preposition éy is instru- 
 mental or quasi-local, and éroiwacia is represented as forming 
 the sandals. So that there is error on the part of Erasmus, 
 who renders—parati ad evangelium. The noun érompacia 
 has in the Septuagint an active meaning, as—els éroywaciav 
 tpogdns— Wisdom xiii. 12; also an intransitive meaning — 
 readiness or preparedness —izrzrous els érouaciay buiv Trapéyerv 
 —Josephus, Antig. x. 1, 2; and still in a more spiritual 
 sense, Ps. x. 17—riv érowaciay ths xapdias. The term is 
 sometimes employed in the Septuagint as the representative 
 of the Hebrew pan, as in Ps. Ixxxix. 14, 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 i. 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 preparedness.” The feet in fighting 
 are so protected or cased. The feet, too, are the instruments, 
 and therefore the appropriate symbols of motion. The 
 Christian warrior must move as the battle shifts; his career 
 is indeed but a battle and a march, and a march and a battle. 
 And whence is this promptitude to be derived? From “the 
 gospel of peace’’—or peace the substance of the gospel, the 
 same gospel which was called i. 13—the gospel tijs cwrnpias. 
 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 
 
480 EPHESIANS VI. 16. 
 
 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 la is now apeane 
 
 (Ver. 16.) “Emi maow dvadaPovtes tov Oupedv Ths Tictews 
 —“Tn addition to all taking up the shield of faith’’—the geni- 
 tive 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 “ wfar 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 fitted on to the body and 
 fastened to it, each by appropriate mechanism, have each its 
 characteristic verb—repilwodpevor, évdva devo, UTOSnTapEval; 
 but shield, helmet, and sword need no such special fastening, 
 for they are simply taken up or assumed, and therefore they 
 are joined to the one general participle, dvadaPovtes, and the 
 verb dé€acGe. Ovpeov—scutwm—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 demis—clypews—and 
 was, according to Polybius, two feet and a-half broad and 
 four feet long—ro mddtos . . 1év0’ tyurrodiwv, To Sé pAKos, 
 mooay tettdpwv. Polybius, lib. vi. cap. 20, 23. The shield 
 preserved 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 despondency, 
 and easily wards off such assaults as are made upon it. 1 John 
 v. 4,5. The special value and purpose of the shield are then 
 described— 
 
 ev @ duvijcecbe Trdvra Ta BEXn Tod Tovnpod TA TeTUpOpéva 
 oPéoar—* in,” or, “with which ye shall be able to quench all 
 
 ' Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 366. He quotes Homer, who uses the term for the 
 
 strong door of a cave, adding, that it means a shield, but not among approved or 
 old authors, 
 
 SS 
 
 = 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 16. 481 
 
 the fiery darts of the wicked one.” The article ra before 
 werrupwpéva 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 zovnpds is “ the wicked one,” either in proper 
 person or as leader andrrepresentative of the foes so vividly 
 described in ver. 12. 2 Thess. 11.5; Matt. vi. 13; John xvii- 
 15; 1 John v.18. In the phrase ta Bédn Ta rerupwpéva, 
 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 trans- 
 verse 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, 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 zup- 
 gopot dictot ; 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 
 EOLL OP, —“ 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 ofécai 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 vevpwpéva 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 produce; as if they received this appellation not 
 from their effect, but from their nature.. Hierozoicon, Opera, 
 tom. ili. 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 ea desires, 
 I 
 
482 EPHESIANS VI. 17. 
 
 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, espe- 
 cially of a nervous temperament. The biography of Luther 
 and Bunyan affords apposite examples. But the shield of 
 faith must be used to repel such darts, and if brought to inter- 
 cept 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.) Kati tHv mepixeparaiay tod cwrnplov béacbe— 
 “ And take the helmet of salvation.”” D!, F, and G omit the 
 verb; 5é£acGa, a glaring emendation, is found, however, in A, 
 D3, K, and L. The adjectival form cw7ypvoy is found also in 
 Luke ii. 80, 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 orna- 
 mented with metallic plates or bosses, and commonly sur- 
 mounted with a crest or plume. In 1 Thess. v. 8, the apostle 
 says, “ For an helmet the hope of salvation” —édriéa car- 
 pias—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 Win- 
 zer, but a view which is as unwarranted as that of Theodoret, 
 Bullinger, Cocceius, and Bengel, who refer cwryjpiov to the 
 Saviour himself, because He has received such an appella- 
 tion in Luke ii. 30. The apostle takes the phrase from the 
 Alexandrian version of Isa. lix. 17, in which the Hebrew 
 my oss is translated mepuxepadalay cwrnpiov. 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 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 17. 483 
 
 this “ helme of helthe,” as Wyckliffe renders it, and has his 
 “‘ head covered in the day of battle :’”’— 
 
 Kab THY wayatpay Tod IIvetparos, 6 eat phua 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 phua Oeod is ~ 
 equivalent to Qeov évépyeca—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 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, wvevmatos, 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 Eunom. 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,” 
 
484 EPHESIANS VI. 18. 
 
 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 Gicumenius 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 argument, 
 truce and armistice, are of no avail—the keen bright sword of 
 the Spirit must be unsheathed and lifted. 
 
 (Ver. 18.) Ava mraons mpocevyfs Kal denoews mpocevyopevot 
 év tavtt Katp® év Iveduati— 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 understand 
 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 orijre 
 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 prepara- 
 tion, take the armour, stand, fight, and all the while be praying. 
 
 Meyer’s effort to make dua mdons mpocevyis Kal Sejoews 
 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.’ 
 
