- wt os alist * sa geet hae EE ire et vine Hai HOHE ME SV RE TD it Oecd WT oP As elie 
 Qala getty + - may ee 
 Canon ameinansry tine erry Speaks yet 
 oe rE aarp ena epee prea ni ne : 
 
 ema ete eT 
 Spotted oe 
 
 = tet e 
 . 
 
 
 
 ee 
 
Library of Che Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 CP: 
 
 PRESENTED BY | 
 Mrs. Huston Dixon 
 
 BS2344 
 MG6I3 
 1884 
 
 9 
 
 
 
eR) Ny 
 
 
 
Fe 
 
 3 
 is 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 
 
 httos://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticO9meye 
 

 
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 Ob bo) 
 VP PRIMES 
 ey 
 
 
 
 
 HAND-BOOK { _ MAY 243 
 
 
 
 Ah gas 
 TO THE sty gen 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 BY if 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 G. H. VENABLES. 
 
 WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY 
 NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
 
 HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE EVANGELICAL 
 LUTHERAN CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA, AND LATE PROFESSOR OF THE 
 GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, PENNSYLVANIA 
 COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA, 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 Lue & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 
 
 1884. 
 

 
 - } 
 
 Arind a 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
 By FUNK & WAGNALLS, ~ : 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ‘ 
 ~ 
 
 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 ‘‘Tue Epistle to the Galatiansis my epistle. I have betrothed myself 
 to it. It is my wife.’? These words of Luther express most forcibly 
 the relation of the first epistle treated in this volume to the great strug- 
 gles whereby Protestant Christianity came into being as the revivification 
 of the pure gospel taught by St. Paul. The doctrine of justification 
 by faith alone without works, the articulus vel stantes vel cadentis ecclesiae, 
 is its great theme, which is unfolded with matchless skill and defended 
 with intensest ardor against the various perversions so abundant in mod- 
 ern Christianity, that had already manifested themselves in apostolic days. 
 Luther’s own commentary of 1519, of which John Bunyan said: ‘I 
 do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the. Galatians, excepting the 
 Holy Bible, before all books that I have ever seen, as most fit fora 
 wounded conscience,’’ owes all its power to the high degree with which 
 Luther has caught the spirit of Paul, and applies his argument, with the 
 same earnestness to the relations of a later time. It should be a mat- 
 ter of special gratitude, that, however fierce the battle waged over some 
 of the other epistles of Paul, the authenticity of this epistle, which per- 
 tains to the very centre of our faith, is all but universally conceded, only 
 one writer (Bruno Baur), and that one not of very high repute, having ven- 
 tured to question it, and that, too, on assumptions that can be instantly 
 answered. The entire theory of salvation by faith and works, which 
 modern Pelagianism would introduce into Protestantism, is at once met 
 in unmistakable words, as well as, also, the suggestion that original 
 Christianity was legalistic until St. Paul introduced the new element of 
 evangelical freedom, since this epistle asserts so emphaticaliy the har- 
 mony between the apostles. 
 
 The epistle to the Ephesians, belonging to a later period, when the 
 apostle was forcibly restrained from engaging in the active prosecution 
 of his life work, admits us into some of the great thoughts that engaged 
 his meditations. While bearing the true Pauline type, and constantly 
 urging the same great phase of 7 vistian doctrine, with his characteristic 
 ardor, in the depths into which it penetrates, and the constant connection 
 made between practical themes and the highest mysteries of faith, it ap- 
 
iv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 proaches above the other epistles of St. Paul the modes of thought and 
 reasoning found in St. John. Its long and involved sentences recall 
 the Epistle to the Romans, and remind us how inadequate the earthly 
 vessels to contain the abundance of divine revelation committed to 
 them. Its entire theme is found in ch. 1. 20-—23—viz., that Christ 
 is the centre and goal of all things to His church. From this 
 standpoint the development is so thorough, and extends over so vast a 
 compass, that in weighing the words of the epistle we are brought into 
 the closest contact with the most profound mysteries connected with al-— 
 most every article of revelation. The full discussion of the more impor- 
 tant terms employed in this epistle would, if systematically arranged, 
 form almost a complete body of doctrine. 
 
 We doubt whether in any of his commentaries the peculiar excellences 
 of Meyer as an expositor display themselves with better effect than in 
 this volume. His simplicity, general clearness, thorough acquaintance 
 with everything pertaining to the text of the Scriptures, astonishing in- 
 dustry in the study, collection, and condensation of the labor of all 
 important writers of all ages, languages, and confessions on the topics 
 treated, characteristic candor in expressing his doubts concerning difli- 
 culties that confronted him, and in even criticising and correcting his 
 own statements in former editions, are nowhere more apparent. However 
 mistaken we may at times regard his judgment, we must ever hold in 
 high esteem his work, as a handbook for scholars, that in its sphere is 
 without a rival. Traces of the rationalistic opinions with which he 
 started, but from which, as years of study followed, he was gradually 
 delivered, are to be found in his comments on these epistles. Such is, 
 for example, the low view which he takes of inspiration, and the conse- 
 quent undervaluing of the trustworthiness of the Book of Acts, leading to 
 avery ready solution, on his part, of seeming contradictions, by deciding 
 that St. Luke was, of course, incorrect. In several passages the subordi- 
 nation of the Son to the Father is maintained. Christological mysteries 
 find a too ready explanation by the introduction of conceptions cireum- 
 scribing our Lord with local limitations, even in the hidden glory in 
 which He has entered. Man’s natural estate is denied to be one in 
 which He is actually beneath God’s anger. By birth he is not a child 
 of wrath, but becomes such by the development of innate principles of 
 evil, in opposition to the moral will inclining to what is good, wherewith 
 he is also endowed. ‘This result, however, inevitably follows in every 
 one ‘‘ who lives long enough to be able tosin.’’? Man’s powers are only 
 impaired, not dead with respect to spiritual things. It would be very 
 unjust, however, to at once apply to our author the terms by which the 
 advocates of such errors are ordinarily designated in the history of doc- 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vv 
 
 trines and heresies. They are not developed in Meyer with any consis- 
 tency. He seems often to recoil from the conclusions to which his 
 premises lead, while the entire method and line of argument pursued 
 show how the subtile and pervasive poison of earlier life is gradually 
 being expelled by the ever closer contact of the author with the great 
 thoughts of eternity. 
 
 The work of the American editor has been, first, to make such changes 
 in the Edinburgh transiation as seemed to be required by the English 
 idiom. Not many passages were found where an emendation was 
 deemed necessary. A second task was to transfer to the footnotes most 
 of such references as were unessential to the sense contained in the text. 
 In this way we think that the commentary has been made much more 
 readable. Where references have been retained in the text, there has 
 generally been some reason for it. Thirdly, the great body of quotations: 
 from foreign languages have been translated. Exceptions have occurred, 
 as on p. 464, Note 1, and p. 468, Note 6, where the force of the quota- 
 tion is found in the very words employed, or their order, rather than 
 in the thought conveyed. Several passages have been allowed to stand 
 without a translation for euphemistic reasons. Fourthly, the text of the 
 translation has been compared with the revised Meyer, and all changes 
 made by the editors noted. The original intention was toembody them 
 all in the notes. This, however, was soon seen to be impossible in the 
 compass of the twenty-eight pages allowed us. Dr. Friedrich Sieffert, 
 of Erlangen, who has edited the volume on Galatians, as the Sixth Edi- 
 tion of Meyer, Gottingen, 1880, has so thoroughly wrought over the mate- 
 rial in Meyer’s own last edition, with so much scholarly independence, 
 and so many omissions, additions, and arguments taking exception to 
 Meyer, that the result may almost be regarded an entirely new commen- 
 tary prepared on the basis of Meyer. On the contrary, Dr. W. Schmidt, 
 of Leipzig, in the Fifth Edition of the Commentary on Ephesians, 
 Gottingen, 1878, has confined himself almost entirely to the work of 
 an editor, and made only a very few changes. It has been our aim, 
 accordingly, to include in our notes only the more important variations 
 from Meyer in these later editions, and to these to add such other notes, 
 selected and original, as we thought might serve the purposes of the stu- 
 dents into whose hands this volume would fall. In many of these notes 
 we have had in view the indication of what we believed to be important 
 errors in our revered author. Fifthly, additions have been made to the 
 critical apparatus prefaced to each chapter, mostly from the revised 
 German Meyer above mentioned. These we did not deem it necessary 
 in all cases to indicate, the effort being simply to preserve intact all the 
 comments. The references to Winer’s New Testament Grammar are 
 
vl PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 to the Seventh German Edition; and as Prof. Thayer’s American 
 edition indicates the paging of this edition on the margin, the references 
 to the Edinburgh edition in the translation we have revised were erased. 
 
 Special acknowledgments are due Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., whose scholarly attainments we have long known, and who 
 has exercised the same careful supervision over this volume as it passed 
 through the press that he has given the other volumes of the series. 
 
 We can only regret that our portion of work had to be performed 
 amidst the distraction of numerous other engagements, and without 
 either time or space for such thorough editing as would fulfil our ideal. 
 Every hour spent on it has been one of mingled pleasure and profit. 
 
 Henry E. Jacoss. 
 PuHrImApDELpuHtA, Oclober 15th, 1884. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 
 
 Some account of the circumstances in which this translation has been 
 undertaken, of the plan adopted in preparing it, and of the abbrevia- 
 tions used throughout, will be found prefixed to the Commentary on the 
 Epistle to the Romans, which also contains a Preface specially written 
 by Dr. Meyer for the English edition of his work. 
 
 It is unnecessary here to repeat the explanations there given except in 
 so far as they concern the course which I have followed in presenting to 
 the English reader Dr. Meyer’s work without subtraction or addition. 
 In reproducing so great a masterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it 
 proper to omit any part of its discussions or of its references—however 
 little some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to English 
 scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is entitled to expect that 
 his work shall not be tampered with, and I have not felt myself at 
 liberty to assume that the judgment of others as to the expediency of any 
 omission would coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it neces- 
 sary to append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the views 
 of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at variance with opinions 
 which I hold. Strong representations were made to me that it was de- 
 sirable to annex to certain passages notes designed to counteract their 
 effects ; but it is obvious that, if I had adopted this course in some 
 instances, I should have been held to accept or approve the author’s 
 views in other cases, where I had not inserted any such caveat. The 
 book is intended for, and can in fact only be used with advantage by, 
 the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far outweighs 
 its occasional doctrinal defects; and in issuing it without note or com- 
 ment, I take for granted that the reader will use it, as he ought, with 
 discrimination. The English commentaries of Bishop Ellicott, Dr. 
 Lightfoot, and Dr. Eadie serve admirably from different points of view— 
 philological, historical, doctrinal—to supplement and, when necessary, 
 to correct it; as does also the American edition of the Commentary 
 in Lange’s Bibelwerk, translated and largely augmented under the super- 
 intendence of Dr. Schaff. 
 
 The translation of the present volume has been executed with care by 
 
Vill PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 Mr. Venables, and remains in substance his work ; but, as I have revised 
 it throughout and carried it through the press, it is only due to him that 
 I should share the responsibility of the form in which it appears. — In 
 translating a work of this nature, the value of which mainly consists in 
 the precision and subtlety of its exegesis, it is essential that there should 
 be a close and careful reproduction of the form of the original ; but, in 
 looking over the sheets, I find not a few instances in which the desire to 
 secure this fidelity has led to an undue retention of German idiom. 
 This, I trust, may be less apparent in the volumes that follow. 
 
 In such a work it is difficult, even with great care, to avoid the occur- 
 rence of misprints, several of which have been observed by Mr. Venables 
 and myself in glancing over the sheets. Minor errors, such as the ocea- 
 sional misplacing of accents, it has not been thought necessary formally 
 to correct. We have taken the opportunity of correcting in the transla- 
 tion various misprints found in the original. The commentator referred 
 to in the text as ‘‘ Ambrose’’ (from his work on the Pauline Epistles 
 being frequently printed with the works of that Father) ought to have 
 been designated, as in the critical notes, ‘‘ Ambrosiaster,’’ and is usually 
 identified with Hilary the Deacon. 
 
 I subjoin a note of the exegetical literature of the Epistle, which may 
 be found useful. 
 
 W. PD 
 
 Guascow CottEecE, May, 1873. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 
 
 [For commentaries embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to 
 the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for those which deal with 
 the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see Preface to the Commentary on 
 the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes only those which con- 
 cern the Epistle to the Galatians in particular, or in which that Epistle holds 
 the first place on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular or practical 
 character have not in general been included, since, however valuable they may 
 be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical 
 character of the present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are gen- 
 erally noticed by Meyer in loc. The reader will find a very valuable notice of 
 the Patristic commentaries given by Dr. Lightfoot, 6th ed., p. 227 sqq.] 
 
 Akerstoor (Theodorus), Feformed minister in Holland: de Sendbrief van 
 Paullus an de Galaten, 4to, Leyd. 1695 ; translated into German by 
 
 Brussken. . 49, Bremen, 1699. 
 Aurivitiius (Olaus): Animadversiones exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in 
 Epistolam 8. Pauliad Galatas. 40, Halae, 1702. 
 Bacex (Henry T. J.): St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, the text revised and 
 illustrated by a commentary. 8°, Lond. 1857. 
 Bartus (Bartholomius), Professor of Theology at Greifswald : Commentarii in 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Gryphisw. 1613. 
 
 BauMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), Professor of Theology at Halle: Auslegung der 
 Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Philipp., Coloss., Philem., und 
 
 Thessal. (Mit. Beytragen von J. S. Semler). 49, Halle, 1767. 
 Berutervs (Matthius): Epistola Pauli ad Galatas, paraphrasi et controversia- 
 rum explicatione illustrata. 8°, Halae Sax. 1617. 
 BoreGer (Elias Annes), Professor of Greek and History at Leyden : Interpreta- 
 tio Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 8°, Leyd. 1807. 
 Boston (Thomas), minister of Ettrick : A Paraphrase upon the Epistle of Paul 
 to the Galatians [ Works, vol. vi.]. 12°, Lond. 1853. 
 
 BreiTHavupr (Joachim Justus), Professor of Theology at Halle : Observationum 
 ex Commentario Lutheri in Epistolam ad Galatas exercitationes 10 ; 
 in his ‘‘ Miscellanea.” 
 
 Brentz (Johann), Provost at Stuttgard : Explicatio Epistolae ad Galatas. 1558. 
 
 Brown (John), D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presby- 
 terian Church, Edinburgh : An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to 
 the Galatians. 8°, Edin. 1853. 
 
 BUGENHAGEN (Johann), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Adnotationes in 
 Epistolas ad Gal., Eph., Philipp., Coloss., Thess., Timoth., Tit., Pbi- 
 lem., et Hebraeos. 8°, Basil. [1525] 1527. 
 
 Carey (Sir Stafford), M.A.: The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, 
 with a paraphrase and introduction. 12°, Lond. 1867. 
 Carpzov (Johann Benedict), Professor of Theology and Greek at Helmstidt : 
 Brief an die Galater tibersetzt. 8°, Helmstiidt, 1794. 
 
5.4 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 CHANDLER (Samuel), minister in London : A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epis- 
 
 tles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, . . . together with a 
 critical and practical commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to 
 the Thessalonians. 49, Lond. 1777. 
 Cuemnirz (Christian), Professor of Theology at Jena: Collegium theologicum 
 super Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Jenae, 1656. 
 CuytrarEus [or Kocnuare] (David), Professsor of Theology at Rostock : Enar- 
 ratio in Epistolam ad Galatas. 8°, Francof. 1569. 
 
 Cxiaupius Taurinensis, bishop of Turin, called also Altissiodorensis or Autissi- 
 odorensis : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas [in Magn. Bibl. 
 
 Vet. Patr. ix.]. 
 Coccrsus [or Kocu] (Johann), Professor of Theology at Leyden : Commentarius 
 in Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1665. 
 Creu (Johann), Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli 
 ad Galatas ex praelectionibus J. Crellii conscriptus a Jon. Schlichting. 
 8°, Racov. 1628. 
 
 Favre (John), D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to United 
 Presbyterian Church, Glasgow : A Commentary on the Greek text of 
 the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 8°, Edin. 1869. 
 Exuicorr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul’s 
 Epistle to the Galatians ; with a critical and grammatical commen- 
 tary, and a revised translation. 
 
 8vo, Lond. 1854. 4th edition corrected, 1867. 
 
 Esmarcu (Heinrich Peter Christian) : Brief an die Giilater tibersetzt. 
 8°, Flensb. 1784. 
 
 Frrcuson (James), minister of Kilwinning, Ayrshire: A brief Exposition of 
 the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. 8%, Lond. 1659. 
 
 Frarr (Johann Friedrich von), Professor of Thelogy at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen 
 iiber den Brief an die Galater und Epheser, herausgegeben von Ch. F. 
 Kling. 8°, Tibing, 1828. 
 
 FrirzscHe (Karl Friedrich August), Professor of Theology at Rostock : Com- 
 mentarius de nonnullis Epistolae ad Galatas locis. 3 partes. 4°, Ros- 
 toch. 1833-4 [and in Fritzschiorum Opuscula. | 
 
 GryNaEvs (Johann Jakob), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg : Analysis Epis- 
 tolae ad Galatas. 49 Basil. 1583. 
 
 Gwynne (G. J.) : Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 
 8°, Dubl. 1863. 
 
 HaLpANE (James Alexander), Edinburgh : An Exposition of the Epistle to the 
 
 Galatians. 12°, Lond. 1848. 
 Henster (Christian Gotthilf), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Der Brief an die 
 Galater tibersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Leip. 1805. 
 Hermann (Johann Gottfried Jakob), Professor of Poetry at Leipzig : De Pauli 
 Epistolae ad Galatas tribus primis capitibus. 8°, Lips. 1832. 
 
 HrGENFELD (Adolf), Professor of Theology at Jena: Der Galaterbrief tibersetzt, 
 in seinen geschichtlichen Beziehungen untersucht und erklirt. 
 8°, Leip. 1852. 
 Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Professor of Theology at Erlangen : 
 Die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht. 
 If. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Galater. 
 8°, Nérdlingen, 1863 ; 2te veriinderte Auflage, 1872. 
 Housten (Carl), Teacher in Gymnasium at Rostock : Inhalt und Gedankengang 
 des Briefes an die Galater, 4to, Rostock 1859; also, Zum Evangelium 
 des Paulus und Petrus. 8°, Rostock, 1868. 
 
 Jarno (Georg Friedrich). Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief 
 an die Galater nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erliutert. 
 8°, Hildesheim 1856. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. X1 
 
 Kravse (Friedrich August Wilhelm), Private tutor at Vienna : Der Brief an die 
 Galater tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1788. 
 Kromayer (Hieronymus), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : Commentarius in 
 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Lips. 1670, 
 Kunap (Andreas), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Disputationes in 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Witteb. 1658. 
 