 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 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 18. 485 
 
 The preposition dua expresses the means by, or the condition 
 in or through which, the spiritual exercise implied in zpoo- 
 evxopevor developes itself. The two nouns are distinguished not 
 as imprecatio 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 viii. 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 mpocevyy is prayer in general—the 
 general aspects and attitudes of devotion in adoration, confes- 
 sion, and thanksgiving; and that 5éyovs 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 unexpressed, formal 
 and ejaculatory, which prayer may assume. And such prayer 
 is not to be restricted to peculiar times, but is to be employed 
 —ey Tavtl Kaip@, 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 Ivedpats— 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« wvevmaros, and 
 makes them signify “ out of the heart, or sincerely.” Bloom- 
 field indeed lays down the canon that mvedua, 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 
 
 that Satan casts on that text. He has often given that gloss; monkery, nunnery, 
 abstraction from the world in order to give one’s self up to prayer, are but the effects 
 of that false gloss.”—Evans, Sermons on the Ephesians, p. 398. (British Pulpit.) Lond. 
 
 1 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. 
 
456 EPHESIANS VI. 18. 
 
 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 avTd aypuTvodytes ev mdon TpoocKapTepyoe Kat 
 Sejoes Tept TavT@v Tov ayiov— and for this watching in all 
 perseverance and supplication for all the saints.” Todzo, 
 found in the Stephanic text after avzo, is regarded as doubtful 
 on the authority of A, B, and other concurrent testimonies. 
 Eis advé—“ for this,” that is, for the purpose specified in the 
 clauses preceding, not as Koppe and Holzhausen argue, for 
 the design expressed in the following verse—iva pou S007. 
 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 év 1don TpocKaptepyncet Kat Sejoes, is one of pregnant 
 emphasis. Acts 1. 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 dyiav 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 pray- 
 ing at all times in the Spirit, the tacit or implied reference 
 being for themselves ; and then he adds, but without any for- 
 mal transition, “and for this watching along with all perse- 
 verance and prayer for all saints.” The two thoughts are 
 
 — 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 19. 487 
 
 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.) Kat tép éwot—* And for me.” When cai 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 
 Tepl mavtev Tov ayiwv; but when he points to himself as 
 the object of supplication, he writes br ép euod. Meyer and 
 De Wette, indeed, and Robinson, apparently deny that any 
 change of idea is involved in the change of preposition. Har- 
 less admits such a distinction as is between pro and propter. 
 Certainly, in the later writers mrep/ and oizép are almost iden- 
 tical in use and sense. They are even found together, as 
 Demosthenes, Philip. i. p. 162, vol. v. Oratores Att., ed. Dob- 
 son, Oxon. ‘Thucyd. vi. 78, 1, p. 152, vol. in. 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 vrepi—“ about,”’! 
 used generally in a tropical sense when it governs the geni- 
 tive, 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 
 
 1 Tees, in Sanscrit pari, from the root J , is ‘round about,” differing from zug, 
 Latin amb, German wm, which means on both sides, while 5+, Sanserit wpari, from 
 the root YN , Latin super, Gothic ufar, German iiber, English over, signifies 
 
 ~~ 
 
 “upon” or ‘ over.” 
 
488 EPHESIANS VI. 19. 
 
 direct and personal, and d7rép is employed, while the blessing 
 to be prayed for is also clearly specitied: In Rom. viii. 26, 
 1 Tim. ii. 1, Heb. vii. 25, where o7rép is used, there is sacle 
 directness in the supe sian. though it be ae all men. 1 Pet. 
 ii. 18. In Col. iv. 3, the apostle, in making a similar request, 
 uses mepi; but he includes himself with others, and writes 
 juo@v, and so in Heb. xiii, 18. Though such a distinction 
 cannot be uniformly carried out, yet the use of these two dif- 
 ferent 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 da 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 indi- 
 cated by the two prepositions. And for what were they to pray ? 
 iva pot 5004 Aoyos év avol—er ToD oTOmaTos wou— that to 
 me may be given speech in the opening of my mouth.” The 
 conjunction fa denotes the purpose, which is told by telling 
 the purport of the prayer.” The Received Text has do6ein, 
 a more subjective representation, but the principal uncial 
 MSS. are against such a reading. Adyos 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 avolfe tod ot0- 
 patés ov 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, Déssert. 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 dvoés 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, 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 19. 489 
 
 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 vili. 35, x. 34; 2 Cor. 
 vi. 11. Wholly baseless is the translation of Beza and 
 Piscator—ut aperiam os meum. ‘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 conversational re- 
 mark. 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 vindi- 
 cation of himself and his mission at the imperial tribunal in 
 Rome; for he was now prosecuting the appeal which he had 
 originated at Cesarea. 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 unpreme- 
 ditated orations is the view of Gicumenius. The next clause 
 is explanatory, or gives the result— 
 
 éy Trappnola yvepicat TO pvoTpLov TOD evaryyeMiou— 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. Tvwpicas is the infini- 
 tive of design. Mvorzjpiov has been spoken of under i. 9. In 
 ~ the first chapter the apostle calls one special result and pur- 
 pose of the gospel—to wit, the re-capitulation of all things 
 under Christ—a mystery; and in the third chapter he char- 
 acterizes 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 
 