 Licutroor (Joseph Barber), D.D., Professor of Divinity at Cambridge: St. 
 Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text, with introduction, 
 notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1865. 6th edition, 1880. 
 Locks (John), the philosopher : A Paraphrase and notes on the Epistles to Ga- 
 latians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians. 
 49 Lond. 1733. 
 Lusnineton (Thomas), M.A., Rector of Burnham-Westgate, Norfolk : A Com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [said to be chiefly translated 
 from Crell]. fol., Lond. 1650. 
 Lurer (Martin): In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius (brevior), 4to, 
 Lips. 1519 ; ab auctore recognitus, 1523. In Epist. P. ad Gal. Com- 
 mentarius (major) ex praelectionibus D. M. Lutheri collectus ...a 
 Luthero recognitus et castigatus, 8vo, Viteb. 1535 ; jam denuo diligen- 
 ter recognitus, 8vo, Viteb. 1538. Often reprinted ; translated into 
 English in 1575, and often re-issued. 
 Lyser [or LrysEr] (Polycarp), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg : Analysis 
 Epistolae ad Galatas. 4° Witteb. 1586. 
 
 Marraras (G. W.), Co-rector of Gymnasium at Cassel : Der Galaterbrief griech- 
 isch und deutsch, nebst einer Erklirung seiner schwierigen Stellen. 
 8°, Cassel, 1865. 
 Marrures (Konrad Stephan), Professor of Theology at Greifswald : Erklirung 
 des Briefes Pauli an die Galater. 8°, Greifswald, 1833. 
 Mayer (Ferdinand Gregorius), Professor of Greek at Vienna: Der Brief Pauli 
 an die Galater und der 2 Brief an die Thessalonicher iibersetzt mit 
 Anmerkungen. 8°, Wien, 1788. 
 Micuaruis (Johann David), Professor of Philosophy at Gottingen : Paraphrase 
 und Anmerkungen tiber die Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., 
 Col., Thessal., Tim., Tit., Philem. 4°, Bremen und Gdotting. 1750 ; 
 2te vermehrte Auflage, 1769. 
 Moxnprennawer (Johann Heinrich Daniel), pastor at Hamburg: Brief an die 
 Galater iibersetzt. 8°, Hamb. 1773. 
 Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : 
 Acroases in Epistolas Paulinas ad Galatas et Ephesios. 
 8°, Leip. 1795. 
 Muscunus [or Mrussirn] (Wolfgang), Professor of Theology at Berne: In 
 Kpistolas Apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et Ephesios commentarii. 
 fol., Basil, (1561) 1569. 
 
 Pareus [or WAENGLER] (David), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg: In di- 
 vinam S. Pauli ad Galatas Epistolam commentarius. 
 49, Heidelb. 1613. 
 Pauuus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg : Des 
 Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater und Rémerchristen, wort- 
 getreu iibersetzt mit erliuternden Zwischensitzen, einem Uberblick 
 des Lehrinhalts und Bemerkungen tiber schwere Stellen. 
 8°, Heidelb. 1831. 
 PerEINS (William), minister at Cambridge : A commentarie or exposition upon 
 the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians . . . Continued 
 with a supplement upon the sixt chapter by Rodolfe Cudworth, B. D. 
 [ Works, vol. ii. ]. 2°, Lond. 1609. 
 Prime (John), Fellow of New College, Oxford: Exposition and observations 
 upon St. Paul to the Galatians. 8°, Oxf. 1587. 
 
 Retramayr (Franz Xaver), R. C. Professor. of Theology at Munich: Com- 
 mentar zum Briefe an die Galater. 8°, Miinchen, 1865. 
 
xii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 Riccattoun (Robert), minister at Hobkirk: Notes and Observations on the 
 
 Hpistle to the Galatians [Works, 1i1. ]. 8°, Edin. 1771. 
 Rottockx (Robert), Principal of University of Edinburgh : Analysis logica in 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 8°, Lond. 1602. 
 Riickert (Leopold Immanuel), Professor of Theology at Jena: Commentar 
 tiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater. 8°, Leip. 1833. 
 
 Sanpay (W.), Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham. The Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians with a Commentary.. (Handy Commentary Series, edited by 
 C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol). 16mo. 
 London, Paris, and New York. ; 
 Sarprnoux (Pierre-Auguste): Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Galates, précédé 
 d’une introduction critique. 8°, Valence, 1837. 
 Scuarr (Philip), D.D., Professor of Theology at New York : An Introduction 
 and comment on chapters i. ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians [in the 
 Mercersburg Review, Jan. 1861]. 
 Scuittinec (Johann Georg): Versuch einer Uebersetzung des Briefes an die 
 Galater, mit erklarenden Bemerkungen, nach Koppe. 8°, Leip. 1792. 
 SCHLICHTING (Jonas), Socinian minister at Racow. See Crell (Johann). 
 Scumip (Sebastian), Professor of Theology at Strassburg: Commentarius in 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Kiloni, 1690. 
 ScHMOLLER (Otto) of Urach, Wiirtemberg : Der Brief Pauli an die Galater theo- 
 logisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [in Lange’s Bibelwerk], 8vo, Bielefeld. 
 1862 ; 2te Auflage 1865. [Translated by C. C. Starbuck, A.M. ; edited, 
 with additions, by M. B. Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York and Edin, 1870.] 
 Scuorr (Heinrich August), Professor of Theology at Jena: Epistolae Pauli ad 
 Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Textum Graecum recognovit et com- 
 mentario perpetuo illustravit H. A. Schott. 8°, Leips. 1834. 
 Scuiirze (Theodor Johann Abraham) : Scholia in Epistolam ad Galatas. 
 4°, Gerae, 1784. 
 SemieR (Johann Salomon), Professor of Theology at Halle: Paraphrasis 
 Hpistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 8°, Halae, 1779. 
 SeRrpanpo (Girolamo), Cardinal : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas ; 
 ad nonnullas quaestiones ex textu Epistolae catholicae responsiones. 
 8°, Antyv, 1565. 
 SroiBenre (Balthasar), Professor of Greek at Wittenberg : Lectiones publicae in 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Wittemb. 1667. 
 SrrvuenseE (Adam), pastor at Altona): Erklirung des Briefes an die Galater. 
 4°, Flensburg, 1764. 
 
 Trana (August Leopold) : Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Exposuit, etc. 
 8°, Gothob. 1857. 
 Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., Professor of Biblical Interpretation at New 
 York: The Epistle to the Galatians in Greek and English, with an 
 analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856. 
 
 Ustrrert (Leonhard), Professor of Theology at Berne: Commentar tiber den 
 Brief Pauli an die Galater, nebst einer Beilage .. . und einigen Ex- 
 cursen. 8°, Zurich, 1833. 
 
 Vicrormnus (C. Marius), teacher of rhetoric at Rome about a.p. 360 : In Epis- 
 tolam Pauliad Galatas commentariorum libri duo [in Mai’s Serip, Vet. 
 Nov, Coll. iii. 2]. 
 
 Weser (Michael), Professor of Theology at Halle: Der Brief an die Galater 
 
 uebersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Leip. 1778. 
 Weise (Friedrich), Professor of Theology at Helmstidt : Commentarius in 
 Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Helmst. 1705. 
 
 WeEssELtus (Johannes), Professor of Theology at Leyden : Commentarius ana- 
 lytico-exegeticus tam litteralis quam realis in Epistolam Pauli ad 
 Galatas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1750. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xiil 
 
 Wreseter (Karl), Professor of Theology at Gottingen: Commentar iiber den 
 Brief Pauli an die Galater, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Lehre 
 
 und Geschichte des Apostels. §°, Gotting. 1859. 
 WinpIscHMANN (Friedrich), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich: Erklirung 
 des Briefes an die Galater. 8°, Mainz, 1843. 
 
 Winer (Georg Benedict), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: Pauli ad Galatas 
 Epistola. Latine vertit et perpetua annotatione illustravit Dr. G. B. 
 Winer. 8°, Lips. 1821. Editio quarta aucta et emendata, 1859. 
 
 ZacuaniaE (Gotthilf 'Traugott), Professor of Theology at Kiel : Paraphrastische 
 Erklarung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col., und 
 Thess. 8°, Gotting. [1771] 1787. 
 

 
PREFACE. 
 
 Srvce the days of Luther, who, as is well known, bestowed more es- 
 pecial and repeated labor on the exposition of this than of any other 
 book of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Galatians has always 
 been held in high esteem as the Gospel’s banner of freedom. To it, 
 and to the kindred Epistle to the Romans, we owe most directly the 
 springing up and development of the ideas and energies of the Reforma- 
 tion, which have overcome the work-righteousness of Romanism with all 
 the superstition and unbelief accompanying it, and which will in the fu- 
 ture, by virtue of their divine life once set free, overcome all fresh re- 
 sistance till they achieve complete victory. This may be affirmed even 
 of our present position towards Rome. For, if Paul by this Epistle in- 
 troduces us into the very arena of his victory ; if he makes us witnesses 
 of his not yielding, even for an hour, to the false brethren ; if he bids 
 us hear how he confronts even his gravely erring ‘ellow-apostle with the 
 unbending standard of divinely-revealed truth ; if he breaks all the 
 spell of hypocrisy and error by which the foolish Galatians were bound, 
 and in the clear power of the Holy Spirit brilhe tly vindicates what no 
 angel from heaven could with impunity have assailed ; how should that 
 doctrine, which at this moment the sorely beset old man in the chair of 
 the fallible Peter proposes to invest with the halo of divine sanction, — 
 how should the éreporv evayyéAroy from Rome, which it is now 
 sought to push to the extremity of the most flagrant contradictio in adjecto 
 —possibly issue in any other final result than an accelerated process of 
 self-dissolution ? It is, in fact, the profoundly sad destiny which a 
 blinded and obdurate hierarchy must, doubtless amidst unspeakable mor- 
 al harm, fulfil, that it should be always digging further and further at 
 its own grave, till at length—and now the goal seems approaching, 
 when these dead are to bury their dead—with the last stroke of the spade 
 it shall sink into that grave, to rise no more. 
 
 The Epistle to the Galatians carries us back to that first Council of the 
 Church, which at its parting could present to the world the simple and 
 true self-witness : £005 TO ayio TVEVMATL nat Hiv. How deep 
 a shadow of contrast this throws not merely on the Vatican Fathers, but 
 
xvi PREFACE, 
 
 also—we cannot conceal it—on our own Synods, when their proceed- 
 ings are pervaded by a zeal which, carried away by carnal aims, forfeits 
 the simplicity, clearness, and wisdom of the Holy Spirit! Under such 
 circumstances the Spirit is silent, and no longer bears His witness to the 
 conscience ; and instead of the blessing of synodal church-life,—so 
 much hoped for, and so much subjected to question,—we meet with 
 decrees, which are mere compromises of human minds very much opposed 
 to each other,—agreements, over which such a giving the right hand of 
 holy fellowship as we read of in this letter (ii. 9) would be a thing im- 
 possible. 
 
 In issuing for the fifth time (the fourth edition having appeared in 
 1862) my exposition of this Epistle, so transcendently important alike 
 in its doctrinal and historical bearings, I need hardly say that I have 
 diligently endeavored to do my duty regarding it. I have sought to 
 improve it throughout, and to render it more complete, in accordance 
 with its design ; and, while doing so, I have striven after a clearness and 
 definiteness of expression, which should have nothing in common with 
 the miserable twilight-haze and intentional concealment of meaning that 
 characterize the selection of theological language in the present day. 
 
 
 
 If I have been pretty often under the necessity of opposing the more 
 recent expositors of the Epistle or of its individual sections, I need 
 hardly give an assurance that I, on my part, am open to, and grateful 
 for, any contradiction, provided only some true light is elicited thereby. 
 Even if that opposition should come from the energies of youth, which 
 cannot yet have attained their full exegetical maturity, I gladly adopt the 
 language of the tragedian (Aeschyl. Agam. 583 f.): 
 
 Nixduevoe Adbyorow obk avatvomas 
 Aci yap 7Ba Toig yépovew eb wabeiv. 
 
 Dr. MEYER. 
 Hannover, 18th June, 1870. 
 
THE 
 
 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION: 
 
 
 
 SEC. I.—THE GALATIANS. 
 
 HE region of Galatia, or Gallograecia,' bounded by Paphlagonia, 
 Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and having as its chief cities 
 Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, derived its name fromthe Gauls.? 
 For the Gallic tribes of the Tpoxuot and TodcoroBéyo. *—in conjune- 
 
 tion with the Germanic * tribe of the Tectosages, which, accord- 
 
 ing to Strabo, was akin to them in language * 
 
 
 
 after invading and devastat- 
 
 ing Macedonia and Greece (Justin. xxiv. 4) about 280 B.c., and establishing 
 in Thrace the kingdom of Tyle,® migrated thence under the leadership of 
 Leonorius and Lotharius to Asia, where they received a territory from the 
 Bithynian king Nicomedes for their services in war. This territory they 
 soon enlarged by predatory expeditions ;” although by Attalus, king of 
 Pergamus, who conqucred them, it was restricted to the fertile region of 
 the Halys.* This powerful, dreaded,*® and freedom-loving '’ people were 
 brought into subjection to the Romans by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 
 189 B.c. ;” but they still for a long time retained both their Celtic cantonal 
 constitution and their own tetrarchs,” who subsequently bore the title of 
 
 1 See generally Strabo, xii. 5. 
 
 2 Tadatar, which is only a later form of the 
 original KeAroé or KeArar, Pausan. i. 3, 5. 
 
 3 Strabo, Z.c. p. 566. 
 
 1This serves to explain Jerome’s state- 
 ment, based on personal experience (Prol. 
 in libr. secund. comment. in ep. ad Gal.), that 
 the popular language, which in his time 
 was still spoken by the Galatians along 
 with Greek, was almost the same (eandem 
 paene) with that of the Vreviri. Now the 
 Treviri were Germans (Strabo, iv. p. 194), 
 and * circa affectationem Germanicae orig- 
 inis ultro ambitiosi,”’ ‘‘in the endeavor to 
 pass for Germans, very ambitious” (Tacit. 
 Germ. 28). Comp. Jablonski, de lingua 
 Lycaon. p. 23. See, generally, Diefenbach, 
 Celtica, Stuttg. 1839 f.; Rettberg, Kirchen- 
 
 il 
 
 gesch. Deutschl. i. p. 19 ff: The two last. 
 without adequate grounds, call in question 
 the Germanic nationality of the Galatians. 
 See, on the other side, Wieseler, p. 524 ff., 
 and in Herzog’s Hncykl. XIX. p. 524. The 
 conversion of the Galatians is the begin- 
 ning of German Church-history. 
 
 5 Caes. B. Gall. vi. 24; Memnon in Phot. 
 cod. 224, p. 374. 
 
 6 Polyb. iv. 45 f. 
 
 7 Liv. xxxviii. 16; Flor. ii. 11; Justin. xxv. 
 2; Strabo, iy. p. 187, xii. p. 566. 
 
 8 Strabo, xii. p. 567; Liv. xxxviii. 16. 
 
 9 Polyb. v. 53; 2 Mace. viii. 20. 
 
 10 Flor. ii. 11. 
 
 11 Liv. xxxviii. 12 ff. 
 
 12 Strabo, xii. pp. 541, 567. 
 
4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 king.’ The last of these kings, Amyntas (put to death 26 B.c.), owed it to 
 the favor of Antonius and Augustus that Pisidia and parts of Lycaonia? and 
 of Pamphylia were added to his territory.* In the year 26 Galatia, as en- 
 larged under Amyntas, became a Roman province.? 
 
 On account of the additional territories thus annexed to Galatia proper 
 under Amyntas, it has been maintained that the readers of this epistle are 
 not to be looked upon as the Galatians proper, but as the new Galatians, 
 that is, Zycaonians (especially the Christians of Derbe and Lystra) and Pisi- 
 dians.* But this view ‘is decisively opposed both by the language of Acts 
 (xiv. 6, comp. with xvi. 6, xviii. 23), in which the universally current 
 popular mode of designation, not based on the new provincial arrange- 
 ments, is employed ; and also by the circumstance that Paul could not have 
 expressed himself (Gal. i. 2) in a more singular and indefinite way than by 
 raic éxkAyolac tHe Tadariac, if he had not meant Galatia proper, the old Gala- 
 tia. Nor are any passages found in Greek authors, in which diséricts of 
 Lycaonia or Pisidia are designated, in accordance with that extension of the 
 limits of the province, by the name of Galatia.® 
 
 The founder of the Galatian churches was Paul himself (Gal. i. 6-8, iv. 
 13 ff.) on his second missionary journey, Acts xvi. 6 (not so early as xiv. 6). 
 Bodily weakness (iv. 13) had compelled him to make a halt in Galatia, and 
 during his stay he planted Christianity there. Looking at the involuntary 
 character of this occasion and the unknown nature of the locality to which 
 his first work in the country was thus, as it were, accidentally directed, it 
 might appear doubtful whether in this case he followed his usual rule, as 
 attested in Acts, of commencing his work of conversion with the Jews ; 
 but we must assume that he did so,’ for the simple reason that he would be 
 sure to seek the shelter and nursing, which in sickness he needed, in the 
 house of one of his own nation : comp. on iv. 14. Nor was there any want 
 of Jewish residents, possibly in considerable numbers, in Galatia (as we may 
 with reason infer from Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 4, xvi. 6. 2, as well as from the 
 diffusion of the Jews over Asia generally ; not, however, from 1 Pet. i. 1); 
 although from the epistle itself it is evident* that the larger part, indeed 
 
 1Cic. p. rege Deiotaro; Vellei. ii. 84; Fincykl. VV. p. 637 f.; Contzen, Wanderungen 
 
 Appian, v. p. 1135; Plut. Ant. 61. 
 
 2 Not the whole of Lycaonia, particularly 
 not the south-eastern portion and Iconium. 
 See Riickert, Magaz. I. p. 98 ff. 
 
 3 Dio Cass. xlix. 32, lili. 26; Strabo, xii. 
 p. 569. 
 
 4Dio Cass. liii. 26; Strabo, xii. p. 569. 
 See generally, in addition to the Commen- 
 taries and Introductions, Wernsdorf, de 
 republ. Galatar., Norimb. 1743; Hoffmann, 
 Introd. theol. crit. in lect. ep. P. ad Gal. et 
 Col., Lips. 1750; Schulze, de Galatis, 
 Francof. 1756; Mynster, Hin. in d. Brief an 
 d. Gal.,in his kl. theol. Schr., Kopenh. 1825, 
 p. 49 ff.; Hermes, verwn Galaticar. speci- 
 men, Vratisl. 1822; Baumstark, in Pauly’s 
 Realencykl. 11. 604 ff. ; Riietschi, in Herzog’s 
 
 der Celten, Leip. 1861. 
 
 5 Joh. Joach. Schmidt (in Michaelis); 
 Mynster, Z.c. p. 58 ff. ; Niemeyer, de temp. 
 quo ep. ad Gal. ete., Gott. 1827; Paulus, in 
 the Heidelb. Jahrb. 1827, p. 636 ff., and Lehr- 
 briefe an d. Gal. u. Rim. p. 25 ff. ; Ulrich, in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, ii.; Bottger, Beitr. 
 Jand 3; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. 
 p. 124. 
 
 6 See Riicxert, Wagaz. I. p. 105 f.; Anger, 
 de ratione temp. p. 132 ff. ; Wieseler, Chronol. 
 d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 281 f.,and on Gal. p. 530 ff. 
 
 7 As also Neander, de Wette, Wieseler, 
 and most others assume, in opposition, 
 however, to Schneckenburger (Zweck d. 
 Apostelgesch. p. 104), Baur and Hilgenfeld. 
 
 8 See sec. 2. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 the great majority, of its readers’ consisted of Gentile Christians. The ar- 
 guments from the Old Testament (together with a partially rabbinical mode 
 of interpretation), which Paul nevertheless employs, were partly based on 
 the necessary course of the apostolic preaching which had to announce 
 Christ as the fulfilment of Old Testament promises, as well as on the ac- 
 quaintance with the Old Testament which was to be presupposed in all 
 Christian churches ;? partly suggested to the apostle by the special subject 
 itself which was in question ;° partly justified, and indeed rendered neces- 
 sary, by the fact that the apostle—who must, at any rate, have taken notice 
 of the antagonistic teachers and the means of warding off their attack—had 
 to do with churches which had already for a time been worked upon by 
 Judaists and had thus been sufficiently introduced to a knowledge of the 
 Old Testament. The supposition of Storr, Mynster,* and Credner, that 
 great part of the Galatian Christians had been previously proselytes of the 
 gate, appears thus to be unnecessary, and is destitute of proof from the epistle 
 itself, and indeed opposed to its expressions ; see on iv. 9. 
 
 SEC. II.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE 
 EPISTLE. 
 
 Judaizing Christian teachers with Pharisaic leanings (comp. Acts xvi. 1) 
 —emissaries from Palestine (not unbelieving Jews ; Michaelis, Hin/.)—had 
 made their appearance among the Galatian churches after Paul, and with 
 their attacks upon his apostolic dignity (i. 1, 11, ii. 14), and their assertion 
 of the necessity of circumcision for Christians (v. 2, 11, 12, vi. 12 f.), which 
 involved as a necessary consequence the obligation of the whole law (v. 8), 
 had found but too ready a hearing, so that the Judaizing tendency was on 
 the point of getting the upper hand (i. 6, iii. 1, 3, iv. 9 ff., 21, v. 2 ff.,'%). 
 Now the question is, whether these anti-Pauline teachers—who, however, 
 are not, on account of y. 12, vi. 13, to be considered either wholly or in part 
 
 
 
 as proselytes °—made their appearance before,® or not till after,” the second 
 visit of the apostle (Acts xviii. 23 ; see sec. 3). From i. 6, ii. 1, it is evi- 
 dent that Paul now for the first time has to do with the church as actually 
 perverted ; he is surprised and warmly indignant at what had taken place. 
 Nevertheless it is evident, from i. 9, v. 3, iv. 16, that he had already spoken 
 personally in Galatia against Judaizing perversion, and that with great carn- 
 estness. We must therefore assume that, when Paul was among the Gala- 
 tians for the second time, the danger was only threatening, but there already 
 existed an inclination to yield to it, and his language against it was conse- 
 quently of a warning and precautionary nature. It was only after the apos- 
 tle’s departure that the false teachers set to work with their perversions ; and 
 
 1 Not the whole, as Hilgenfeld thinks ; other hand, Hilgenfeld, p. 46 f. 
 
 comp. Hofmann. 6 Credner, Riickert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, 
 2 Comp. on iy. 21. Reuss, Wieseler, and others. 
 3 See sec. 2. 7Neander, de Wette, Hofmann, and 
 aPC De C0: others. 
 
 5 Neander, Schott, de Wette; see, on the 
 
4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 although they did not get so far as circumcision (sce on iv. 10), still they 
 met with so much success,’and caused so much disturbance of peace (v. 15), 
 that the accounts came upon him with all the surprise which he indicates in 
 i G,itisy 12? . 
 
 In accordance with this state of things which gave occasion to the letter, 
 it was the object of Paul to defend in it his apostolic authority, and to bring 
 his readers to a triumphant conviction of the freedom of the Christian from 
 circumcision and the Mosaic law through the justification arising from God’s 
 grace in Christ. But we are not entitled to assume that ‘in the liveliness 
 of his zeal he represented the matter as too dangerous;’’* the more especially 
 as it involved the most vital question of Pauline Christianity, and along 
 with it also the whole personal function and position of the apostle, who 
 was divinely conscious of the truth of his gospel, and therefore must not be 
 judged, in relation to his opponents, according to the usual standard of 
 ‘* party against party.” 4 
 
 As regards contents, (1) the apologetico-dogmatic portion of the epistle 
 divides itself into two branches : (a) the defence of the apostolic standing 
 and dignity of Paul, ch. i. and ii., in connection with which the foundation 
 of Christian freedom is also set forth in li. 15-21 ; (4) the proof that the 
 Christian, through God's grace in Christ, is independent of circumcision and 
 Mosaism, ch. iii. and iv. Next, (2) in the hortatory portion, the readers 
 are encouraged to hold fast to their Christian freedom, but also not to mis- 
 use it, ch. v. Then follow other general exhortations, ch. vi. 1-10; and 
 finally an energetic autograph warning against the seducers (vi. 11-16), 
 and the conclusion. The idea that the epistle is the reply to a letter of in- 
 formation and inquiry from the church,® is neither based on any direct evi- 
 dence in the epistle itself (how wholly different is the case with 1 Cor, !) nor 
 indirectly suggested by particular passages (not even by iv. 12); and such 
 an assumption is by no means necessary for understanding the course and 
 arguments of the epistle. 
 
 SEC. IN.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION—GENUINENESS. 
 
 The date of composition may be gathered from iv. 138, compared with 
 Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23. From einyyedcaunv ipiv 76 mpétepov, iv. 18, it is most 
 distinctly evident that, when Paul wrote, he had already twice visited Ga- 
 latia and had preached the gospel there. The constant use of evayyeAifeodar 
 to denote oral preaching precludes us from taking ° rd zpérepov as said with 
 relation to his present written instruction. Those, therefore, are certainly 
 in error who assume that the epistle was composed after the jirst visit of 
 the apostle, whether this first visit be placed correctly at Acts xvi. 67 or 
 
 1 To the extent, at any rate, of an obsery- 4 Baur, Paulus, I. p. 282, ed. 2. 
 
 ance of the Jewish feast-days and seasons 5 Hofmann. 
 
 (iv. 10). 6 With Grotius, and Keil, Anal. IV. 2, 
 2 Comp. also Ewald, p. 54; Lechler, apost. p. 70. 
 
 Zeitalt. p. 383. 7 Michaelis. 
 
 3 De Wette. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 erroneously at Acts xiv. 6.’ As regards the latter, Keil has indeed asserted 
 that in ch. i. and ii. Paul continues his history only down to his second 
 journey to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30 ; that he does not mention the apostolic 
 conference and decree, Acts xv.;* and that in this epistle his judgment of 
 Mosaism is more severe than after that conference. But the journey, ii. 1, 
 is identical with that of Acts xv. (see the commentary) ; his omission to men- 
 tion the apostolic conference and decree * is necessarily connected with the 
 self-subsistent position—wholly independent of the authority of all the other 
 apostles, and indeed recognized by the ‘‘ pillars” themselves (ii. 9 f.)—which 
 Paul claimed for himself on principle in opposition to Judaizing efforts. 
 Therefore neither in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 1 ff., x. 23 ff.), 
 nor in that to the Romans (ch. xiv.), nor anywhere else, does he take any 
 notice of the Jerusalem decree.4 Assured of his own apostolic indepen- 
 dence asa minister of Christ directly called and furnished with the revelation 
 of the gospel for the Gentile world in particular, he has never, in any point 
 of doctrine, cited in his favor the authority of other apostles or decrees of 
 the church ; and he was least likely to do so when, as in the present 
 case, the matter at stake was a question not merely affecting some point of 
 church-order, but concerning the deepest principles of the plan of salva- 
 tion.® Moreover, the first three injunctions of that decree in particular 
 (Acts xy. 29) agree so little with the principle of full Christian liberty, con- 
 sistently upheld in the letters of the apostle, that we must suppose the decree 
 to have speedily—with his further official experience acquired after the coun- 
 cil—lost altogether for him its provisional obligation. It is, further, a mis- 
 take to apply 7 epiywpoc, Acts xiv. 6, to Galatia, as, besides Keil, also 
 Koppe, Borger, Niemeyer, Mynster, Paulus, Béttger, and others, have done; 
 for this zepiywpoc can only be the country round Lystra and Derbe, and it is 
 quite inadmissible to transfer the name to the Lycaonian region (see sec. 1). 
 Lastly, in order to prove a very early composition of the letter, soon after 
 the conversion of the readers, appeal has been made to otto tayéwe, 1. 6, but 
 without due exegetical grounds (see the commentary); and indeed the men- 
 tion of Barnabas in ii. 13 ought not to have been adduced,° for a personal 
 acquaintance of the readers with him (which they must certainly have made 
 before Acts xv. 39) is not at all expressed init. If, in accordance with all 
 these considerations, the epistle was not written after the first visit to Gala- 
 tia,—a date also inconsistent with the fact that its contents presuppose a 
 
 
 
 1 Keil. 
 
 2 Comp. also Ulrich, /.c, 
 
 3 Against the opinion that the unhistori- 
 eal character of the narrative of the apos- 
 tolic council and decree may be inferred 
 from our epistle (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, 
 Hilgenfeld), see on Acts xv. 15 f. The 
 Tiibingen school believe that in this epistle 
 they have found ‘the Archimedean point 
 of their task’ (Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift 
 J. histor. Theol. 1855, p. 484). 
 
 4 This uniform silence as to the decree in 
 all the epistles shows that that silence in 
 
 our epistle must not be explained either 
 by the presumed acquaintance of the Gala- 
 tians with it (Schaff, p. 182), or by the idea 
 that the apostle was unwilling to supply 
 his opponents with any weapon against him 
 (Ebrard). 
 
 5‘“*His word as Christ’s apostle for the 
 Gentiles must be decree enough for them ” 
 (Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 180+ 
 See also Wieseler, in Herzog’s Zncykl. XIX. 
 p. 528). 
 
 6 Koppe. 
 
6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 church-life already developed, and an influence of the false teachers which 
 had already been some time at work—and if the first visit of the apostle is 
 to be placed, not at Acts xiv. 6, but at Acts xvi. 6,7 followed by the second 
 visit confirming the churches, Acts xviii. 23, then most modern expositors, 
 following the earlier, are right in their conclusion that the epistle was not 
 composed until after Acts xviii. 23.° We must reject the views, which place 
 the date of composition between Acts xvi. 6 and Acts xviii. 23, as maintained 
 by Grotius (on i. 2), Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Storr, Borger, 
 Schmidt, Mynster, or which carry the epistle back to a date even before the 
 apostolic conference, as held by Beza, Calvin, Keil, Niemeyer, Paulus,* Bott- 
 ger,° Ulrich. 
 
 
 
 As we cannot gather from the relative expression obrw rayéuc (i. 6) how 
 soon after Acts xviii. 23 the epistle was composed, the year of its composi- 
 tion cannot be stated more precisely than (see Introd. to Acts) as about 56 or 
 57.6 Hphesus appears to be the place from which it was written ; for Paul 
 proceeded thither after his second labors in Galatia (Acts xix. 1). So Theo- 
 Rickert, 
 however, following Hug, maintains that Paul wrote his epistle very soon 
 
 phylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and most modern expositors. 
 
 after his departure from Galatia, probably even on the journey to Ephesus ; 
 but, on the other hand, the passage iv. 18 indicates that after the apostle’s 
 departure the Judaists had perverted the churches which he had warned 
 and confirmed, and some measure of time must have been required for this, 
 although the perversion appears still so recent that there is no adequate 
 reason for postponing the composition of the epistle to the sojourn of the 
 apostle at Corinth, Acts xx. 3.7 
 
 The usual subscription, which is given by the old codd. B**, K, L, says 
 
 1JTt has been objected, indeed, that on 
 this journey Paul only confirmed the 
 churches, which presupposes an earlier 
 conversion (Acts xy. 36 ff., xvi. 5). But 
 Acts xvi. 6 begins anew stage in the his- 
 torical narrative, and Phrygia and Galatia 
 are separated from those places to which 
 the confirming ministry referred. Nor is it 
 to be said that in Acts xvi. 6 Paul was with- 
 held by the Spirit from preaching in Gala- 
 tia. For the hindrance by the Spirit 
 affected not Galatia, but the regions along 
 the coast of Asia Minor. See on Acts xvi. 6. 
 
 2 So Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, de Wette, 
 ‘Winer, Hemsen, Neander, Usteri, Schott, 
 Riickert, Anger, Credner, Guericke, Ols- 
 hausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
 Bleek, Hofmann, and others. 
 
 3 On Baumg. p. 895, not in the Paraphr. 
 
 4 According to Paulus, the apostle wrote 
 to the New-Galatians (see sec. 1), whom he 
 converted at Acts xiv. 6 and visited for the 
 second time (Gal. xiv. 13) at Acts xiv. 21. 
 
 5 According to Bottger (Beitr. 3, § 1-11), 
 the epistle is addressed to the New- Galatians 
 (Lycaonians and Pisidians), and was writ- 
 
 ten in the year 51, after the first missionary 
 journey of the apostle. Bdottger has re- 
 peated Keil’s arguments, and has added 
 fresh ones, which are untenable. See their 
 copious refutation by Riickert, Magaz. I. 
 p. 112 ff. 
 
 6 From the remarkable difference in the 
 positions which have been assigned to our 
 letter in the history of the apostle—Marcion 
 (in Tertull. c. Ware. 5, and in Epiph. Haer. 
 xlii. 9), and subsequently Michaelis, Baum- 
 garten, Koppe, Schmidt, Keil, Mynster, 
 Niemeyer, Paulus, Ulrich, making it the 
 very jirst; and Schrader and Ko6hler, the 
 very last of the Pauline epistles,—it was 
 natural that the year of composition should 
 be fixed at the most various dates, even 
 apart from the differences of reckoning as 
 to the Pauline chronology. In consequence 
 of this divergence of opinion as to its his- 
 torical position, the statements as to the place 
 of composition have necessarily been very 
 various (Troas, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus, 
 Rome). 
 
 7 Bleek conjecturally. 
 
INTRODUCTION. fi 
 
 éypady axd ‘Pouye 3 and Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and the Syrian 
 church, as afterwards Baronius, Flacius, Salmasius, Estius, Calovius, and 
 others, held this opinion, which arose simply from a misunderstanding of 
 iv. 20, vi. 11, and especially vi. 17, and was quite unwarrantably supported 
 by ii. 10 (comp. with Rom. xv. 28). Nevertheless, recently Schrader?! and 
 KGhler,’ the latter of whom exceeds the former in caprice, again date the 
 epistle from Rome. ® 
 
 The genuineness is established by external testimony *— although the 
 apostolic Fathers contain no trace in any measure certain, and Justin’s 
 writings only a probable trace, of the letter °>—as well as by the completely 
 and vividly Pauline cast of the writer’s spirit and language. It is thus 
 so firmly established, that, except by Bruno Bauer’s wanton ‘‘ Aritik ” 
 (1850), it has never been, and never can be, doubted. The numerous inter- 
 polations which, according to Weisse,* the apostolic text has undergone, 
 depend entirely on a subjective criticism of the style, conducted with an 
 utter disregard of external critical testimony. 
 
 
 
 1j, p. 216 ff. 
 
 2 Abfassungzeit der epistol. Schriften, p. 
 125 ff. 
 
 3 For the refutation of which their argu- 
 ments are not worthy, see Schott, Zrdrte- 
 rung, pp. 63 ff., 41 ff., 116 ff. ; Usteri, p. 222 ff. 
 
 4Tren. Haer. iii. 6.5, iii. 7. 2, iii. 16. 3, v. 
 21. 1; Tatian, in Jerome; Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. iii. p. 468, ed. Sylb. ; Tertull. de prae- 
 ser. 6, & al.; Canon Murat., Valentinus in 
 Trenaeus, Marcion. 
 
 § Even in Polyearp, Phil. 5, comp. Gal. vi. 
 7, there may be a quite accidental similar- 
 ity of expression. Lardner appealed to 
 
 Clem. ad Cor. i. 49; Ignat. ad Philad. 1, ad 
 Magnes. 8; Just. Mart. ad Graec. p. 40, ed. 
 Colon, and discovered in these passages 
 allusions to Gal. i. 4, i. 1, v. 4, iv. 12. There 
 appears to be an actual allusion to this last 
 passage in Justin, where it runs: yivea@e as 
 eyo: OTL Kayo Hunv ws vueis, ** Become as I, 
 because I was as you.”’ The probability of 
 this is increased by the fact that Justin soon 
 afterwards uses the words, €x@pat, €pecs, 
 Cndos, épiOetar, Ovuol, Kai Ta Omora TovTots, 
 which look like an echo of Gal. v. 20 f. 
 
 6 Beitrdge zur Krit. d. Paulin. Briefe, 
 edited by Sulze, 1867, p. 19 ff. 
 
8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Taviov éexioroAn xpos Takaras. 
 