490 EPHESIANS VI. 20. 
 
 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 char- 
 acteristic 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.) ‘Yep ob mpecBedw ev advoe— On behalf of 
 which I am an ambassador in chains.” The antecedent to 
 ov is not barely evayyeAtov—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. 
 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 GAvows 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 xxvii. 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 Caesarea, employing the 
 plural, and saying—rov Secpav to’rov. An ambassador in 
 chains was a rare spectacle. Tods mpécPets vowos pndev Tac- 
 yew 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 unmistakable authenticity, is detained 
 in captivity. The object of the prayer was— 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 21. 491 
 
 iva év avT@® Tappynoidc@pat, ws Set we Nadjoar— 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 iva jo 6067 doyos. Rom. vii. 13; 
 Gal. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3. It dwells upon the same thought. 
 The phrase év avr@ refers back to the relative ob —“ that in 
 this,” in making known the gospel—and there is thus no 
 repetition or tautology. It is not the ground, but the sphere 
 of the wappnoia. This meaning of the sentence is lost in the 
 exegesis of Meier, who follows Chrysostom and Bengel, and 
 makes iva and its clause dependent on mpécBevw év advcen, 
 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 eidijre Kal duets Ta Kat’ eué, TL Tpdooo, 
 TavtTa viv yvwpice. ThyiKkos 6 ayamrntos abedpos, Kal TLeTds 
 Sudkovos év Kupio— But that ye also may know my state, 
 how I fare, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful in the 
 Lord, shall make known all things to you.” The reading, 
 Kal vpeis edhe, is found in A, D1, HE, F,G. This verse needs 
 almost no exposition. The supposition that in cai duets there 
 is a reference by contrast to the Colossians, has been already 
 noticed in the Introduction. The particle dé is one of transi- 
 tion to another subject—the conclusion of the epistle. The 
 words Ta Kat’ éué—res mece—are a very common Greek idiom 
 (Phil. i. 12; Acts xxiv. 22, xxv. 14), and they are further 
 explained by ti wpdoo, 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 minutiz, 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; 
 
492 EPHESIANS VI. 23. 
 
 Col. iv. 7. In 2 Tim. iv. 12 the apostle says, referring, as some 
 suppose, to this mission—“ 'T'ychicus have I sent to Ephesus.”’ 
 There is no ground for supposing, with Estius, that dcaxovos 
 refers here to any office in the church. ‘Tychicus, like Mark, 
 was useful for general service. 2 Tim. iv. 11. The words év 
 Kup/@ 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 miords 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 érreurpa mpos twas els avTo TODTO, iva yvaeTeE 
 Ta Tepl Huov, Kal TapaKkaréoyn Tas Kapdias buav-——“ 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 ta wep! jueav 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 ii. 13. The different 
 readings in these two verses principally refer to the position 
 and order of some of the words. Now comes the farewell— 
 
 (Ver. 23.) Etpyjvn tots adeXdols, kal ayarn peta TloTeEws— 
 “ Peace to the brethren, and love with faith.” Edpzjvy 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. 
 
 Kal ayarn peta trictews— 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.” 
 
 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS VI, 24. 493 
 
 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 under i. 15. We could not say, with 
 Robinson, that in this instance, and in some others, pera is 
 equivalent to xa/, forvtlose relation seems always to be indi- 
 cated.1 Mera indicates something which is to be regarded 
 not as an addition, but as an accompaniment. «Aydin Kat 
 miotis—“ love and faith,” might mean love, then faith, as 
 separate or in succession, and ody wictes would have denoted 
 coherence, but “love with faith ” denotes love and faith in 
 inseparable combination with it. The reading of Codex A, 
 €Xeos for ayd7n, is an emendation suggested to some old copy- 
 ists 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— 
 
 avo @eod Tartpos nat Kupiov “Inood Xpicrod— from God 
 the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In the 2d verse of 
 the first chapter, the apostle says, “ from God our Father,” 
 and the Syriac reads here also L). Though judy be not 
 expressed, the meaning is the same, and the exposition will 
 therefore be found under i. 2. 
 
 (Ver. 24.) “H ydpis peta ravtev tov dyaroévtTev Tov 
 Kupiov npav “Incobv Xpiotiv év 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 ydpus in the valediction. See under i. 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 ap0apoia. Wyckliffe has “ vncorrupcioun,” Tyndale 
 ““puernes,’”’ the Genevan “to their immortalitie,” and Cranmer 
 “‘ vnfaynedly.” : 
 
 1 Miré, in Sanscrit mithas, from the root Az , 18 connected with jéco:, mid, 
 middle, and still contains the germ of its original meaning. 
 
AQ4 EPHESIANS VI. 24. 
 
 The connection and meaning are alike matter of doubt. 
 —1. Some, such as Drusius, Wilke, and Peile, connect év 
 apGapoia with ydpus, 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. Pis- 
 cator, taking év for cvv, 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 im- 
 mortality,” or “ grace for ever abide with you.” The opinion of 
 Harless is similar—éy, he says, “ marks the element in which 
 this grace reveals itself, and ap@apoia 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 homogeneous 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 Conv éxwow év apOapoig. 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 abOapaia to "Incoly Xpicrov, 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 the apostle’s meaning, and at 
 least, with the present words, the repetition of the article— 
 "Inooty Xpictov tov év apGapcig. 3. Whatever difficulty 
 may be involved in the exegesis, we are obliged to take the 
 év apGapoia as qualifying ayarovtov. This appears to be 
 the natural connection. But as to the meaning— 
 
 1. Chrysostom and Theophylact give an alternative expla- 
 nation—“ on account of those things which are incorruptible.” 
 These critics say—ro év dia éors, 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 inter- 
 pretations, in which they explain év ap@apota by év koops0- 
 tnt; and they are followed by Pelagius, Erasmus, Calvin, 
 a-Lapide, Hstius, and Robinson. At the same time there is 
 some difference of opinion among this class, some giving more 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS VI. 24. 495 
 
 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 Gicumenius, who employs as syno- 
 nymes a@0aptos Kab.dueiwtos, and Luther, Zegerus, Wolf, 
 Meyer, Wahl, Bretschneider, and Meier. Riickert and De 
 Wette are undecided, though the latter seems to incline to the 
 first interpretation of the Greek expositors. The Gothic ver- 
 sion reads in unriwrecén— in incorruptibility.” It is some- 
 what difficult to decide. The noun means incorruption, and 
 must define either the sphere or character of this love. If it 
 refer to the sphere, then there 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.i. 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. iii. 15. We are inclined to 
 believe that the word characterizes the nature of this love, per- 
 petuity 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 contain within itself the seeds of dis- 
 solution, and that it is of such compactness, that its elements 
 cannot one after another fall out and itself gradually perish. 
 Incorruptness is immortality 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 indivisible—is ‘in incorruption,’—év ap@apoia. 
 AMEN. 
 
ee ee 
 GLASGOW: PRINTED BY WILLIAM MACKENZIE 45 & 47 HOWARD STREET. 
 
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS 
 
 
 
 Access to the Father by Christ, 
 Adoption into the divine family, 
 Anger, which is not sinful, : : ‘ 
 which is sinful, 
 its evil effects (note), - 
 Apostle, the office of, and its institution, . E : 
 Apostleship, Paul’s designation thereto, . : : 
 Armour, spiritual; offensive and defensive, 
 Atonement; the doctrine thereanent, 
 Author of this Epistle; his designation, ; 
 his qualification to be a teacher of the Cantiies 
 Baptism, : 
 Blessings, spiritual, eaoved | in Christ, 
 Charity enjoined, 
 Christ, his divine Sonship, 
 re-capitulation of all in him, 
 his Headship over the church, 
 his humiliation, F 
 his sacrificial death, - : : . 
 his exaltation, B . 
 his execution of the plan of fedeniption: 
 his boundless love, 
 he is the believer’s inheritance, 
 dwells in the believer, . . 
 has received and conferred aifts on men, 
 subjugates his enemies, = 
 Christians should remember their former omidigiine 
 which is described 
 
 TREATED OF. 
 
 PAGE 
 191-193, 243 
 
 5 : : 31-36 
 4 - 356 
 
 357 
 
 : : 2 367) 
 
 : - . 805-307 
 . : SAO, 
 467, ‘474, and foll. pp. 
 375 
 
 1, 2, 216 
 
 217-220 
 
 282 
 
 18 
 
 372 
 
 alae 
 
 5d 
 
 : : - 329 
 
 297 and foll. pp. 
 
 375 
 
 100-107 
 
 d . 242 
 
 255-267 
 
 59-61 
 
 253 
 
 “988 and foll. pp. 
 
 < - : . 294 
 164 
 
 133- 145, 164- ilyal 
 
 their present condition described, . 173- 175, see also 149, 159, 160 
 
 should do all in Christ’s name, 
 
 415 
 
 should be mutually submissive, in order to Briahd sist ards of relative 
 
 duties, 
 
 should be established i in ris faith, 
 Church, the; in relation to Christ, 
 
 in relation to the Father, a family, 
 
 should glorify God, 
 
 her subjection to Christ, 
 
 her presentation to Christ in purity, 
 Circumcision, the; who so called, 
 
 416, 417 
 aoe: 
 107-119 
 
 247 
 
 269 
 « 428. 
 430-432 
 3 166 
 dias 
 
498 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Colosse, the Epistle to; compared with that to Ephesus, . : ; . xiii 
 Commandments; the first with promise, . : é - , : . 449 
 Commentators on the Ephesians, : ; : 2 ; : 1. 
 Conclusion of the Epistle; refers to pemectial caters, : : - - 298 
 Conversation (language) to be pure, : : . 861, 379-381 
 Converts are to manifest that they are of the light, by proper fruits, . 389, 390 
 must have no fellowship with evil, : : ; : . 5 ae 
 
 ought to be wise, . : ; ; ; ; : : : . 401 
 
 ought to redeem the time, ; : : - : : . 402 
 
 ought to be sober, : : : : : - 405 
 Creation, idea of, used to delineate a spisitnad etuiugie} : : . 160, 182 
 ascribed to God, . : : : : ; . 2385 
 Darkness, moral and spiritual, of the Gentile weed 5 ; 336 and foll. pp. 
 Death of Christ, sacrificial, : : : : : : : - 3873-379 
 is an atonement, . : : : : - 5 : . . 3875 
 Depravity inborn in man, : - : : rs : +) 1365 142 
 Descent into hell of Christ, doctrine of, : 5 : : 6 MES 
 Devil, the, described as “ the prince of the power of ke air,” : - 226-131 
 his activity and its sphere of operation, . > ; : : spe dlilE 
 Domestic duties, i ‘ : . 416 and foll. pp. and also 445, 446 
 Doxology, the jhtroductory, : d : 4 , ; : : = io 
 concluding a prayer, 5 : : : : : . 267-272 
 Drunkenness and dissoluteness forbidden: ‘ . : : : - 405 
 Election, doctrine of, ‘ < : : : : ; ; : syne. 
 its cause is in God, ; : A : A = c : Rope li) 
 believers chosen in Christ, : : é 2 : A : Bee al 
 believers chosen from eternity, : : : : : : ears! 
 believers chosen to holiness, . : - . : ; : cer pee 
 general remarks on this doctrine, . ¢ : : = - 24-31 
 Ephesians, the ; their steadfastness in the faith, : : - ; 5) 
 love to the saints, > : uma. 
 
 cause Paul to give thanks, ait ees up prayers on sists behalf aS 
 
 are built into the temple of the Lord, 4 : : 4 : ~ e209 
 
 no longer walk as the Gentiles, t ; ; : : . 835 
 Ephesus, and the planting of a Christian church in it, : ; : Chee Oe 
 Epistle, the; its title and destination, c é : : : : <i 
 its genuineness, - : 5 m . : : Ev.0:o.e 
 
 its relationship to that ‘oe eee : - 5 - : : Sealine 
 
 its place and date of composition, . . : : : . - xivi. 
 