 A BK 8&8, and many min., also Copt., give simply zpoc Tatarac, which—doubt- 
 less the earliest superscription—is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 
 CELA TER oi: 
 
 VER. 3. 7u0v] is wanting only in min., Damasc. Aug. (once) ; while A, min., 
 Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. Pel. Ambr. (once), Fulg. place it after 
 tatpoc. But as in the other epistolary salutations there is no 7uov after Kupiov, 
 it was sometimes omitted, sometimes moved to the position, which it holds in 
 the other epistles, after watpéc (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2, et al.). — 
 Ver. 4. repi] Elz. has [with B, 8***] izép, in opposition to ADEFGKL RS, 
 and many min., also Or. Theophyl. Oec. This external evidence is decisive, 
 although Paul has written iz ép rt. duapr. in 1 Cor. xv. 3. — Ver. 6. Xpiorov] is 
 wanting in F G, Boern. Tert. (twice), Cypr. (twice), Lucif. Victorin. But ac- 
 cording to the erroneous (although very ancient) connection of Xporod with 
 KaAécavtoc, Xpiotov, since the xaAeiv is God's, could not but give offence ; and 
 hence in 7, 43,52, Theodoret, Or., it is changed for Ocov. — Ver. 10. ei ér1] Elz. 
 Scholz have ei yap érz. But yap is wanting in A B D* F G* §&, min., Copt. 
 Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers, and has been inserted for the 
 sake of connection. — Ver. 11. Instead of dé, B D* F G &**, 17, 213, It. Vulg. 
 and Fathers have yép. The latter has mechanically entered from the use of the 
 same word before and after (vy. 10, 12). S*** has restored dé. — Ver, 12. 
 Instead of vite, A D*¥ F G 8, min, and Greek Fathers have ovdé. So Lachm. 
 A mechanical error of copying after the previous oidé. —— Ver. 15. 6 Oxdc] after - 
 eidox. is wanting in BF G, 20, and many vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. 
 and Schott; deleted by Tisch. ; rejected justly also by Ewald and Wieseler. 
 An explanatory addition. — Ver. 17. avj2$0v] B D E F G, 46, 74, Syr. p. 
 (in the margin), Bas., have a7jAdov. So Lachm. and Schott, while Elz. Tisch., 
 following AKL & Chrys. Vulg. Clar. have av7Adov. Certainly av7A8ov has 
 the appearance of interpolation, suggested as well by the direction of the 
 journey (comp. dvaBaivew eic ‘Tepocod.) as by ver. 18.— Ver. 18. Instead of 
 Ilérpov, supported by Elz., following DF K L &8*] A B 8, min., Syr. Erp. Copt. 
 Sahid. Aeth. Syr. p. (in the margin) have Kygadv. Approved of by Griesb., 
 adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Schott, Tisch. The Hebrew name, both here 
 and also in ii. 9, 11, 14, was supplanted by the Greek as a gloss ; hence in ii. 7, 
 8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Kydd¢ does not 
 oceur. We must not assume that the reading Kydédv arose through several 
 Fathers, like Clem. Al. in Eus. i. 12, being unwilling to refer the unfavorable 
 account in ii. 11 ff. to the Apostle Peter (Winer), because otherwise the Hebrew 
 name would only have been used from ii. 11 onwards, 
 
CHEAP? 41,7.) Vi. 9 
 
 Conrrnts.—After the apostolic address and salutation (vv. 1-5), Paul 
 immediately expresses his astonishment that his readers are so soon falling 
 away to a false gospel; against the preachers of which he utters his 
 anathema, for he seeks to please God, and not men (vv. 6-10). Next, he 
 assures them that his gospel is not of men, for he had not received it from 
 any man, but Christ had revealed it to him (vv. 11, 12). In order to con- 
 firm this historically, he appeals to his pre-Christian activity in persecution 
 and to his Jewish zeal at that time (vv. 13, 14), and gives an exact account 
 of his journeys and abodes from his conversion down to his formal acknowl- 
 edgment on the part of the original apostles ; from which it must be evident 
 that he could be no disciple of the apostles (vv. 15-24). 
 
 Ver. 1. ’Ardato2o¢ ov« az’ avOodruv ois JV avOpdrov, aAAa x.t.A.] Thus does 
 Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and careful definition, bring into promi- 
 nence at the very head of his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic 
 dignity, because doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia. 
 For by ov« aw’ avOparwv he denies that his apostleship proceeded from men 
 (causa remotior, ‘‘the more remote cause”), and by ovdé dv’ avOp. that it came by 
 means of & man (causa medians, ‘the mediate cause”), [See Note I., p. 37. | 
 Tt was neither of human origin, nor was a man the means of conveying it.’ On 
 axé, comp. also Rom. xiil. 1. To disregard the diversity of meaning in the two 
 prepositions,’ although even Usteri is inclined to this view (‘‘ Paul meant to 
 say that in no respect did his office depend on human authority”), is all the 
 more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two negam es very definitely separate 
 the two relations, these two relations cannot + expressed by the mere 
 change of number.* This in itself would be bu a feeble amplification of 
 the thought, and in order to be intelligible, would need to be more dis- 
 tinctly indicated (perhaps by the addition of roA2déy and évoc), for otherwise 
 the readers would not have their attention drawn off from the difference of 
 the prepositions. Paul has in the second instance written not av3pérwr again, 
 but avdpérov, because the contrast to 6’ avbpérov is dia "Inood Xprorov. [See 
 Note II., p. 37.] It was not a man, but the exalted Christ, through whom 
 the divine call to the apostleship came to Paul at Damascus ; airic 6 deoréryc 
 ovpavédev éxaddecev ovK avdpaotw ypnodpuevoc brovpy@, Theodoret. And this 
 contrast is quite just : for Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was indeed as 
 such, in the state of His self-renunciation and humiliation, dv0peroc (Rom. 
 vy. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21), and in His human manifestation not specifically dif- 
 ferent from other men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 8) ; but in His 
 state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole divine-human nature 
 in heaven (Eph. i. 20 ff. ; Phil. ii. 9, iii. 20, 21), He is, although subor- 
 dinate to the Father (1 Cor. iii. 23, xi. 3, xv. 28, e¢ al.), partaker of the 
 divine majesty which He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His 
 whole person at the right hand of God divine honor and divine dominion.‘ 
 
 1 Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 236; Winer, any man ;” comp. Bengel, Semler, Morus, 
 p. 390. Rosenmiiller. 
 2 Semler, Morus, Koppe, and others. 4 Comp. generally, Usteri, Lehrdegr. p. 327 ; 
 3 Koppe, ‘‘non hominum, ne cujusquam Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 306. 
 quidem hominis,” “not of men, not even of 
 
10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [See Note III., p. 87.]—xai Oeod rarpéc] Following out the contrast, we 
 should expect kai a6 Ocot ratp. But availing himself of the variety of form 
 in which his idea could be set forth, Paul comprehends the properly two- 
 fold relation under one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to 
 the modification in the import of the d:a, no reader could doubt that here 
 the principle cause is conceived also as mediate. As to this usage of éva in 
 popular language, see on 1 Cor. i. 9. Christ is the mediate agent of Paul’s 
 apostleship, inasmuch as Christ was the instrument through which God 
 called him ; but God also, who nevertheless was the principal cause, may 
 be conceived of under the relation of dév4 (comp. iv. 7 ; Lachmann), inas- 
 much as Christ made him His apostle, ov« dvev Ocod tazpédc, but, on the con- 
 trary, through the working of God, that is, through the interposition of the 
 divine will, which exerted its determining influence in the aet of calling 
 (comp. 1 Cor. i. 1; 2Cor.i. 1; Eph.i.°% 5 Col. i. 1; 1 Tima eae 
 1.)!1— The words Ocov rarpé¢ (which together have the nature of a proper 
 name: comp. Phil. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 23; 1 Pet. i. 2), according to the 
 context, cf. Rom. vi. 4, present God as the Father of Jesus Christ, not as 
 Father generally (de Wette ; comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as our Father (Paulus, 
 Usteri, Wieseler). [See Note IV., p. 37.] The Father is named after the 
 Son by way of climax (comp. Eph. v. 5): in describing the superhuman 
 origin of his apostleship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest [see 
 Note V., p. 38], without ~ hom (see what follows), Christ could not have 
 called him. Of course t “calling by Christ is the element decisive of the 
 true dzooro’# (Wieseler); “:t ** would remain so, even if Paul, advancing 
 to the more definite agent “' -waed Christ after God. The supposition 
 of a dogmatic precautior heodoret, iva ph tic broadBy brovpyoy elvar Tod 
 marpo¢ Tov vidy, ebpov mpoc yitvov TO did, expyaye Kad Ocod marpéc, ‘*In order 
 that no one might suppo: : that the Son is the subordinate of the Father, 
 after having used the adjacent dvd, he added xai Ocov ratpdc ;” comp. Chry- 
 sostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inappropriate as 
 Riickert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first intended merely to write 
 dia ’I. X., and then added as an after-thought, but inexactly (therefore 
 without a6), xa? Ocod matpdc. — Tod éyeipavroc avrov éx vexpov] For Paul was 
 called to be an apostle by the Christ who had been raised up bodily from 
 the dead by the Father (1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1 ; Acts ix. 22, 26) ; sothat these 
 words involve a historical confirmation of that «ai Oeov rarpé¢ in its special 
 relation as thoroughly assuring the full apostolic commission of Paul :? they 
 are not a mere designation of God as originator of the work of redemption (de 
 Wette), which does not correspond to the definite connection with aréc- 
 toaoc. According to Wieseler, the addition is intended to awaken faith 
 both in Jesus as the Son and in God as ourreconciled Father. But apart 
 from the fact that the Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of recon- 
 ciliation does not suggest itself at this stage ; and the whole self-description, 
 
 1 Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, dia tod Geod 2 Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864, 
 TovTov kuBepvatac, and Rom. Xi. 36, 6’ avtod ~— pp. 225. 
 7a mavta; Winer, p. 354 f. 
 
CHAP: T.,, 2. Ji 
 
 which is appended to Iaioc, is introduced solely by his consciousness of 
 Sull apostolic authority: it describes by contrast and historically what in 
 other epistles is expressed by the simple «Ayric axéorodoc. The opinion that 
 Paul is pointing at the reproach made against him of not having seen Christ, 
 and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the only one 
 called by the evalted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Estius, 
 and others), is inappropriate, for the simple reason that the resurrection 
 of Christ is mentioned in the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ). 
 This reason also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks 
 that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be conveyed. 
 Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a reference directed against the 
 validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther (comp. Calovius) against the trust in 
 one’s own righteousness. [See Note VI., p. 38.] 
 
 Ver. 2. Kal of oby éuol ravtec adeAdoi] adeApoi denotes nothing more than 
 JSellow- Christians ; but the words civ éuoi place the persons here intended in 
 special connection with the person of the apostle (comp. ii. 3; Phil. iv. 
 21) : the fellow-Christians who are in my company. This is rightly under- 
 stood as referring to his travelling companions, who were respectively his 
 official assistants, at the time,’ just as Paul, in many other epistles, has con- 
 joined the name of official associates with his own (1 Cor.i. 1 ; 2 Cor.i. 1; 
 Phitat; Col. i.1; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i,.4}.- Instead of mentioning 
 their names,* which were perhaps known to the ( alatians at least in part— 
 possibly from his last visit to them (Acts xviii. 2° or in some other way— 
 he uses the emphatic ravtec (which, however)'by% 9 means implies any very 
 large number, as Erasmus and others, inchs jhausen, have supposed), 
 indicating that these brethren collectively desire. 40 address the very same 
 instructions, warnings, exhortations, etc., to th -Galatians, whereby the 
 impressive effect of the epistle, especially as regarzs the apostle’s opponents, 
 could not but be strengthened, and therefore was certainly intended to be so 
 strengthened (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, and 
 others). At the same time, there is no need to assume that his opponents 
 had spread abroad the suggestion that some one in the personal circle of 
 the apostle did not agree with him in his teaching (Wieseler) ; actual indi- 
 cations of this must have been found in the epistle. Others have thought 
 of all the Christians in the place where he was then sojourning (Erasmus, Estius, 
 Grotius, Calovius, and others ; also Schott), This is quite opposed to the 
 analogy of all the other epistles of the N. T., not one of which is composed 
 in the name of a church along with that of the writer. It would, in that 
 case, have been more suitable that Paul should have either omitted civ éuot 
 (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20), or expressed himself in such a way as to intimate, 
 not that the church was oiv aire, but that he was civ airoic. To refer it 
 (with Beza) to the office-bearers of the church, is quite arbitrary ; for the 
 
 1 Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger ; mayr. 
 comp. Ellicott. 3 Which indeed he might have done, even 
 2 Comp. Pareus, Hammond, Semler, Mi- if the epistle had been, as an exception, 
 chaelis, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, written by hisown hand (but see on vi. 11) ; 
 Paulus, Riickert, Usteri, Wieseler, Reith- so that Hofmann’s view is erroneous. 
 
Wy THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 readers could not recognize this in ody éuoi without further explanation. — 
 Taig éxkAyoiatc tHe Tadar.| consequently a circular epistle to the several inde- 
 pendent ers The relations of the churches were different in Achaia : 
 see on 1 Cor. i. 2 Cor.i. 1. The fact that Paul adds no epithet of honor 
 (as KAyroic dyiore, “ called to be saints,” or the like) is considered by Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and by Winer, Credner, Olshausen (comp. 
 Riickert), Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, a sign of indignation. Comp. Grotius, 
 ‘quia coeperant ab evangelio declinare,” ‘‘ because they were beginning to 
 decline from the gospel.” And justly so ; because it is in Leen aa the 
 displeasure and chagrin which induce fa afterwards to refrain from all 
 such favorable testimony as he elsewhere usually bears to the Christian be- 
 havior of his readers, and, on the contrary, to begin at once with blame 
 (ver. 6). In no other epistle, not even in the two earliest, 1 and 2 Thess., 
 has he employed an address so abrupt, and one so faeccrpr ade by any 
 complimentary recognition ; it is not sufficient, therefore, to appeal to the 
 earlier and later ‘‘usage of the apostle” (Hofmann). 
 
 Ver. 3. Ocov ratpéc] refers here, according to the context, to the Chris- 
 tians, who through Christ have received the viotecia. See iv. 26 ff.; Rom. 
 vili. 15.— See, further, on Rom. i. 7. 
 
 Ver. 4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the recognition 
 of their error ; for their adhesion to Judaism was indeed entirely opposed 
 to the aim of the atoning death of Jesus. Comp. ii. 20, iii. 13 ff. ‘‘ See 
 how he directs every word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss. [See 
 Note VIL, p. 38]. — rod dévro¢ éavrdv] that is, who did not withhold (é¢eicaro, 
 Rom. viii. 32), but swrrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death.’ This 
 special application of the words was obvious of itself to the Christian con- 
 sciousness, and is placed beyond doubt by the addition rep? r. duapr. ju. 
 Comp. Matt. xx. 28; Eph. v. 25; Tit. ii. 145 1-Tim: ii, 6 >) idee 
 44 ; and Wetstein in ie — epi Tov duapt. ju.| in respect of our sins (Rom. 
 Vill. 3), 01 account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See Rom, iii. 
 23 ff. ; Gal. iii. 12 ff. In essential sense zepi is not different from trép,? 
 and the idea of satisfaction is implied, not in the signification of the prep- 
 osition, but in the whole nature of the case.* As to mepi and trép in 
 respect to the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never zep/) is always used 
 by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see further on 1 Cor. 1. 
 ISH >:G% oF ae écéAnrat nuac x.t.A.] End, which that self-surrender was to 
 attain. The évecrac aidv is usually understood as equivalent to 6 aidy obroc, 6 viv 
 Certainly in practical meaning éveora¢ 
 6 éveotac ypdvoc, tempus 
 gested by the literal 
 
 aiév, ‘*this world, the present world.” 
 may denote present (hence in the grammarians, 
 praesens), but always only with the definite reference sug 
 
 1Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, ro atua avrod 
 édwxev Urép nuwv, ‘‘His blood He gave for 
 you.’ For instances from Greek authors 
 of eSwxev Eavtov, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 
 p. 348. 
 
 21 Pet. iii. 18; Matt. xxvi. 28; Heb. x. 26, 
 xiii. 11; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17; Eur. Alc. 176, 
 comp. 701; Hom. J/, xii. 243, comp. i. 444; 
 
 see Buttmann, Jnd. ad Mid. p. 188; Schaef- 
 er, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. 
 p. 188, Goth. 
 
 3 Hom. J/. i. 444: DoiBw.. . éxatouByny pegar 
 tmép Aavaar, ‘‘ to offer a hecatomb to Phoe- 
 bus, for the benefit of the Dandi,”’ op’ itago- 
 peoda avaxra, ‘ to appease the king.” 
 
CHAP. I., 4. 13 
 
 signification, setting in, that is, im the course of entrance, that which has 
 already begun.' Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be 
 quite unsuitable to designate the aiav oiroc, because the latter is not an acon 
 just begun, but one running its course from the beginning and lasting until 
 the zapovoia ; and as elsewhere Paul always describes this present aidv as the 
 aidiv ovtog (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20 ; and frequently : comp. 6 viv aidr, 
 1 Tim. vi. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; Tit. ii. 12), we must explain it as the period of 
 time which is already in the act of setting in, the evil time which has already 
 begun, that is, the time immediately preceding the zapovoia, so that the aidv 
 éveotoc is the last part of the aidv oiroc. [See Note VIIL., p. 38.] — This aidv 
 évecroc is not only very full ef sorrow through the dolores Messiae (see on 
 1 Cor. vii. 26), to which, however, the ethical rovypéc in our passage does 
 not refer ; but it is also in the highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many 
 fall away from the faith, and the antichristian principle develops great 
 power and audacity (2 Thess. ii. 3 ff. ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. ; 2 Tim. iii. 1 ff. ; 2 
 Pet. iii. 3; Jude 18; 1 John ii. 18 ; Matt. xxiv. 10-12).2 On that account 
 this period of time is pre-eminently 6 aidv rovnpdc. With his idea of the 
 nearness of the zapovoia, Paul conceived this period as having then already 
 begun (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 7), although its full development was still in re- 
 serve (2 Thess. 11. 8). Accordingly, the same period is here designated 6 
 aloyv éveoté¢ Which in other places is called kacpo¢ écyarog (1 Pet. i. 5), éoyarac 
 quépae (Acts 1.17; 2 Tim. iii. 1), éoydry dpa (A John ii. 18), and in Rab- 
 binie }P. or NOtor Ht INAS (say ii. 2:3 Jer: xxiti. 20; Mic. iv. 1). 
 Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of 
 this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellowship with it [see Note IX., 
 p. 88], inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out, 
 and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life—the life 
 in the Spirit—was brought about in them (Rom. vi. 8). Christians have be- 
 come objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out of that 
 aiov rovypéc, so that, although living in this aiév they yet have nothing in 
 common with its rovypia.* The é£éAyrat, moreover, has the emphasis and is 
 accordingly prefixed. For how antagonistic to this separation, designed by 
 Christ, was the fellowship with the aiay rovypé¢ into which the readers had 
 relapsed through their devotion to the false teachers !—Observe, moreover, 
 that the aiév rovypée forms one idea, and therefore it was not necessary to 
 
 
 
 4 It is therefore self-evident how unjust is 
 the objection taken by Hilgenfeld to our 
 interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer’s 
 death to this short period of transition. 
 This the apostle inno way does, but he 
 portrays redemption concretely, displaying 
 the whole importance and greatness of its 
 salvation by the force of strongest contrast. 
 This remark also applies to Wieseler’s ob- 
 jection. Comp. Barnabas, Zp. 10, where 
 
 1 So not merely in passages such as Dem. 
 255. 9, 1466. 21 ; Herodian, ii. 2. 3; Polyb. i. 
 ip. 238 Hsd. vy. 47, ix. 6; 3 Macc. i. 16, but 
 also in Xen. Hell. ii. 1.5; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 
 8785 Dinarch. i. 93; Polyb. i. 88. 2, i. 60. 9, 
 vil. 5. 4 ; 2 Mace. iii. 17, vi. 9; comp. Schweig- 
 hduser, Lex. Polyb. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem. 
 Ce Cor. p. 350. So also universally in the 
 Nee Rom- vill. 883 1 ‘Cor: iis 22) vil. 265 2 
 Thess. li. 2 (comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1; Heb. ix. 9). 
 
 2 Comp. Usteri, /.c. p. 348 ff.; Liicke and 
 Huther on 1 John ii. 18. 
 3 See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2 Tim. iii. 1. 
 
 the righteous man, walking in this world, 
 Tov &ytov ai@va éxdéxetar, ** looks forward to 
 the holy world.” 
 
14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 repeat the article before zovypoi (as Matthias contends).'—xard 7d CéAnua 
 k.7.A.] strengthens the weight of the érw¢ ééAyra «.7.2.., to which it belongs. 
 Comp. Eph. i. 4 f. ; Col. i. 18 f. The salvation was willed by God, to whom 
 Christ was obedient (Phil. ii. 8) ; the reference of kara rt. Ged. k.7.2. to the 
 whole sentence from rov dévrog onwards ”® is less simple and unnecessary. The 
 connection with zovypov* would only be possible, if the latter were predica- 
 tive, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical. —r. Ocod x. rarp. hu. | 
 of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. Phil. iv. 20; 1 Thess. 
 i, 3, i. 11, 18. As to the cai, comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. i. 3 : from the 
 latter passage it must not be concluded that judy belongs also to Ocov. The 
 more definite designation x. zatp. 7yuav conveys the motive of the 3éAnua, love. 
 
 Ver. 5. Tothe mention of this counsel of deliverance the piety of the apostle 
 annexes a doxology. Comp. 1 Tim. i. 17; Rom. ix. 5, xi. 86, xyie27e 
 Eph. iii. 21. — 7 dda] that is, the honor due to Him for this 8éAnua. We 
 have to supply ei7, and not éo7i (Vulgate, Hofmann, Matthias), which 7s zn- 
 serted (Rom. i. 25 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11) where there is no doxology. So in the 
 frequent doxologies in the apostolic Fathers, e.g. Clement, Cor. I. 20, 88, 
 43, 45, 50, 58.° 
 
 Ver. 6. Without prefixing, as in other epistles, even in those to the Cor- 
 inthians, a conciliatory preamble setting forth what was commendable in his 
 readers, Paul at once plunges in mediam rem. He probably wrote without 
 delay, immediately on receiving the accounts which arrived as to the falling 
 away of his readers, while his mind was still in that state of agitated feeling 
 which prevented him from using his customary preface of thanksgiving and 
 conciliation,—a painful irritation (wvpoiua:, 2 Cor. xi. 29), which was the 
 more just, that in the case of the Galatians, the very foundation and sub- 
 stance of his gospel threatened to fall to pieces. — Vavuafw] often used by 
 Greek orators in the sense of surprise at something blameworthy.* In the 
 N.T., comp. Mark vi. 6 ; John vii. 21 ; 1 John iii. 13. —oirw rayéwe]| so very 
 quickly, so recently, may denote either the rapid development of the apostasy 
 (comp. 2 Thess. li. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22; Wisd. xiv. 28), as Chrysostom (ovdé 
 Xpdvov déovrat of avatavrec bude k.T.A.), Theophylact, Koppe, Schott, de Wette, 
 Windischmann, Ellicott, Hofmann, Reithmayr understand it ; or its early oc- 
 eurrence (1 Cor. iv. 19 ; Phil. ii. 19, e¢ al.), whether reckoned from the last 
 visit of the apostle (Bengel, Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler) or from the conver- 
 sion of the readers (Usteri, Olshausen). The latter is preferable, because it 
 corresponds with az6 tov xakécavtoc x.7.2., whereby the time of the calling is 
 indicated as the terminus a quo. Comp. iii. 1-3. [See Note X., p. 88 seq. ] This 
 view is not inconsistent with the fact that the epistle was written a consider- 
 able time after the conversion of the readers ; for, at all events, they had 
 been Christians for but a few years, which the oirw rayéwe as a relative idea 
 still suits well enough. By their yweratidecda: they showed themselves to be 
 
 
 
 1 See Kriiger, § 57. 2. 3. 5 Comp. the customary evAoynrés, sé. ein, at 
 
 2 Bengel, Wieseler, probably also MHof- Rom. ix. 5; Eph. i.3. See, further, on Eph. 
 mann. ili. 21. 
 
 3 Matthias. 6 Dem. 349. 3; Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 5113 
 
 4 Hofmann. Abresch, Diluc. Thue. p. 309. 
 
CHAP. i556. 15 
 
 rpéckarpor (Matt. xiii, 21), and this surprises the apostle. As to oitw, comp. 
 on ili. 3. — perarivecde] petatidnu, to transpose, in the middle, to alter one’s 
 opinion, to become of another mind, and generally to fall away.’ It 
 might also be understood in a passive sense (Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
 ueratid., not uerdyecde, is used : o¢ éxi apbyor, ‘tas to the faint-hearted ;” 
 Beza, ‘‘verbum passivum usurpavit, ut culpam in _ pseudo-apostolos 
 derivet,” ‘‘He has employed a passive verb, in order to cast the blame 
 upon the false apostles”). But the use of the middle in this sense is 
 the common one ; so that the passive sense, and the nicety which, accord- 
 ing to Beza, is involved in it, must have been more definitely indicated to 
 the reader in order to be recognized. The present tense denotes that the 
 readers were still. in the very act of the falling away, which began so soon 
 after their conversion. According to Jerome, the word itself is in- 
 tended to convey an allusion to the name Galatia : ‘‘ Galatia enim transla- 
 tionem in nostra lingua sonat,” ‘‘for in our tongue, Galatia means trans- 
 ferral” am. ; hence 7913, ns04, carrying away). Although approved by 
 Bertholdt, this idea is nevertheless an empty figment, because the thing sug- 
 gested the expression, and these Hebrew words denote the peratidectac in 
 the sense of evile.? But from an historical point of view, the appeals of 
 Grotius and Wetstein to the fickleness of the (Gallic character? are not 
 without interest as regards the Galatians. — a76 tov xahécavtog ipae év yapite 
 X.]* The tov xatécartoc is not to be taken with Xporov, as Syr., Jerome, 
 Erasmus (in the version, not in the paraphrase and annotations), Luther, 
 Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Morus and Flatt, understand it ; 
 against which may be urged, not (with Matthies and Schott) the want of 
 the article before Xpuoroi (see on Rom. ix. 5 ; comp. also 1 Pet. i. 15), but 
 the fact that the calling into the kingdom of the Messiah is presented by 
 Paul (and the apostles generally) so constantly as the work of God, that we 
 must not deviate from this analogy in explaining the words.® Thence, also, 
 tov kadéc. is not to be taken as neuter, and referred to the gospel (Ewald) ; 
 but 6 xazécac is God, and Xpiorov belongs to év yapitt, from him who has 
 called you through the grace of Christ. [See Note XI. p. 39.] 
 Xprorod is instrumental ; for the grace of Christ (Acts xv. 11 ; Rom. v. 15; 
 2 Cor. vili. 9; Tit. iii. 6: comp. also Rom. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 9, xiii. 13 ; 
 Philem. 25), viz., the favor of Christ unmerited by sinful men, according to 
 which He gave up His life to atone for them (comp. ver. 4), is that by which, 
 4.e., by the preaching of which, the divine calling reaches its subjects ; comp. 
 Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24. So xadeiv with év, 1 Cor. vii. 15 ; Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 7 ; to which passages the interpretation ‘‘ on the ground of grace’ is not 
 suitable. Others take év for eic ;7 so that by brevity of language év, indicat- 
 
 "Hy yapere 
 
 1 With cis, App. Hisp. 17; Ecclus. vi. 8; 
 With mpos, Polyb. xxvi. 2.6. See Wetstein 
 an loc. ; Kypke, II. p. 273; Ast. ad Plat. de 
 Leg. p. 497; from the LXX., Schleusner, 
 8.0. ; and from Philo, Loesner, p. 825. 
 
 2 See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 285. 
 
 3 Caes. B. Gail. iii. 19, iv. 5, ii. 1, iii. 10. 
 
 4On amo, away from, comp. 2 Mace. vii. 
 24; and see generally, Kiihner, § 622 ¢. 
 
 5 See on Rom. i. 6; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. 
 p. 387. 
 
 ® Wieseler. 
 
 7 Vulgate, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, 
 Beza, ete., also Borger and Rickert. 
 
16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ing the result of the direction, includes within it this also ; see Winer, 
 p- 888. This is unnecessarily forced, for such a constructio praegnans in Greek 
 and in the N. T. is undisputed only in the case of verbs of motion (as 
 épxeo¥a, eiovévar, éurintev, k.7.A.)."_ In point of.sense, moreover, this view is 
 liable to the objection that the «jouw always refers to the Messianie kingdom,? 
 and the grace of Christ is that which procures the Messianic cwrnpia (Rom. vy. 
 15, et al.), and not the curypia itself. On the absence of the article before 
 xapizz, see Winer, p. 118 f.—Observe, moreover, how the whole mode of 
 setting forth the apostasy makes the readers sensible of its antagonism to 
 God and salvation! Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. — eic érepov ebayy] 
 to a gospel of a different kind, from that, namely, which was preached to you 
 when God called you. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4. The contrast is based on the 
 previous designation of their calling as having taken place év ydpite Xpuorod 
 (not somehow by the law),—a statement clearly enough indicating the spe- 
 cific nature of the Pauline gospel, from which the nature of the Judaistic 
 teaching, although the Galatians had likewise received the latter as the 
 gospel for which it had been passed off, was withal so different (érepor). 
 Comp. ver. 8. 
 
 Ver. 7. The expression just used, ei¢ érepov evayyédcov, was a paradoxical 
 cne, for in the true sense there is only one gospel : it seems to presuppose 
 the existence of several evayyéda, but only serves to bring into clearer light 
 the misleading efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now 
 
 
 
 explains it. — 6 ov« éotw GAAo, ei ph K.T.A] which érepov ebayyéduov, to which ye 
 have fallen away, is not another, not a second gospel, alongside of that by 
 means of which ye were called (d/o, not érepov again), except there are certain 
 persons who perplex you, etc. That is, this érepov evayyéduov is not another by 
 the side of the former, only there are certain persons who perplex you ; so that 
 in this respect only can we speak of érepov ebayyédvov as if it were an d2Ao.° 
 It must be observed that the emphasis is laid first on oi« and then on ao ; 
 so that, although Paul has previously said ci¢ érepov ebayyédcov, he yet guards 
 the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the 
 words érepov eiayy as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the evayy. 
 Tov Kadécavroc bude év yapite Xpiorov). Thus’ei wf retains its general meaning 
 nisi, unless, without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for 
 el pn GAAo éoTi bia TOUT, Te Tivéc Eloy of Tapdcoovrec K.T.A., ‘‘ unless there is 
 another, for the reason that there are some who disturb you.” * The two em- 
 
 1Comp. also Hartung, wéber ad. Kas. p. qui,” etc., ‘unless perchance their influence 
 68 f. isto be highly esteemed, who,” ete. But 
 
 21 Thess. ii. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 
 145 1 Peto wed0k) Reve xx. 9) er a7, > also 
 1 Cor. i. 9, and passages such as Col. iii. 15; 
 1 Thess. iv. 7. 
 
 3 So in substance Wieseler and Hoffmann; 
 comp. Matthias. 
 
 4 Fritzsche, ad Mare. vi. 5, takes «i py 
 ironically, and ties in the well-known 
 sense, people of importance (see on Acts Vv. 
 36, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731): ‘nist 
 Sorte magni est facienda eorum auctoritas, 
 
 the article which follows renders this inter- 
 pretation not at all necessary (see below). 
 Besides, in this sense Paul uses unly the 
 neuter (see ii. 6, vi. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 7). Lastly, 
 he is fond of designating false teachers, 
 adversaries, etc., as tues, that is, guidam, 
 quos nominare nolo, *‘some whom I am 
 unwilling to mention.” (Hermann, ad 
 Viger. l.c.). See il Cor. iv. 18; 2 Corin 1; 
 Gal. ii. 12,1 Cor. xv. 12; 1 Tim. i. 3. 
 
CHAPS Ty lis BL 
 
 phatic words érepov and ao preserve, however, their distinction in sense : dAAo 
 meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise existing (in addition 
 to the one gospel); and érepov one ef another kind, different.’ [See Note XIL., 
 p- 39.] The interpretation most generally received® connects 6 ob« ati dAdo 
 merely with evayyéAcov,* and for the most part understands ei uw adversatively, 
 “* Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu Christo vera ; sunt vero homines,” 
 “nor is any other doctrine of Jesus Christ true ; but there are men,” etc., 
 Koppe. Against this interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that érepov 
 previously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore quite unwar- 
 rantably excluded from the reference of the rclative which follows ; second- 
 ly, that Paul must have logically used some such expression as wi bvto¢ aAA07'; 
 and lastly, that ei “7 never means anything else than nisi, unless, not even in 
 passages such as ii. 16 ; Matt. xii. 4 (see on this passage) ; Luke iv. 26° 1 
 Cor. vii. 17 ; and Rev. ix. 4, xxi. 27.4 Others, as Calvin, Grotius (not Calo- 
 vius), Homberg, Winer, Riickert, Olshausen, refer 6 to the whole contents of 
 bre obtw Tayéwo . . . Evayyéduov, ‘‘ quod quidem (se. vos deficere a Christo) non 
 est aliud, nisi, etc., the case, viz., your departure from Christ is not otherwise 
 than.” ° But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, so Paul- 
 ine in its character, which 6 ov« éotw dAdo bears to érepov, is lost ; and why 
 should the more special explanation of the deficere a Christo be annexed in 
 so emphatic a form, and not by a simple ydp or the like? Lastly, Schott °® 
 regards 6 ov« éoTev 4220 as a parenthesis, and makes ei jf rivec x.7.4. depend on 
 Savudtw x.7.2.; so that that, which is expressed in the words Javudlw k.t.2., 
 by et uy civec x.7.2. ‘‘limitibus cireumscribatur proferenda defectionis causa, 
 qua perpendenda illud Gavuatew vel minuatur vel tollatur,” ‘is circumscribed 
 by limits to set forth the cause of the defection, by weighing which the 
 Savudtew is cither diminished or removed.” This is incorrect, for logically 
 Paul must have written @Saiwafov dv. . . et uy tTiwec joav ; and with what 
 arbitrary artifice 6 ov« éorw a2Ao is thus set aside, and, as it were, aban- 
 doned, and yet the reference of the 6 to the emphatic érepov is assumed ! — 
 ol tapdcoorvrec tac| The participle with the article designates the tvvéc as 
 those whose characteristic was the rapaccew of the Galatians, as persons who 
 dealt in this, who were occupied with it.” [See Note XIIL., p. 39.] On 
 tapdocevv, in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here 
 
 lérepov kau avouorov, ‘different and dis- 
 similar.” Plat. Conv.p.186 B. Dem. 911.7; 
 Soph. Phil. 501, O. C.1446; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 
 8 (and Kriigerin/oc.), Wisd. vii. 5 ; Judith 
 viii. 20. In the N. T., comp. especially 
 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, xv. 40; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts 
 iv. 12; also 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Rom. vii. 23 ; Mark 
 Xvi. 12; Luke ix. 29. Comp.also the ex- 
 pression étepov rapa tr, Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Phaed. p.'71 A., Rep. p. 337 E. 
 
 2 Peschito, Chrysostom,Oecumenius, The- 
 odoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
 Wolf, Bengel, and many others ; also Mo- 
 tus, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Usteri, de Wette, 
 Hilgenfeld, Reithm. 
 
 2 
 
 3 So already the Marcionites, who proved 
 from this passage that there was no other 
 gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in Jac. 
 
 4 Comp. Hom. Od. xii. 325 f., obd€ tus aAAos 
 ylyver’ emert’ aveuwr, et 4H Evpos te Noros te, 
 ““no other wind then arose, save only the 
 east and the south,” and the passages in 
 Poppo, ad Thue. Il. 1, p. 216. 
 
 5 Winer. 
 
 ® So also Cornelius & Lapide. 
 
 7 Comp. the very usual ciciv ot Aé€yortes ; 
 also Luke xviii. 9; Col. ii. 8. See generally 
 Winer, p. 104; Kriiger, § 50. 4.3; Fritzsche, 
 Quaest. Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 
 Dp. 238, 
 
18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 and v. 10, especially Acts xv. 24; Ecclus. xxviii. 9. — xal SéAovre¢ perac- 
 tpéya] ‘*re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe,” ‘‘ they really were 
 not able, yet they earnestly wished it,” Bengel ; ‘‘volunt . . . sed non valent,” 
 ‘they wish, but are not capable,” Jerome. On the other hand, the rapdc- 
 cew of the Galatians actually took place. —The article before rap. refers to 
 Gédovtec as Well.’ — petactpépa, to pervert, that is, to alter so that it acquires 
 an entirely opposite nature.” — 7d eiayy. tov X.] see generally on Mark i. 1. 
 The genitive is here not auctoris, of the author, but, as expressing the spe- 
 cific characteristic of the one only gospel in contradistinction to those who 
 were perplexing the Galatians, objecti, the genitive of the object (concerning 
 Christ). This is evident from ver. 6, where év ydpit: Xpiorod indicates the 
 contents of the gospel. 
 