 its object and contents, . c ¢ : . : 4 : . xivii. 
 
 works on the Epistle, . : : : : ? " : 1 
 Epistle to the Ephesians ; parties ardomer é : ; : c ; 2 
 its fitness to show Paul’s insight into divine truth, - : 3) 422i 
 practical portion commences, chap. iv. . 5 : : . . 273 
 Eternity scripturally expressed, : : : : ; - : oo 271 
 Evangelist, the office of, . c 5 : . : : : 5 7) 0 
 Evil; question of its origin, . . . : : ; : fs . 142 
 Exaltation of believers, 3 : ‘ ; : . 149 
 is for the manifestation of the dane eottellenss é : “ 7 150 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Exaltation of Christ, the, 
 iseternal, . 
 Fainting under tribulation forbidden, 
 Faithful, the; its twofold sense, 
 Faith and holiness intimately connected, 
 
 Farewell salutation, the . 2 ° 
 
 Fathers ; tenderness to their children anjatvedl 
 and careful upbringing} : 
 
 ‘* Father of glory,” the, expression Shared! 
 
 Filial duties—obedience and honour, 
 inculcated by nature, 
 and by revelation, 
 
 Filial piety or dutifulness co-exists atl, or is cancels seegtpeien by, 
 
 temporal advantages, : 
 Flesh, the ; its peculiar scriptural meaning, 
 Foes, the Christian’s spiritual, 
 Forgiveness of sin; meaning of phrase, 
 Forgiving spirit readied. a, 
 
 Foundation of the Church and of Shaividuad jena 
 
 its corner-stone Christ, : 
 Fulness of times; meaning of this expression, 
 
 499 
 
 PAGE 
 
 101-110, 302, and foll. pp. 
 
 106 
 244 
 
 450 
 134 
 
 469 and foll. pp. 
 
 42 
 - 869 
 
 Gentiles, the ; by Christ are fellow-heirs with the Jews, nal made pavtikers 
 
 of equal privileges, 
 their former condition esenbed 
 Gifts, diversity of, in the church, 
 God; riches of his mercy, 
 love to man, é 
 Godhead, the: the Father, 
 the Father in his relations to all, 
 “The Father of Glory,” phrase analysed 
 the Son in his relation to the Father, 
 Grace; sense of the word in salutation, 
 its usages in scholastic theology (note), 
 the source of salvation, . : c 
 Graces, Christian, inculcated, 
 Headship, Christ’s universal, 
 over the Church, 
 Heaven and heavenly places, 
 Hierarchy, the celestial, 
 Humiliation of Christ, 
 
 Husband’s position and duty relative to ie wife, 
 
 the measure of his love to the wife, 
 
 the reason of it, 
 
 and the reasonableness of it, 
 Imitation of God, commanded, 
 Impurity of the Gentile world, 
 
 forbidden to Christians, 
 
 all such practices exclude from peered 
 Intemperance of the Gentile world, 
 
 226 and foll. pp. 
 
 335-342 and 388-392 
 
 287 
 144 
 
 . 144 
 247, 282 
 . 283 
 82-84 
 80-82 
 
 : 7 
 - 153 
 
 148, 153 
 
 275 and foll. pp. 
 - sp LSI 
 
 . Beare) 
 
 : 15-18 
 102-104 
 297-303 
 
 419, 424 
 
 495, 433, 445 
 434 
 
 435 
 
 5 . 3871 
 340, (note) 387 
 379 
 
 . 384 
 405-407 
 
500 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 Jews despised and disliked by Gentiles sie 178 
 Labour inculcated, : . : : : 360 
 Long-suffering inculcated, : 5 : 4 S : 3 a6 2d 
 Lord, the title as applied to Christ, : 9 
 Love of God to man; its greatness, : 144 
 Love in the heart; the foundation necessary for ‘eamenseditie the eve of 
 Christ, ‘ : : : : : - 5 C . 255-262 
 Lowliness inculcated, : : d : F : : : . 275 
 Manhood, Christian, : : : : - ; ; : . 820-322 
 necessary for security, i 5 J : : : - 3823 
 Marriage ; its reciprocal duties, : ; : 445, and foll. pp. 
 is applied to illustrate Christ’s elation to ie Church, : . 485-445 
 and specially in A 439 
 Masters ; their relative duties, - - ° . 462 
 solemn warnings to stimulate to their fight discharee: : . 464, 465 
 Meekness inculcated, . ; > 206 
 Members; their individual efficiency in ‘pentane the Christian peity, 330-334 
 Mosaic economy abolished, - : < 4 : 179 
 Mystery ; meaning and application of the best - : : Ae be el) 
 erroneously rendered sacrament ; ; : : ¢ 442 
 of Christ first fully revealed in apostolic times, 3 Se ee rah 717-53 
 and God’s wisdom thereby manifested, : : : : . 238 
 Office-bearers of the Church instituted by Christ, : ; 305 and foll. pp. 
 ordinary, ; . 3 2 : - . 3811-314 
 extraordinary, : : : : : : : : + 05-317 
 purpose of their institution, 314 
 period of their continuance, . : : a : : 317 
 Oneness, Christian, . “ ‘ 3 . , t . 277-286 
 is different from eanesiy, 287 
 Pastor, office of Christian, 311 
 Paul, his apostleship, : : : i 3 é 1 
 his bonds, : : : : : 216, 490 
 his gospel ministry was aeadittinte to the measure of grace and 
 strength received, 229 
 his sphere of action, 232 
 his personal humility, : : : : - : . 230 
 Peace; sense of the word as a salutation, . : . : d : 7, 492 
 inculcated as a grace, = . 278 
 as a blessing preached by Christ, : , 2 : - 188 
 Perfection, Christian, 3 : . : 7 - 9818-322 
 is inculcated in order to sections 823 
 Prayer ; attitude to be assumed therein, 246 
 must be made in the Spirit, 484 
 addressed to the Father, 247 
 should embrace all saints, “ 486 
 and may be answered beyond our dateos : : ; : a PASE 
 examples: Paul’s for the ar : . . 78, 250, and foll. pp. 
 Predestination, é 32 
 is according to God's sovereign “will, 34 
 