 Ver. 8. ’AAAd, not but, as an antithesis to ob« gore dAdo (Hofmann), 
 which has already been fully disposed of by ¢ u7 «.7.2. It is rather the 
 however confronting most emphatically the tivé¢ eicw of tapacoovtes K.7.A. 
 ‘There are some, etc. ; whoso, however, so behaves, let him be accursed !” 
 This curse pronounced by the apostle on his opponents is indirect, but, 
 because it is brought about by a conclusion @ majori ad minus, all the more 
 emphatic. —xai éav] to be taken together, even in the case that.* — jyeic| 
 applies primarily and chiefly to the apostle himself, but the civ éyot ravrec 
 adeAgoi (ver. 2) are also included. [See Note XIV., p. 89.] To embrace in 
 the reference the associates of the apostle in founding the Galatian churches * 
 is premature, for these are only presented to the reader in the einyyeAcodpeda 
 which follows. — dyyedoc é& oipavoi to be taken together : an angel ovpavéder 
 xataBac (Hom. Jl. xi. 184). Comp. dayyedou év otpavé, Matt. xxii. 30. [See 
 Note XV., p. 39.] If Paul rejects both his own and angelic authority—con- 
 sequently even the supposed superhuman intervention (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 1)— 
 with reference to the case assumed, as accursed,* every one without exception 
 (comp. écri¢ av 1j, v. 10) is in the same case subject to the same curse. The 
 certainty, that no other gospel but that preached by the apostle to his 
 readers was the true one, cannot be more decisively confirmed. — zap’ 6 
 evyyyedic. iuiv| This 8, which is not to be explained by etayyéAuov,* is simply 
 that which, namely, as the context shows, the contents of the gospel ; 
 “beyond that which we,” ete.’ This may mean either praeterquam, 
 ‘“pesides,”® or contra, ‘‘against.”* For the two meanings, see Matthiae, 
 p. 1381 ; Winer, p. 377. In earlier times a dogmatic interest was involved 
 in this point : the Lutherans, in order to combat tradition, laying the stress 
 
 1See Seidler, ad Hur. El. 429; Fritzsche, 
 
 ad Matth. p. 52; Kiihner, a@ Xen. Mem. i. 1. 
 19. 
 
 2 Comp. LXX. 1 Sam. x. 9; Ecclus. xi. 31; 
 Hom. J/. xv. 203 ; Dem. 1032. 1. 
 
 3 See Herm. a@ Viger. p. 8382; Hartung, 
 Partikell. 1. p. 140 f. 
 
 4 Hofmann. 
 
 5 Comp. Ignatius, a@ Smyrn. 6, where it 
 is said even of the angels, éav wy mieTevVowory 
 eis TO alua Xpiotovd, Kakelvois Kplors eotiv, 
 “‘unless they believe in the blood of Christ, 
 
 there is judgment even to them.” 
 
 ® Schott, Flatt, Hofmann. 
 
 7 Bernhardy, p. 259. 
 
 8 Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, The- 
 ophylact, Eras:nus, Beza,Calovius, Rambach, 
 Reithm. and others. 
 
 ®So Theodoret and the older Catholics, 
 Grotius, and many others; also Winer, 
 Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hof- 
 
 mann. 
 
CHAP Ais, 29: 1S) 
 
 on praeterquam ; and the Catholics, to protect the same, on contra.’ The 
 contra, or more exactly, the sense of specific difference, is most suitable to the 
 context (see ver. 6, érepov evayyéA.). Comp. Rom. xvi. 17. [See Note XVI., 
 p. 39.] —etyyyedodueda iyiv] that is, ‘““I and my companions at the 
 time of your conversion” (comp. rapeAdBere, ver. 9). The emphasis, 
 however, lies on zap’. —avddeua éatw] Let him be subject to the divine 
 wrath and everlasting perdition (O71), the same as xardpa and ér:kardparoc, 
 ili. 18; see on Rom. ix. 8. The opposite, vi. 16. To apply it? to 
 the idea of excommunication subsequently expressed in the church ® by the 
 word avat_ena, is contrary to the usage of the N. T. (Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. 
 xii, 8, xvi. 22), and is besides in this passage erroneous, because even a 
 false-teaching angel is supposed in the protasis. Comp., on the contrary, 
 v. 10, Baorace: 75 xpiua ; 2 Thess. i. 9. See generally the thoroughly excel- 
 lent discussion of Wieseler, p. 39 ff. Mark, moreover, in the use of the 
 preceptive rather than the mere optative form, the expression of the apos- 
 tolic éovcia, Let him be ! 
 
 Ver. 9. Again the same curse; * but now the addition of an allusion to an 
 earlier utterance of it increases still more its solemn earnestness. — d¢ zpoer- 
 pyxauev| is referred by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the earlier exposi- 
 tors, also Flatt, Winer, Matthies, Neander, to ver. 8. But in this case Paul 
 would have written merely dc eipfxapev, Tadev Aéyo, OY Simply waAuy épa, as in 
 Phil. iv. 4. The compound verb rpoeipixapev (Vv. 21 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3, xiii. 2 ; 
 1 Thess. iv. 6) and xa? adpze point necessarily to an earlier time, in contrast to 
 the present. Hence the Peschito, Jerome,’ Semler, Koppe, Borger, Riickert, 
 Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, 
 Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others, rightly take it as indi- 
 cating the presence of the apostle among the Galatians at the time when he 
 uttered this curse; comp. v. 3. We must, however, look upon this 
 presence as the second and not the jirst visit; ° for the expression in the form 
 of curse betrays an advanced stage of the danger, and not a merely prophylac- 
 tic measure. — kai dpte TadAw Aéyw] apodosis, ‘‘so say I also now (at the 
 present moment) again ;” so that rad thus glances back to the time to 
 which the rpo applied. Riickert regards dc. . . Aéyw together as the protasis 
 (comp. Ewald), in which case the proper apodosis, so it is in fact, before 
 el ric Would be wanting. Or rather, if jc... Aéyo were the protasis, e ae imac 
 . . . avadewa éorw would be the real apodosis. But why introduce at all 
 such a forced departure from the separation, which presents itself so natu- 
 rally, and is so full of emphasis, of é¢. . . 2éyw into protasis and apodosis ? 
 The reference of zposcpjx. to an earlier time is certain enough ; and dprv, 
 now, in the sense of the point of time then present, is very usual in Greek 
 authors’ and in the N. T. — ei ric bac x.7.4.] Paul does not here, as in ver. 
 
 1 See Calovius and Estius. liberately,”’ Bengel. 
 
 2? Rosenmiller, Baumgarten-Crusius,comp. 5 Comp. Augustine, who leaves a choice 
 also Grotius and Semler. between the two views. 
 
 3 Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 270. § Hofmann. 
 
 * “Deliberate loquitur,” ‘‘he speaks de- 7 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 18 ff. 
 
20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 8, again use é4v with the subjunctive, but on account of the actual occur- 
 rence puts the positive ¢!,—thus giving to his utterance a climactic character, 
 as in Acts v. 38 f.1— As to evayyexiveoda: with the accusative,? which does 
 not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268. — 
 rapeAaBere| often used of that which one gets through instruction.? It 
 may, however, denote either to take (actively), as in 1 Cor. xv. 1 ; 1 John 
 1, 11; Phil. iv. 9; or to receive (passively), as in ver. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13; 
 1 Cor. xv. 3, etal. The latter is preferable here, as a parallel to eiyyyedicdueda 
 jpuiv in ver. 8. 
 
 Ver. 10. Paul feels that the curse which he had just repeated twice 
 might strike his readers as being repulsive and stern ; and in reference 
 thereto he now gives an explanatory justification (yap) of the harsh language. 
 [See Note XVII., p. 39.] He would not have uttered that avadeua éorw, if 
 he had been concerned at present to influence men in his favor, and not 
 God, etc. — dp7:] has the chief emphasis, corresponds to the apr in ver. 9, 
 and is therefore to be understood, not, as it usually is,* in the wider sense of 
 the period of the apostle’s Christian life generally, but® in reference to the 
 present moment, as in ver. 9, just as apr: always in the N. T., corresponding 
 to the Greek usage of the word, expresses the narrower idea modo, nune 
 ipsum, but does not represent the wider sense of viv (ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 16; 
 Matt. xxvi. 53, et a/.), which is not even the case in the passages in Lobeck, 
 p- 20. Hence, often as viv in Paul’s writings covers the whole period from 
 his conversion, apr: is never used in this sense, not even in 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
 The latter rather singles out from the more general compass of the viv the 
 present moment specially, as in the classical combination viv dptu.° Now, 
 Paul would say, just now, when he is induced to write this letter by the 
 Judaizing reaction against the very essence of the true and sole gospel 
 which he upheld,—now, at this critical point of time—it could not possibly 
 be his business to conciliate men, but God only.?—avdpdzovc] is quite 
 general, and is not not to be restricted either to his opponents® or other- 
 wise. [See Note XVIII, p. 40.] The category, which is pointed at, is 
 negatived, and thus the generic dvpér. needed no article.* — veiw) per- 
 suadeo, whether by words or otherwise. The word never has any other 
 signification ; but the more precise definition of its meaning results from the 
 context. Here, where that which was repulsive in the preceding curse is 
 to receive explanation, and the parallel is {776 apéoxewv, and where also the 
 words 7 Tov Océv must fit in with the idea of zeidw, it denotes, as often in 
 
 1See on the passage; Luke xiii. 9; gelium praedicavimus vodis,” “‘we have 
 
 Winer, p. 277; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 190; 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p.93 B. Comp. 
 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21, pymws — pyres — py. 
 
 2 The studied design which Bengel dis- 
 covers in the alternation between vutr (ver. 
 8) and wtuas (ver. 9), ‘‘evangelio aliquem 
 instruere convenit insultationi falsorum 
 doctorum,”’ “to instruct one in the Gospel 
 is harmonious with the insolent conduct 
 of the false teachers,’’ is groundless. For 
 they might say just as boastingly, ‘‘ evan- 
 
 preached the Gospel unto you.’ The 
 change in the words is accidental. 
 
 3 See Kypke, IT. p. 222. 
 
 4 And by Wieseler also. 
 
 5 So Bengel, de Wette, Ellicott, Hofm., 
 Eadie. 
 
 6 Plat. Polit. p. 291 B, Men. p. 85 C. 
 
 7 Comp. Hofmann. 
 
 8 Hofmann. 
 
 ® Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 619. 138; 
 Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. i. 4, 14. 
 
CHAP. I., 10. 21 
 
 classical authors,* to win over, to coneiliate and render friendly to oneself 
 (Acts xii. 20, and Kypke thereon).? Lastly, the present tense expresses, I 
 am occupied with it, I make it my business.? Our explanation of eid sub- 
 stantially agrees with that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Flacius, Hammond, 
 Grotius, Elsner, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Wolf, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, 
 and others ; also Borger, Flatt, Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
 Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald (who, however, restricts 
 the reference of 7 tov Oedv, which there is nothing to limit, to the day of 
 judgment), Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. The interpreta- 
 tions which differ from this, such as ‘‘ humana suadeo or docco, an divina,” 
 ** Do IT advise or teach things human or divine ;” * or ‘‘ swadeone secundum 
 homines an secundum Deum,” ‘‘ Do I advise according to men or God,” thus 
 expressing the intention and not the contents ;° or ‘‘ swadeone vobis, ut homini- 
 bus credatis an ut Deo,” ‘‘DoTI advise you to believe men or God,”® are 
 contrary to the meaning of the word : for rete twa always means persua- 
 dere alicui, ‘‘to persuade some one,” and is not to be identified with reidew 
 ze (Acts xix. 8, xxviii. 23), placing the personal accusative under the point 
 of view of the thing. — 7 (yré av3paéroe apéoxervy] or do I strive to be an 
 object of haman goodwill ?—not tautological, but more general than the 
 preceding. The stress which lies on av¥pézore makes any saving clause on the 
 part of expositors’ appear unsuitable. Even by his winning accommodation 
 (1 Cor ix. 19 ff., x. 15) Paul sought not at all to please men, but rather God. 
 —et ett avd porto ijpeckov x.7.x.] contains the negative answer to the 
 last question. The emphasis is placed first on avdpdroc, and next on 
 Xpiorov : ‘If I still please men, if I were not already beyond the pos- 
 session of human favor, but were still well-pleasing to men, J should 
 not be Christ’s servant.” According to de Wette, ér is intended to affirm 
 nothing more than that, if the one existed, the other could no longer 
 exist. But in this case érz must logically have been placed after oix. The 
 truth of the proposition, ei ére «.7.2., in Which avJpézr. is not any more than 
 before to be limited to Paul’s opponents (according to Holsten, even including 
 the apostles at Jerusalem), rests upon the principle that no one can serve 
 two masters (Matt. vi. 24), and corresponds to the ovat of the Lord Himself 
 (Luke vi. 26), and to His own precedent (John vi. 41). But how decidedly, 
 even at that period of the development of his apostolic consciousness, Paul 
 had the full and clear conviction that he was an object, not of human good- 
 will, but of human hatred and calumny, is specially evident from the Epistles 
 to the Corinthians composed soon afterwards; comp., however, even 1 Thess. 
 ii. 4 ff. In this he recognized a mark of the servant of God and Christ 
 
 1 Nigelsbach zur Ilias. i. 100. 
 
 2 Comp. especially on meidew edv, Pind. 
 Ol. ii. 144; Plat. Pol. iii. p. 390 E, ii. p. 364 
 C; Eur. Med. 964; also the passages from 
 Josephus in Krebs. 
 
 3 See Bernhardy, p. 370. 
 
 4 Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Vatablus, Goma- 
 rus, Cramer, Michaelis. 
 
 ® Calvin. 
 
 6 Piscator, Pareus, Calixtus; so also in 
 substance, Holsten, z. Hvang. d. Paul. u. 
 Petr, p. 332 ff., and Hilgenfeld. 
 
 7 As, for example, Schott, ‘‘de ejusmodi 
 cogitari studio hominibus placendi, quod 
 Deo displiceat,” “of such thought as by the 
 endeavor to please men would displease 
 God.” 
 
 ® Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 
 
22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (2 Cor, vi. 4 ff., xi. 23 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 9). The avdpdrore apéckew is the result 
 of Cyreiv avdpdroie apéoxecv, and consequently means to please men, not to 
 seek to please or to live to please them, as most expositors, even Riiekert, 
 Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius,’ quite arbitrarily assume, although 
 apart from the context the words might have this meaning.” — Xprorod dovAor 
 ovk av junv| is understood by most expositors, following Chrysostom, in- 
 cluding Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Paulus, Schott, Riickert, ‘‘so should I 
 now be no apostle, but I should have remained a Jew, Pharisee, and perse- 
 cutor of Christians ;” taking, therefore, Xpicrov dovAoc in an historical sense. 
 But how feeble this idea would be, and how lacking the usual depth of the 
 apostle’s thought !_ No; Xpuorov dovAoc is to be taken in its ethical character :° 
 ‘* Were I still well-pleasing to men, this would exclude the character of a 
 servant of Christ, and I should not be such an one ; whom men misunder- 
 stand, hate, persecute, revile.” As to the relation, however, of our passage 
 to 1 Cor. x. 32, see Calovius, who justly remarks that in the latter passage 
 the rdavra raw apéckwis meant secundum Deum et ad hominum aedificationem, 
 ** according to God and for the edification of men,” and not secundum auram 
 et voluntatem nudam hominum, ‘‘ according to the mere favor and wish of 
 men.” 
 
 Vv. 11, 12.* Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. See Introd. sec. 
 2. —dé] in continuance of the discourse. The way having been prepared 
 for this theme in vv. 8-10, it is now formally announced for further discus- 
 sion.° And after the impassioned outburst in vv. 6-10, the language 
 becomes composed and calm. Now, therefore, for the first time, we find the 
 address adeAgoi. [See Note XIX., p. 40.] —yvupitw dé tpuiv] but (now to enter 
 more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make known to you. This 
 announcement has a certain solemnity,® which is only enhanced by the fact 
 that the matter must have been already known to the reader. There is no 
 need to modify the sense of yrwpifw, which neither here nor in 1 Cor. xv. 1 
 means monere vos volo or the like. —7ré evayyéAuov . . . bre] attraction.* — 
 TO evayyedicdiv in’ éuov|] which has been announced by me, among you and 
 among others ;° not to be limited to the conversion of the readers only. — 
 
 eewekaTa av3pwrov| cannot indicate the mode of announcement, which would re- 
 
 1 To live to please, to render oneself pleasing, 4 See Hofmann’s interpretation of i. 11-ii. 
 
 is also Wieseler’s interpretation (comp. 
 also Rom. xy. 1), who consistently under- 
 stands the previous apéoxew in the same 
 way. Comp. Winer and Hofmann. But 
 there would thus be no motive for the 
 change from ¢nT® apéoxev, “I seek to 
 please,” to npeckor, ‘I pleased,’ only, which, 
 according to our view, involves a very sig- 
 nificant progress. Paul seeks not to please, 
 and pleases not. 
 
 2 See on 1 Cor. x. 33; and comp. avdpwmap- 
 eoxos, Eph. vi. 6. 
 
 3 Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Za- 
 chariae, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Wieseler, and others. 
 
 14 in his heil. Schr. N. 7.1. p. 60 ff., ed. 2. 
 On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon 
 u. Kritik ad. N. T. p. 190 ff. 
 
 51f yap were the correct reading (Hof- 
 mann), it would correspond to the immedi- 
 ately preceding contrast between avdpwots 
 and Xprorod, confirming ver. 10, but would 
 not introduce a justification of ver. 9, as 
 Hofmann, arbitrarily going back beyond 
 ver, 10, assumes. 
 
 8 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 1; 1 Cor. 
 xii, 3. 
 
 7 Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others. 
 
 8 Winer, p. 581 f. 
 
 9 Comp. 6 kypvacw, ii. 2. 
 
CHAPS i512: 23 
 
 quire us to conceive eiayyeAodév as repeated. Necessarily belonging to oi« 
 éort, it is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself which was 
 preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin,? which «avd in it- 
 self never expresses,* but its qualitative relation, although this is conditioned 
 by its origin (ver. 12). The gospel announced by me is not according to 
 men, that is, not of such quality asit would be if it were the work of men ; it is 
 not of the same nature as human wisdom, human efficiency, and the like.‘ 
 Looking to the context, the view of Grotius is too narrow, ‘‘ nihil humani 
 affectus admixtum habet,” ‘‘ He has no mingling of human feeling.” Bengel 
 hits the mark, ‘‘non est humani census evangelium meum, ‘‘ my gospel is 
 not according to the estimate of men.” 
 
 Ver. 12. Proof of the statement, 70 etayyéAuoy . . . ok éote Kata dvBpwror. 
 —ovdi yap éyo| for neither I, i.e. I, as little as the other apostles. On 
 ovdé yap, for neither, which corresponds with the positive xa? yap, comp. 
 Bornemann® and Hartung. The earlier expositors’ neglect both the 
 signification of oidé and the emphasis on éyé, which is also overlooked 
 by de Wette, ‘‘for also I have not,” etc. ; and Ewald, ‘‘I obtained it 
 not at all.”* Riickert, Matthies, and Schott understand oidé only as 
 if it were oi, assuming it to be used on account of the previous nega- 
 tion; and see in éyé a contrast to those, quibus ipse tradiderit evan- 
 gelium, ‘‘to whom he had delivered the gospel,” in which case there must 
 have been aizéc instead of éy6. This remark also applies to Hofmann’s 
 view, ‘‘that he himself has not received what he preached through human 
 instruction.” Besides, the supposed reference of éy6 would be quite un- 
 suitable, for the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his disci- 
 ples ; a comparison with the other apostles was the point agitating his mind. 
 Lastly, Winer finds too much in ovdé, ‘‘ nam no ego quidem,” ‘‘ for not even I.” 
 This is objectionable, not because, as Schott and Olshausen, following Riick- 
 ert, assume, ovd’ éyo ydp or kai yap oid’ éy@ must in that case have been writ- 
 ten, for in fact yép would have its perfectly regular position (vi. 13 ; Rom. 
 viii. 7; John v. 22, vii. 5, vill. 42, et al.) ; but because ne ego quidem, ‘‘ not 
 even I,” would imply the concession of a certain higher position for the other 
 apostles (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9), which would not be in harmony with the 
 apostle’s present train of thought, where his argument turned rather on his 
 equality with them (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1). [See Note XX., p. 40.] — apa 
 avdparov] from a man, who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with 
 an’ avd pdrov.? Here also, as in ver. 1, we have the contrast between dvd pwroc¢ 
 
 1 Hofmann. 
 
 2 Augustine, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Estius, 
 Calovius, Wolf, and others. 
 
 3 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 3. 
 
 4 Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, 7d tTods vopous 
 avtovs Tols mapaBaivovot Tas Tiwplas EXEL 
 BeAtiovos Kat avpwroyv vouotétov Soxet mor 
 eivat, ‘‘That the laws have punishments 
 for transgressors seems to me to prove their 
 origin from a better lawgiver than kar’ av- 
 Ypwrov.”” Eur. Jed. 673, copwtep’ y car’ avdpa 
 
 oupBarct(y cary, ‘‘tocompose words wiser 
 
 thankar’ évSpa.” Soph. Aj. 747, “ Think not 
 kat avdpwrov.’’ Comp. Aj. 764; Oed. Col. 604 ; 
 Plat. Pol. 2. 359D. The opposite, vrép av- 
 Spwrov eivar, Lucian, Vit. auct. 2. 
 
 5 ad Xen. Symp. p. 200. 
 
 6 Partikell. I. p. 211. 
 
 7 Also Morus, Koppe, and others. 
 
 8 Comp., on the contrary, Matt. xxi. 27; 
 Luke xx. 8; John viii. 11. 
 
 ® See on-1 Cor, xi. 23, and Hermann, ad 
 Soph. Hl, 65. ; 
 
24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 and ‘Io. Xpioréc. —avdrd] Viz. t5 evayyédiov Td elayyeducdév in’ Euov. — obTe 
 iduddy0yv| As ovre refers only to the ov contained in the preceding oidé, and 
 dé and 7é do not correspond, oive is here by no means inappropriate (as 
 Riickert alleges).’ [See Note XXL, p. 40.] For neither have I received it 
 from aman, nor learned it. TapédaBov denotes the receiving through com- 
 munication in general (comp. ver. 9), édidaybyv the receiving specially through 
 instruction duly used. — dara d? axoxazty. I. X.] The contrast to rapa 
 avdparov ; Ijcov X. is therefore the genitive, not of the object (Theodoret, 
 Matthies, Schott, Cremer), but of the subject,* by Jesus Christ giving to me rev- 
 elation. Paul alludes to the revelations® received soon after the event at 
 Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which enabled him to 
 comply with it and tocome forward as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. vy. 
 15, 16 ; Eph. iii. 3. The revelation referred to in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.4 cannot 
 be meant; because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul had for 
 a long time been preaching the gospel. Nor must we ®* refer it to the revela- 
 tions which were imparted to him generally, including those of the later 
 period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by which he received 
 and learned the gospel. — How the azoxadvyc took place ° must be left unde- 
 cided. It may have taken place with or without vision, in different stages, 
 partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned Acts ix. 6, 9, 
 partly at and immediately after it, but not through instruction on the part 
 of Ananias. The év éyoi in ver. 16 is consistent with either supposition. 
 [See Note XXII., p. 40. ] 
 
 Ver. 13. Now begins the historical proof that he was indebted for his 
 gospel to the aroxd4vuc he had mentioned, and not to human communication 
 and instruction. In the first place, in vv. 13, 14, he calls to their remem- 
 
 1 See Hand, De part. ré diss. I. p. 13; Har- 
 tung, Partikell. I. p. 101 f.; Buttmann, 
 neutest. Gr. p. 815. Comp. on Acts xxiii. 8. 
 
 2 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1. 
 
 come to add to this fundamental fact of his 
 preaching the remaining contents of the 
 doctrine of salvation, partly by means of 
 argument, partly by further revelation, 
 
 3 Of which, however, the book of Acts 
 gives us no account; for in Acts xxii. 17, 
 Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him 
 the gospel, but for the purpose vf giving a 
 special instruction. Hence they are not to 
 be referred to the event at Damascus itself, 
 as, following Jerome and Theodoret, many 
 earlier and more recent expositors (Rtick- 
 ert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Hofmann, Wieseler) assume. The calling 
 of the apostle, by which he was converted 
 at Damascus, is expressly distinguished in 
 ver. 16 from the divine amoxadvwar Tov viov 
 év énot, so that this inward démoxdAuiis follow- 
 ed the calling; the calling was the fact 
 which laid the foundation for the amoxadv- 
 wes (Comp. Moller on de Wette)—the histor- 
 ical preliminary to it. In identifying the 
 amoxdAviis Of our passage With the phenom- 
 enon at Damascus, it would be. necessary 
 to assume that Paul, to whom at Damascus 
 the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had 
 
 and partly by information derived from 
 others (see especially Wieseler). This idea 
 is, however, inconsistent with the assurance 
 of our passage, which relates without re- 
 striction to the whole gospel preached by 
 the apostle, consequently to the whole of 
 its essential contents. The same objection 
 may be specially urged against the view, 
 with which Hofmann contents himself, that 
 the wonderful phenomenon at Damascus 
 certified to Paul’s mind the truth of the 
 Christian faith, which had not been un- 
 known to him before. Such a conception 
 of the matter falls far short of the idea of 
 the amoxaAvyis of the gospel through Christ, 
 especially as the apostle refers specifically 
 to his gospel. 
 
 4 Thomas, Cornelius & Lapide, Balduin, 
 and others. 
 
 5 With Koppe, Flatt, and Schott. 
 
 6 According to Calovius, through the Holy 
 Spirit ; comp. Acts ix. 17, 
 
CHAP, ‘1.5, 14. 25 
 
 brance his well-known conduct while a Jew ; for, as a persecutor of the 
 Christians and a Pharisaic zealot, he could not but be the less fitted for 
 human instruction in the gospel, which must, on the contrary, have come to 
 him in that superhuman mode. — jxoicare| emphatically prefixed, indicates 
 that what is contained in vv. 13, 14, is something already well known to 
 his readers, which therefore required only to be recalled, not to be proved. 
 — Hv inv avactpodyy rote év TH lovdaioug] my previous course of life in Juda- 
 ism, how I formerly behaved myself asa Jew. ‘Iovdaicude is not Judaistic 
 zeal and activity,’ but just simply Judaism, as his national religious condi- 
 tion.” It forms the historical contrast to the present Xpioriavioude of the 
 apostle.* — dvacrpoey in the sense of course of life, behavior, is found, in addi- 
 tion to the N. T. (Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12, e al.) and the Apocrypha 
 (Tob. iv. 14; 2 Macc. v. 8), only in later Greek, such as Polyb. iv. 82. 1.4— 
 more év TG “Iovd.| a definition of time attached to ry éujy dvactpod#v, in which 
 the repetition of ry was not necessary.” — dre kaW¥ brepBodijy x.7.2.] & More 
 precise definition of the object of jxotcare, that I, namely, beyond measure 
 persecuted, etc. On kav’ trepBodgv, the sense of which bears a superlative 
 relation to o¢édpa, comp. Rom. vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17; 
 Bernhardy, p. 241. —rov Ocov] added in the painful consciousness of the 
 wickedness and guilt of such doings. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; 1 Tim. i. 13. 
 — érépdour| is not to be understood de conatu, ‘‘as conative.”® Paul was then 
 actually engaged in the work of destruction (Acts xxii. 4, comp. ix. 1, xxvi. 
 10, 11), and therefore it is not to be understood’ merely as vastavi, depopu- 
 latus sum, ‘‘I devastated, depopulated.”* Paul wished to be not a mere 
 devastator, not a mere disturber,*® but a destroyer” of the church ; and as such 
 he was active." Moreover, in the classic authors also rop¥eiv and répdev 
 are applied * not only to things, but also to men,” in the sense of bringing to 
 ruin and the like.!* 
 
 Ver. 14. Still dependent on drv.—xai the rpoxérrew év 7H’ Tovdaicug had 
 then been combined in Paul with his hostile action against Christianity, had 
 kept pace with it. —’lovdaicudc, not Jewish theology, but just as in ver, 13. 
 Judaism was the sphere in which he advanced further and improyed more 
 than those of his age by growth in Jewish culture, in Jewish zeal for the 
 law, in Jewish activity in works, etc.**— ovrmAKidrnc| one of the same age, 
 
 ®° See Luther’s translation. 
 10 Nicht bloss Verstorer, sondern Zer- 
 
 1 Matthies, ‘‘ when I was still out and out 
 a Jew ;”? comp. Schott. 
 
 2 See 2 Mace. ii. 21, viii. 1, xiv. 38; 4 Macc. 
 iv. 26. 
 
 3 Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. 8, 10, Philad. 6. 
 
 4 See Wetstein. 
 
 5 Comp. Plat. Legg. iii. p. 685 D, n THs Tpotas 
 Soph. O. R. 1043, tov 
 Tupavvov THs Se ys maAdar more. Phil. i. 26. 
 Comp. also on 1 Cor. viii. 7 and on 2 Cor. xi. 
 23. 
 
 6 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Menochius, and others. 
 
 ™With Beza, Piscator, 
 Usteri, and Schott. 
 
 § Hom. Od. xiv. 264, aypovs répdeor, et al. 
 
 GAwots TO SevtTepov. 
 
 Estius, Winer, 
 
 st6rer. 
 
 11 Hom. JI. iv. 808, woAcas kai Tetxe’ Eropdour, 
 “were laying waste cities and walls,”’ et a. 
 
 12 Comp. Acts ix. 21. 
 
 13 See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 340 A; 
 Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 1187; Jacobs, De. 
 epigr. i. 80. 
 
 14 Grotius, Riickert. 
 
 15 On mpokérrew as intransitive (Luke ii. 
 52; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9, 13), very frequent in 
 Polyb., Lucian, etc., comp. Jacobs, ad 
 Anthol. X. p. 35; on év 7. ‘Iovd., comp. Lu- 
 cian, Herm. 63,év tots padjuacr, Paras. 13, 
 
 €v Tals TEXVALS, 
 
26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 occurring only here in the N. T., a word belonging to the later Greek. 
 The ancient authors use #jAccdrnc.? — év r@ yéver pov] a more precise defini- 
 tion of cvvyAuc. ; yévecis therefore, in conformity with the context,* to be 
 understood in a national sense,* and not of the sect of the Pharisees (Paulus).® 
 [See Note XXIII., p. 40. ]— repiccorépws Cnrwrie irapyov k.7.A. | amore detailed 
 statement, specifying in what way the rpoéxortov . . . yévec pov found active 
 expression ; ‘‘so that I,” ete. — repiccorépwe] than those roddaoi. They, too, 
 were zealous for the traditions of their fathers (whether like Paul they were 
 Pharisees or not); but Paul was so in a more superabundant measure for his. 
 — Tv TraTpiKov ov Tapadécewy| endeavoring with zealous interest to obey, 
 uphold, and assert them.® The carpixai pov rapadécecc, that is, the religious 
 definitions handed down to me from my fathers (in respect to doctrine, 
 ritual, asceticism, interpretation of Scripture, conduct of life, and the like), 
 are the Pharisaic traditions ;’ for Paul was éapcaioc, a Pharisee (Phil. iii. 
 5; Acts xxvi. 5), vid¢ dapicaiwy, ‘‘ the son of a Pharisee’”’ (Acts xxiii. 6).° 
 If Paul had intended to refer to the Mosaic law, either alone® or together with 
 the Pharisaic traditions,” he would have named the law either by itself or 
 along with the traditions (Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3 ; 2 Macc. iv. 2) ; but by ov 
 he limits the rarpixa¢ rapadécecc to the special elements resulting from his 
 descent, which did not apply to those who were in different circumstances 
 as to descent ; whereas the law applied to all Jews.” That Paul had been 
 zealous for the /aw in general, followed as a matter of course from zpoéxorr. 
 év t. Iovdaicue ; but here he is stating the specific way in which his own 
 peculiar xpoxoxrtew év lovdaioug had displayed itself—his Pharisaic zealotry. 
 [See Note XXIV., p. 40.] It would have been surprising if in this connec- 
 tion he had omitted to mention the latter. — rarpixéc, not found elsewhere 
 in the N. T., means paternal.” In this case the context alone decides 
 whether the idea a patribus acceptus, ‘‘ received from the fathers” (xarpora- 
 padoroc, 1 Pet. i. 18) is conveyed by it, asin this passage by mov, or not. 
 The former is very frequently the case. As to the much-discussed varying 
 distinction between rdrpioc, tatpixdc, and ratpgoc, comp. on Acts xxii. 3. 
 Ver. 15. But when it pleased, etc.'* This denotes, of course, the free placuié 
 of the divine decree, but is here conceived as an act in time, which is imme- 
 
 ®» Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Calvin, and 
 others. 
 10 Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Morus, Koppe, 
 
 1 Diod. Sic. i. 53? Alciphr. i. 12. 
 stein. 
 2 Plat. Apol. p. 33 C, and frequently. 
 
 See Wet- 
 
 3 Comp. ev T@ ‘Tovd, 
 
 4 For with Helienist associates, of whom 
 likewise in Jerusalem there could be no 
 lack, he does not desire to compare him- 
 self. 
 
 5 Comp. Phil. iii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. ix. 
 3; Acts vii. 19, 
 
 6 On the genitive of the odject, comp. 2 
 Mace. iv. 2; Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; 1 Cor. xiv. 
 12; Tit. ii. 14; Plat. Prot. p. 343 A. 
 
 7 Comp. Matt. v. 21, xv. 2; Mark vii. 3. 
 
 8 So also Erasmus (Annot.), Beza, Calo- 
 vius, de Wette, Hofmann, and others. 
 
 Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Riickert, Schott, Ols- 
 hausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, ‘‘ the law ac- 
 cording to the strict rule of Pharisaism,” 
 comp. Moller. 
 
 11 Comp., as parallel, Acts xxvi. 5. 
 
 12 Comp. LXX. Gen. 1. 8; Lev. xxii. 13; 
 Ecclus. xlii. 10; 8 Esd. i. 5, 31; 4 Mace. 
 xviii. 7; Plat. Zach. p. 180 E, Soph. p. 242 A; 
 Isocr. Evang. p. 218, 85; Diod. Sic. i. 88; 
 Polyb. i. 78. 1; Athen. xv. p. 667 F. 
 
 13 As, for instance, Polyb. xxi. 5, 7. 
 
 14 Comp. Luke xii. 82; 1 Cor. i. 21; Rom. 
 Xv. 26; Col. i. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 8, ili. 1. 
 
CHAP 1 Ld: a7 
 
 diately followed by its execution, not as from eternity.1—6 dgopicac pe éx 
 KovAiac untpdc pov] who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from 
 other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womd ; that is, not in the 
 womb ;* nor, from the time when I was in the womb ;% nor, defore I was 
 born ;4 but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. é« 
 yeveryc, John ix. 1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek é yaorpéc, 
 and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jer. i. 5,° for in that pas- 
 sage there is an essentially different definition of time (mpd rov we rAdoa oe év 
 kotdia k.T.A.). We may add, that this designation of God completely corre- 
 sponds with Paul’s representation of his apostolic independence of men. 
 What it was, to which God had separated him from his birth and had called 
 him (at Damascus), is of course evident in itself and from i. 1 ; but it also. 
 results from the sequel (ver. 16). It was the apostleship, which he recog- 
 nized as a special proof of free and undeserved divine grace ;7 hence here 
 also he adds ud rij¢ yapitog abrov.* Riickert is wrong in asserting that caAécac 
 cannot refer here to the call at Damascus, but can only denote the calling to 
 salvation and the apostleship in the Divine mind. In favor of this view he 
 adduces the aorist, which represents the «Ajoie as previous to the eiddxycev 
 aroxadipar, and also the connection of xaAécac with agopicag by means of kai. 
 Both arguments are based upon the erroneous idea that the revelation of the 
 gospel was coincident with the calling of the apostle. But Paul was first 
 called at Damascus by the miraculous appearance of Christ, which laid hold 
 of him without any detailed instruction (Phil. iii. 12), and thereafter, through 
 the apocalyptic operation of God, the Son of God was revealed in him: the 
 KAjowe at Damascus preceded this aroxadAvyuc 3° the former called him to the 
 service, the latter furnished him with the contents, of the gospel. Comp. 
 on ver. 12. Moreover, the x«Aajove is never an act in the Divine mind, but 
 always an historical fact (Rom. viii. 30). This also militates against Hof- 
 mann, who makes é« kocAiac untpd¢ pov belong to xaAéoac as well—a connection 
 excluded by the very position of the words. And what a strange defini- 
 tion of the idea conveyed by xadciv, and how completely foreign to the 
 N. T., is the view of Hofmann, who makes it designate ‘‘an act execut- 
 ed in the course of the formation of this man”! Moreover, our passage un- 
 doubtedly implies that by the calling and revelation here spoken of the con- 
 sciousness of apostleship—and that too of apostleship to the heathen—was 
 divinely produced in Paul, and became clear and certain. This, however, 
 does not exclude, but is, on the contrary, a divine preparation for, the fuller 
 
 
 
 1 Beza. kaAvWat, as Hofmann, disregarding the sym- 
 2 Wieseler. metrically similar construction of the two 
 3 Hofmann, comp. Moller. participial statements, groundlessly asserts. 
 4 Riickert. Paul knew himself to be cAnros ardatodos Sua 
 
 5 Comp. Ps. ‘xxii. 10; Isa. xliv. 2, xlix. 1, 
 5; Matt. xix. 12; Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8 (in Luke 
 i. 15, where ér- is added, the thought is dif- 
 ferent). 
 
 6 Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others. 
 
 7 Rom. i. 4, xii. 3, xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10. 
 
 8 For dia tr. yap. avtod belongs to Kadéoas 
 as a modal definition of it, and not to azo- 
 
 SedAjpatos @cov (1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1), and 
 he knew that this &¢Ayua was that of the di- 
 vine grace, 1 Cor. xv. 10, iii. 10; Gal. ii. 9; 
 Rom. i. 5, xii. 3. 
 
 ® Hence also év éuot by no means dimin- 
 ishes the importance of the external phe- 
 nomenon at Damascus (as Baur and others 
 contend). 
 
28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 development of this consciousness in its more definite aspects by means of 
 experience and the further guidance of Christ and His Spirit. 
 