INDEX. 501 
 
 4 PAGE 
 
 Predestination, is for the divine glory, : C : : : : 86, 62 
 is to adoption, 3 5 = - : . : 2 ER 
 
 and to inheritance in Christ, A Hg a7 = Lal 
 
 Pride, a besetting sin of ministers; Baxter's reps of it naib, : - 2381 
 Privileges of believers; access to the Father, “ 5 : . ‘ - i9L 
 heavenly citizenship, ‘ : - : - : 2 - 3 195 
 admission to God’s household, : - : : 5 : 9G 
 spiritual inhabitatioi, ; : . : ; : . 210 
 Prophets, were such through the Spirit,  . . 224 
 office, &c., under the Old and New Testament diopanauieiis 307 ast foll. pp. 
 Psalms and tytn of the early Church, , - c : . 409-414 
 Quickening with Christ ; meaning of phrase, : c . 145-148 
 Quotations from Jewish scriptures; how made by Paul, 288 and foll. pp: 369-399 
 Reconcile ; use of the verb and its cognates in New Testament (no/e), . - 186 
 Reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, . ; : Sion & . 184 
 
 Redemption is by blood, . . : : 3 : : : . ot Al 
 
 the doctrine concerning it, 5 ° : 70-73 
 the plan thereof manifests the divine wisdom, . : ° : - 239 
 was revealed according to God’s eternal purpose, and was executed by 
 
 Christ, : 2 : : 4 
 Regeneration in life and bivadutiies how described, . - 3846-355 
 Resurrection of Christ manifested ine divine power, the, : . ° eas 
 Right hand of God, the; its signification, . 0 : : A 0 om LO 
 Sacrifice, the, of Christ, . ° : . c - 3873-379 
 
 : . - 242 
 
 is atoning, . 4 : : 6 . 875 
 Saints, primary and derivate sense of the tain, : : 5 . c : 3 
 Salutation, the, : : : : : : : : ‘ - 7 
 Salvation is by grace, . : : 5 . : ~ 141,153 
 
 through faith, : : : : ; 5 : : é . 153 
 
 not of ourselves, > ° - 155 
 
 nor of works, - c “ 5 : : = : 5 u etoM 
 
 is the gift of God, : : A : 5 : : 4 - 156 
 
 boasting excluded, : ° : : s 5 : 4 - 158 
 Seal of the Spirit, the, : . - : 5 ° : < 65-68 
 Sealing of the Spirit, the, 2 - 5 ; - : : - 864 
 Sensual indulgences not to be excused, “ . - . 386 
 
 those who practise them will experience God’s weal : : a) isi 
 
 they ought to be exposed and reproved, . 5 . A . 394 
 Separation between the Jewish and Gentile world done away with, - 175-179 
 
 by abolition of the Mosaic economy, : : . : 79 
 
 in order to their being united in Christ, 5 0 : 4.182 
 
 and made one, A 3 a : : - A . 184 
 
 with equal privileges, . : : . ‘ - : - 226-228 
 Slaye, the; his condition described, . 5 é : 5 » 455-456 
 
 his duties and vices, s ae P : > - 457 
 
 his conduct how influenced by ‘Chetuan oures . : - 461 
 Sojourner, scriptural usage of word, . : : - . ; : - 193 
 Song ; a service to be rendered to God, : - : : - 408-414 
 
 Spirit, the Holy; why sonamed? . : » : - 5 : 66-67 
 
502 INDEX. 
 
 . PAGE 
 Spirit, the Holy; seals believers, : - : : 5 ‘ 67-69, 364 
 ought not to be grieved, 2 : : 5 ° “ S . 863 
 his work in the soul, 2 - A > : 5 - - 250-253 
 is the source of revelation, : : : > = 5 . 224 
 Spiritual, as respects blessings, its signification, . - - : 5 13-15 
 Stranger, scriptural usage of word, . : . ‘s 5 - : oe al83 
 Teacher, office of Christian, : : : - : ; 0 : Aantal 
 Temple of the Lord, believers so named, . 4 : : : : - 208 
 Temperance, duty of, ; : ; : : . - : - . 405 
 Thanksgiving enjoined, . : . - . - - : - . 3882 
 Theft condemned, . - . : : : A . - 3859 
 Tribulations not to be Feeaamibel to, ‘ . : P Rod eee. . 244 
 but gloried in, : 5 . - : ° : . - 245 
 Truth, the, gospel so chatctesieeds - . A : > : = re Aa) 
 Truth ; to be strictly practised, : 5 ; : : : : - 3855 
 Ubiquity,of Christ, Lutheran dogma of, . : : : . 110-119, 304 
 Unbelievers—spiritually dead, . : 5 : é 4 : 20 
 children of disobedience, 5 ‘ 4 : 5 é : sods2 
 Uncharitableness forbidden, 2 : - B - 5 - 3866 
 Uncircumcision, the, who thereby desiznnten, : : A 6S 
 Union, the mystic, of Christ and his people; its same to the sata 
 relation of marriage, . : : : . 435-445 
 Unity of knowledge; a future perfection of the ca: 5 - . 817,318 
 Unity of spirit inculcated, : : : : . 277-279 
 Unregenerated, the; their character sau eaaarien: j : c - 131-142 
 Valediction, the, : . . . - : - : - 492 to end. 
 Warfare, the Christian’s, . : : 7 ; ; ‘ 467 and foll. pp. 
 the scene of the conflict, : 5 3 . , A 5 - 472 
 
 Wife’s, the, subjection to her husband, : ; 3 5 5 +. 417, 423 
 the reason and manner of it, . : ; : : . 418, 421-423 
 
 reverence to her husband, ; : : : : ‘ . 446 
 Wisdom, divine, manifested in the plan of Paaraption, : é - 5 BBE) 
 Word of God, the, the Christian’s weapon, 5 ; ‘ . 483 
 Works, good, the fruit and end of faith, not the cause of it, : . 161-164 
 
INDEX OF GREEK TERMS MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO. 
 
 > Ayabwatvn, « fae 
 ayia fa, : : We, 05 
 ay.os, = 15 1, 4 15, U8is nid. 
 anp, : - : é seeelisi 2k 
 aeos, : get teil 2, 
 aicxpérns, : v. 4, 
 aixuahwola, . : : avid 
 alx“ahwrevw, . ; avo 
 aidy, ey uth eae mite al 
 axabapola, . iv. 19; v. 3. 
 akdptros, . eel 
 aKkovw, Bal 
 axpoBvartia, B15 2 Lilie 
 akpoywviatos, ii. 20. 
 ahd, v. 24. 
 auaptla, . heals 
 G[Lw[L0s, - i, 4. 
 dvakepadatdw, . 7.0: 
 avahay Bava, vi. 13. 
 dvavedw, . iv. 23 
 avacTpopn, iv. 22. 
 aveXopat, iv. 2 
 avip, a v. 22 
 éxOpwmdpeckos, sowie 6 
 amaN)oTpiow, AL Ase ve 
 amelOeca, ¢ 2 als 
 
 ame, . vi. 9 
 amhérns, . ae 5 
 amoxdduyis, bol y/aatbis 
 amokata\\doow, at kG; 
 aToNUTpwots, tayiguls. 
 aorlOnpt, . iv. 22. 
 améaTonos, deliv. al. 
 appaBdy, . ay the AU 
 apx7n, TDs 
 dcenyela, iv. 19. 
 dowrla, a sg 
 addects, iby (fs 
 apbapola, ‘ . vi. 24. 
 addpwr, 3 : maveilig. 
 Bé)os, merrupwpevor, : “ . vi. 16. 
 Br\acpnula, . AVEO. 
 Bovdn, 2 er pelailalie 
 Teved, Lirias 
 uv”, - AV ee 
 Aénats, vi. 18. 
 befia, Kabefety é S 120: 
 diabynKn, - li. 12 
 Ovaxovia, . . iv. 12. 
 SudKovos, . iii. 7. 
 Oidvow, . - - i. 3. 
 6:dacKddos, E - avail. 
 Slowut, . A c - av.i8 
 dixacocvvn, iv. 24; v. 9. 
 61d NEyet, Svs LAs 
 Odyua, - ; weiss 15: 
 Séua, iv. 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 66£a, 5 
 dvvapus, 
 "Eyyis, 
 
 elye, 
 
 elpqvn, 
 
 éxdeyu, 
 éxkAnola, 
 EKTPEDY, . 
 éhaxtaT or Epos, 
 éXeos, 
 
 éAmls, 
 evodelKvupt, 
 Evduvap.ow, 
 evépyela, . 
 €VTONN, 
 éEayopatw, 
 é£ovola, 
 éerayyenia, 
 emlyvwats, 
 émOuuia, . - 
 ET Lpave, « 5 
 éemixopnyla, . 
 ET OUpayLOS, . 
 épyacla, . 
 
 éow dvOpwros, 6, 
 éTouacla, : 
 evayyeNoTns, . 
 evdperTos, 
 evdokla, 
 eUNoynTos, 
 evoTayxVos, 
 evTpatreNia, 
 evxXapicT ew, 
 evxapiotia, 
 
 ex Opa, 
 
 “HNuxla, 
 Od\rrw, 
 OédXnELA, 
 Bewéduos, . : 
 Oup.ds, : 
 
 Oupedr, 
 
 Oucla, 
 
 Owpak, . 
 “Iva, 
 
 loxvs, . 5 
 Kadifw, . 
 Kabws, . - 
 
 kal and perd, 
 Kawods, 
 
 Katpos, 
 
 kakla, 
 
 KGUTTO, « 
 KkaraBonn, 
 KkaTahapBdavouat, 
 KaTavTao, 
 KaTaprioL.os, 
 KQTOLKT7pLOY, 
 
 i. 17. 
 
 5 2 
 
 iv, lds Life 
 il. 2etve 21. 
 1, 2s te. WAS fa 
 1 Ae 
 
 : mee OA 
 oycliakeo. 
 
 5 eS 
 
 sok + Llp 
 
 rey Asien TIP 
 0 Mie 
 
 » Wise 
 1,20). 
 ode 
 
 20, LG. 
 
 1. 21 De 
 
 , 5 te 
 
 i. 17; iv. 18. 
 
 ii. 3; iv. 22. 
 
 5 . v. 14, 
 
 ° . iv. 16. 
 1,3, 20; i. 6; vi, 12. 
 epvewelO; 
 
 1 10; ii. 12; Vv. eG: 
 2 F aiVviroke 
 
 ii. 22; iii. 17. 
 
504 INDEX. 
 
 KaTwTEepa THS Vis, TA, iv. 9. | wep and vzrép, « vi. 19. 
 K\npovouta, 5 . 1,18. | mepixepadala, . vi. 17. 
 KAnpow, .« - i 11. | repiraréw, ii. 2, 10 
 kAjjots, : i. 18; iv. 2. | wepurolnois, ; : Cosy t 
 KAvdwrlfouat, . . iv. 14. | repiccedv, . : : ry iti ke 
 Kég[03, uu. 13. | aexpla, -iv. 31. 
 Koo {LoKpaTwp, vi. 12. | misrés, . ‘ 5 : A ily Ie 
 Kparos, i. 20. | weoveela, iv. 19; v. 3 
 Kpara.ow, iii. 16. | rAnpdw, : i. 23; iv. 10 
 Kpavy7, iv. 31. | rAjpapa, : : Se pedal) 20; 
 Kpuph, « . v. 12. | wAodros, . Rr pe kh fie dante, vor 
 Kriga, li. 10; iii. 9. | rvedpua, seek Be Teo 18: i. 5. 
 kuBela, . : . iv. 14. | rveiua Tov vods, iy. 23. 
 KUpLos, i, 2,15. | mvevmatixés, . ; : a? Sgleos 
 KUploTns, « - i. 21. | mvevwarixdy, 70, vi 12. 
 Aoyos, - ‘ - vi. 19. | roujy, . 5 sidivin allie 
 Makpay, . - ii. 13, 17. | modcreia, . A 5 : s ALM: 
 pakpoOuuia, . 5 . iv. 2. | modumolkidos, ii. 10. 
 bMaG)Xov 6€ Kal, - v. Ll. | rpairys, . : F > a diveee 
 peOodela, « . iv. 14. | mpoeroudgw, . ; . petal 
 meOvoKW, . v. 18. | mpoopléw, * - Teoh 
 per, ; -iv. 11. | rpocaywy7, il. 18: ii. 12 
 pera and kal, . - . Vi. 23. | rpocevx7, 3 : - Sivieeloe 
 pecdTorxyov, « ° - li. 14. | rpocdopd, : : 5 euRavence 
 mexpl, : iv. 13. | mpoowmrodAnupla, - . vi. 10. 
 penKerTL, : iv. 17. | mpopjrns, 5 ii. 20; in. B: iv. 11. 
 PLLNTHS, « : 5 . - vel. | re&pwors, . z : 5 2 1Ve LS. 
 puoTypiov, i. 9; ili. 3, 4; v.32; vi. 19. | ‘Purls, . : : : evel 
 pwporoyla, v. 4. | Zampés, : - eV 296 
 Nads, ‘ - ii. 21. | cdpé, A : spose te: v. 29. 
 vekpos, « 5 : Sw colar a ve é + shy tsb dif 
 voLLos, li, de | GaiNos, é 2 - Rone Po 
 vovbecta, . vi. 4. | orfvat pos, . Eevials til 
 vous, -iv. 17. | cvfworrodw, . C : LOS 
 PIGVOS;. . vs é i. 12, 19. | cupPiBatw, : : seivealiGe 
 Oiketos, . ' 5 - uu. 20. oupmonerns or apn VES Seiki alts). 
 oikodoum, c 5 li. 21; iv. 12. | ctveous, . . - ae bik Hts 
 olkovouta, - 1.10; iti. 2. | Tarrewodppoovvn, 4 5 ek eee 
 dvoa Tou Kuplov, - v. 20. | réXeuos, 5 iv. 13. 
 opyi, . = ii. 3; iv. 31. | TioBecia, . ; : c aS 
 opylfw, - iv. 26. | Uuvos,  . : : : Seale) 
 dovbrns, 4 5 . ly. 24. | brép and 7repl, . : : 5 Wily 13). 
 éouh evwolas, . v. 2. | drepdvw, oe ie Dt D0 eaves 
 bores, : é - 1. 23. | drepBddrov, . reel ire (subi 210). 
 ovpavots Ta ev aH5 i. 10; iv. 10. | Bavepovpar, . < - aa Veulos 
 SAE POEs vi. 6. | ppaypuss, . - : . . ii. 14, 
 Tladela, . vi. 4. | Ppdvyots, . . - : Pe Se 
 TavoT Nia, c - vi. 11. | gvous, . 5 5 hs ii. 3. 
 mavoupyla, . .iv. 14. | dwrifw, . : i. 18; iii. 9 
 TapaTT wma, Leh (setae MaptSs foe - ed Sle 2ekOs ii. 1h tke 
 TdpoLKos, « : - i. 19. | xapifouat, ‘ 4 j ealVerode 
 mapopyifw, iv. 26; vi. 4. | xapiréw, . : : : Cet IG: 
 TapopytaL.os, - . iv. 26. | xpnorés, . a - . iv. 32. 
 ren) 5 ili. 12. | xpnordrns, s : : ie Sattlny is 
 Tas, li. 21. | xwpls, . : : a mundienlices 
 Ilarinp ois Bdkns, 1.17. | Vddd\w, . 2 ; : envenlos 
 Tarpld, . ili. 15. | Waduds, . : A oevedlg: 
 metrolOnats, - ‘ 11.12. |’Q°67, sg : : - Be. Je) 
 
 
 
 
 
 GLASGOW: PRINTED BY WILLIAM MACKENZIE, 45 & 47 HOWARD STREET. —~ 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
My 
 
 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ea 
 bho 
 _ 
 
 Wa 
 
 _/ 
 
 es 
 
 oe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BS2695 .£11 1861 
 A commentary on the Greek text of the 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Speer Library 
 
 Vii A 
 
 4 1012 00062 305 
 
 pears 
 os 
 were 
 ‘Hh 
 om 
 ‘ 
 " 
 +5 
 bs 
 i