 Ver. 16. ’AroxaAiwac] belongs to eidéxyoev ; but év éuoi is im my mind, in 
 my consciousness, in which the Son of God was to become manifest as the 
 sum and substance of knowledge (Phil. iii. 8) ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, év raic 
 kapdiate juav, ‘‘in our hearts.”’ But év is never nota dativi, ‘‘a mark of the 
 dative,” and all the passages adduced to that effect (such as 1 Cor. ix. 15, 
 xiv. 11; 1 Tim. iv. 15 ; Acts iv. 12, e al.) are to be so explained that éy 
 shall retain its signification ;? as must also be the casein the passages used 
 to support the sense of the dativus commodi, ‘‘ dative of advantage.” Jerome, 
 Pelagius, Erasmus, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, and others, interpret it through me, ‘‘ut per me, velut organum, no- 
 tum redderet filium suum,” ‘‘ that through me, as an organ, He might make 
 His Son known.”* But the revelation given to the apostle himself is a neces- 
 sary element in the connection (ver. 12): Paul was immediately after his 
 birth set apart by God, subsequently called at Damascus, and afterward pro- 
 vided inwardly with the revelation of the Son of God, in order that he might 
 be able outwardly to preach, etc. Others, again,® take it as ‘‘on me,” in my 
 case, which is explained to mean either that the conversion appeared as a proof 
 of Christ’s power, etc.,° or that the revelation had been imparted to the 
 apostle as matter of fact, by means of his own experience, or, in other words, 
 through his own case (Riickert).’? But the former explanation is unsuita- 
 ble to the context, and the latter again depends on the erroneous identifica- 
 tion of the calling of the apostle at Damascus with the revelation of the 
 gospel which he received. — rév vidy airov] This is the great foundation and 
 whole sum of the gospel. Comp. ver. 6 f., 1. 20. In his pre-Christian 
 blindness Paul had known Christ xara capa, 2 Cor. v. 16. — ebayyeAifopac] 
 Present tense ;* for the fulfilment of this destination which had even then 
 been assigned to him by God ° was, at the time when the epistle was writ- 
 ten, still in course of execution.” Thus, in opposition to his adversaries, the 
 continuous divine right and obligation of this apostolic action is asserted. 
 — iv roic édvecw] among the heathen peoples.’ The fact that Paul always 
 began his work of conversion with the Jews resident among the Gentiles, 
 
 1 See Chrysostom, tis amoxadvews kata- 
 Aautovans avtov Thy Wuyx7r, ‘‘ His revelation 
 enlightening the soul.’”? Comp. Oecum. (eis 
 Tov €ow avipwrov THs yvwoews evicnsaons), 
 Theophylact, Beza, and most expositors. 
 Calvin, Koppe, Flatt, and others, wrongly 
 hold that it stands for the mere dative. 
 Comp. Bengel. 
 
 2 Winer, p. 204. 
 
 3 See Bernhardy, p. 212. 
 
 4 Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 
 5 Comp. Hilgenfeld in loc. and in his 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 164: Paul regarded his 
 Christian and apostolic life and working as 
 arevelation of Christ in his person. Simi- 
 lar is the view taken by Paul in Hilgenfeld’s 
 
 Zeitschr. 1863, p. 208. 
 
 6 Peter Lombard, Seb. Schmidt. 
 
 7 Comp. 1 John iv. 9, ébavepwdy H ayarn Tod 
 cod ev nutv. 
 
 8 Which, according to Hofmann, is intend- 
 ed to designate the purpose from the stand- 
 point of the present time in which it is being 
 realized. This retrospective interpretation 
 is purely imaginary, by no means suits even 
 Plat Legg. p. 653 D, and in our passage is 
 opposed to the context (see ver. 17). 
 
 *) Acts ix. 15, xxiii 15, scxyiiee 
 
 10 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 618. 
 
 11 See Acts ix. 15, xxii, 21, xxvi. 17, 18; 
 Eph. iii. 8; Rom. xi. 13. 
 
CHAP. I., 16. 29 
 
 was not inconsistent with his destination as the apostle of the Gentiles ; this, 
 indeed, was the way of calling adopted by the Gentile apostle in accordance 
 with that destination (see Rom. i. 16).’— eiPéoc] does not belong exclu- 
 sively either to the negative * or to the affirmative part of the apodosis = but 
 as the two parts themselves are inseparably associated, it belongs to the 
 whole sentence ot rpocavedéuyv . . . adda arqAtov cic Apaf., ‘‘ Immediately 
 I took not counsel with flesh and blood, nor did I make a journey to Jeru- 
 salem, but,” etc. He expresses that which he had done immediately after he 
 had received the revelation, by way of antithesis, negatively and positively ; 
 for it was his object most assiduously to dispel the notion that he had re- 
 ceived human instruction. Jerome, in order to defend the apostle against 
 Porphyry’s unjust reproach of presumption and fickleness, connects eintéwe 
 with evayyeAifouar ; as recently Credner 4 has also done. No objection can 
 be taken to the emphasis of the adverb at the end of the sentence ;° but the 
 whole strength of the proof lies not in what Paul was immediately to do, but in 
 what he had immediately done.* We must, moreover, allow cintéuc to retain 
 its usual strict signification, and not, with Hofmann,’ substitute the sense 
 of ‘‘immediately then,” ‘‘ just at once” (‘‘ not at a subsequent time only’’), as 
 if Paul had written 767 é« rére or the like. Observe, too, on comparing the 
 book of Acts, that the purposely added eiéuc still does not exclude a brief 
 ministry in Damascus previous to the journey to Arabia (Acts ix. 20), the 
 more especially as his main object was to “how that he had gone from 
 Damascus to no other place than Arabia, +had not until three years later 
 gone to Jerusalem. To make special m: \ of his brief working in Da- 
 mascus, ¢efore his departure to Arabia, ign to the logical scope of 
 his statement. — ov rpocavedénunv] I addr. ommunication to flesh and 
 blood, namely, in order to learn the opi ‘thers as to this revelation 
 which I had received, and to obtain fr mstruction, guidance, and 
 advice. mpdéc conveys the notion of dire ot, as Beza and Bengel as- 
 sert,® the idea praeterea, ‘‘ besides,”® —c c| that is, to weak men, in 
 
 | 
 
 1 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 37. 
 
 2 Hilgenfeld, Hofmann. 
 
 8 Winer. 
 
 4 Finl. I. 1, p. 308. 
 
 § Kiihner, II. p. 625; Bornemann, ad Xen. 
 Anab. ii. 6. 9; Stallbaum, ad Phaedr. p. 256 
 E. 
 
 8 “*Notatur subita habilitas apostoli,” 
 “the sudden fitness of the apostle is de- 
 noted,” Bengel. 
 
 7 Who invents the hypothesis, that the 
 apostle had been reproached with having 
 only subsequently taken up the ground that he 
 did not apply to men in order to get advice 
 from them. Hofmann strangely appeals to 
 evSus, John xiii. 82, and even to Xen. Cyr. 1. 
 6. 20, where the idea, ‘* not at a subsequent 
 time only,” is indeed conveyed by é« madiov, 
 “from a child,” but not at all by evdvs in 
 itself. Even in passages such as those in 
 
 Dorvill. ad Charit. pp. 298, 326, cvdvs, like 
 evtews constantly, means immediately, on the 
 spot. 
 
 8 Comp. also Usteri and Jatho. 
 
 ®So, too, Mirecker in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1866, p. 534, ‘no further communication.” It 
 isnot, however, apparent to what ofher avar- 
 iSeodar this is conceived to refer. See 
 Diod. Sic. xvii. 116, tots pdvreor mpocava- 
 Pémevos wept Tov onpecov, ‘* Having conferred 
 with the diviners concerning the sign,”’ 
 Lucian, Jup. Trag. 1, éu0i mpocavadov, AdBe 
 pe avpBovdov tovwyv, ‘confer with me; 
 make me an adviser of your tasks,’ in con- 
 trast to the preceding kataydvas cavtTe 
 Aadets, “‘ you speak apart, by yourself,” 
 Nicetas, Angel. Comnen. ii. 5. Comp. C. F. 
 A. Fritzsche in Pritzschior. Opusc. p. 204. 
 Just so mpocavahépev, 2 Mace. xi. 36; Tob. 
 xii. 15; Polyb. xxxi. 19. 4, xvii. 9. 10. 
 
30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 contrast to the experience of God’s working.’ Eph. vi. 12 is also analogous,? 
 As the apostle was concerned simply to show that he was not av8pwrodidakroe, 
 ‘*taught of man,” it is wholly unsuitable in this connection to refer capri x. 
 ai. to himself,’ and unsuitable, as regards half the reference, to apply it to 
 others and the apostle himself.4 He is speaking simply of the consultation 
 of others,° and that quite generally : ‘‘ having received this divine revelation, 
 I did not take weak men as my counsellors.” In the continuation of the 
 discourse towards its climax the apostles are specially brought into promi- 
 nence as members of this category, and therefore capxi x. aiv. is not ® at once 
 to be referred to the apostles themselves, although they also are included 
 in it. 
 
 Ver. 17. Neither went I away (from Damascus) to Jerusalem, unto those 
 who were apostles before me; but I went avay into Arabia. So according to 
 Lachmann’s reading ; see the critical notes. Tove mpd éuod axoor. is written 
 by Paul in the consciousness of his full equality of apostolic rank (beginning 
 from Damascus), in which no precedence, save that of seniority, pertained to 
 the older apostles.’?—ei¢ ’ApaBiav] It is possible that some special per- 
 sonal reason, unknown to us, induced him to choose this particular country. 
 The region was heathen, containing, however, many Jews of the Diaspora 
 (Acts ii. 11). [See Note XXV., p. 40seq.] This journey, which is to be 
 looked upon not as having for its object a quiet preparation,® but as a first, 
 certainly fervent experim: , of extraneous ministry,? and which was of 
 short duration,’ is not men ¢ in Acts, Perhaps not known to Luke at 
 
 ; 
 
 gospel, as it is exhibited in th¢ Episiles to 
 the Galatians and Romans, must have taken 
 its shape gradually, and by means of a long 
 process of thought amidst the widening of 
 experience; but even in the absence of such 
 a developed system he might make a com- 
 mencement of his ministry, and might 
 preach the Son of Godas the latter had been 
 directly revealed in him by divine agency. 
 Thiersch arbitrarily considers (Kirche in 
 apostol. Zeitalt. p. 116) that he desired to find 
 protection with Aretas. It isthe view also of 
 Acts, that Paul immediately after his con- 
 version followed the divine guidance, and 
 
 1 See on Matt. xvi. 17. 
 
 2 Comp. the rabbinical BY ~ h 
 and blood,” (Lightfoot, on} 
 
 3 Koppe, Ewald. 
 
 4 Winer, Matthies, Schot’ ,; 
 hausen. 
 
 5 Beza, Grotius, Calovir 
 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Borge 
 garten-Crusius, de Wet 2: 
 Wieseler, Hofmann, Eadie, hers. 
 
 6 With Chrysostom, Jer Theophy- 
 lact, Oecumenius, and others. 
 
 7 On the twice-employed emphatic am7nA- 
 dvo, comp. Rom. yili. 15; Heb. xii. 18 ff. ; 
 
 Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 137. 
 
 8 Schrader, Kohler, Riickert, Schott. 
 
 ® Our passage bears testimony in favor of 
 this view by evdéws . . . amnAdov following 
 immediately on tva evayy. avtov év Tots Edve- 
 ow, Hence Holsten’s view (die Bedeutung 
 des Wortes capt im N. T. p. 25; ueber Inh. u. 
 Gedankeng. ad. Gal. Br. p. 17 f.; also zum 
 Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 269 f.), that Paul, 
 ‘“ purposely tearing himself away for three 
 years from the atmosphere of the national 
 spirit at Jerusalem,” had gone to Arabia, 
 ‘in order to reconcile the new revelation with 
 the old by meditating on the religious records 
 of his people,’ is quite opposed to the con- 
 text. Certainly the system of the apostle’s 
 
 did not postpone his beginning to preach 
 till the expiration of three years. Accord- 
 ing to Acts, he preached immediately, even 
 in Damascus, ix. 20; comp. xxvi. 19f. See, 
 besides, on Rom. Jnivod. § 1. 
 
 10J,, Cappellus, Benson, Witsius, Eichhorn, 
 Hemsen, and others, also Anger, Rat. temp. 
 p. 122, and Laurent, hold the opinion that 
 Paul spent almost the whole three years 
 (ver. 18) in Arabia, because the Jews at 
 Damascus would not have tolerated his re- 
 maining there so long. But in our igno- 
 rance of the precise state of things in 
 Damascus, this argument is of too uncer- 
 tain a character, especially as Acts ix. 22, 
 comp. with ver. 23, ws 5é émAnp. numépat ikavat, 
 
CHAP. 1, 18. dL 
 
 all, it is most probably to be placed in the period of the ixavai juépar, Acts 
 ix. 28,—an inexact statement of the interval between the conversion and 
 the journey to Jerusalem, which betrays, on the part of Luke, only a vague 
 and inadequate knowledge of the chronology of this period.’ Paul mentions 
 the journey kere, because he had to show—following the continuous thread 
 of the history—that, in the first period after his conversion, he had not 
 been anywhere where he could have received instruction from the apostles.— 
 radu bréotpepa] xd2u, used on the hypothesis that the locality of the call- 
 ing and revelation mentioned was well known to his readers, refers to the 
 notion of coming conveyed in izéorp.? 
 
 Ver. 18. "Exevra] After that, namely, after my second sojourn in Damas- 
 cus—whence he escaped, as is related Acts ix. 24 f.; 2 Cor. xi. 82f. The 
 more precise statement of time then follows in the words pera ér7 tpia (comp. 
 li. 1), in which the terminus a quo is taken to be cither his conversion’ or his 
 return from Arabia.* 'The former is to be preferred, as is suggested by the 
 context in oidé ar7Aov cic ‘IepoodAvua. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 - meta éty Tpia avqHAVov sic Tepoood. 
 Comp. also on ii. 1. — avy or eic Tepoo.] This is (contrary to Jerome’s view) 
 the jirst journey to Jerusalem, not omitted in the Acts,* but mentioned in ix. 
 26. The quite untenable arguments of Koéhler® against this identity are 
 refuted by Anger.” It must, however, be conceded that the account in 
 Acts must receive a partial correction from our passage® [see Note XXVI., 
 p. 41] ; a necessity, however, which is exay >rated by Baur, Hilgenfeld, 
 and Zeller, and is attributed to intentional eration of the history on the 
 part of the author of Acts, it being suppose, hat the latter was unwilling 
 to co the very thing which Paul in our pfoye, : wishes, namely, to bring 
 out his independence of the original apost yo ¢ ‘ut this consciousness of 
 independence is not to be exaggerated, asi of g 1ad felt himself ‘“alienin 
 the very centre of his being” from Peter hem j »pjoae Kydav] in order to 
 make the personal acquaintance of Cephas ; nv. q y, refore, in order to obtain 
 
 ~fla. « 
 
 “when many days were fulfilled,” points 
 to a relatively longer working in Damas- 
 cus. And if Paul had labored almost 
 three years, or, according to Ewald, about 
 two years, in Arabia, and that at the very 
 beginning of his apostleship, we could 
 hardly imagine that Luke should not have 
 known of this ministry in Arabia, or, if he 
 knew of it, that he should not have men- 
 tioned it, for Paul never stayed so long any- 
 where else. except perhaps at Ephesus. It 
 may indeed be alleged that Luke purposely 
 kept silence as to the journey to Arabia, 
 because it would have proved the inde- 
 pendent action of the apostle to the Gen- 
 tiles (Hilgenfeld, Zeller) ; but this view sets 
 out from the premise that the book of Acts 
 is a partisan treatise, wanting in historical 
 honesty ; and it moreover assumes-—-what 
 without that premise is not to be assumed— 
 that the author was acquainted with our 
 epistle. If he was acquainted with it, the 
 
 intentir “ortion of portions of his his- 
 tory, wh. is alleged he allowed him- 
 self to mai would be the more shameless, 
 and indeed foolish. 
 
 1 See on Acts ix. 19 ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Acts xviii. 21; Hom. Od. viii. 301, 
 avtis Umootpéas, ‘haying turned him back 
 again,” et al. ; Eur. Ale. 1022; Bornemann, 
 ad Cyrop. iii. 8. 60; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
 li. 2, 4. 
 
 * As bv most expositors, including Winer, 
 Fritzsche, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
 Olshausen, Baumgarten Crusius, de Wette, 
 Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
 Reithmayr, Caspari. 
 
 4 Marsh, Koppe, Borger. 
 
 5 Laurent. 
 
 8 Abfassungszeit, p. 1 f. 
 
 7 Rat. temp. p. 124 f. 
 
 § See on Actsix, 26 f. 
 
 ® Holsten. 
 
82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 instruction. But the position of Peter as coryphacus’ in the apostolic 
 circle, especially urged by the Catholics,? appears at all events from this 
 passage to have been then known to Paul and acknowledged by him. 
 ‘Ioropeiv, coram cognoscere, ‘‘to know personally,” which does not occur else- 
 where in the N. T., is found in this sense applied to a person also in Joseph. 
 Bell. vi. 1. 8, ovk aonjpuog Sv avg, bv éy@ war’ éxeivov iorépyoa tov ré2enov, ‘* being 
 not an unknown man, whom I in that war knew personally,” Antt. i. 11. 4, 
 viii. 2. 5 ; frequently also in the Clementines. It is often used by Greek 
 authors? in reference to things, as tyv méAw, THY yopav, Tyv vdcov K.T.A.4 
 Bengel, moreover, well says : ‘‘ grave verbum ut de re magna ; non dixit 
 idetv (as in John xii. 21) sed ioropyoa,” ‘‘an important word for a great 
 subject ; he did not say ideiv, but ioropioa.”° — kai éxéwewa xpic aitév®] xpéc, 
 with, conveys the direction of the intercourse implied in éxéu.’ — juépag dexa- 
 névte] For the historical cause why he did not remain longer, see Acts ix. 29, 
 xxii. 17ff. The intention, however, which induced Paul to specify the time, 
 is manifest from the whole connection,—that the reader might judge for him- 
 self whether so short a sojourn, the object of which was to become personally 
 acquainted for the first time with Peter, could have been also intended for 
 the further object of receiving evangelic instruction, especially when Paul 
 had himself been preaching the gospel already so long (for three years). 
 This intention is denied by Riickert, because the period of fifteen days was 
 not so short but that during it Paul might have been instructed by Peter. 
 But Paul is giving an historical account ; and in doing this the mention of a 
 time so short could not but be welcome to him for his purpose, without his 
 wishing to give it forth as a stringent proof. This, notwithstanding what 
 Paul emphatically adds in ver. 19, it certainly was not, as is evident even 
 from the high representative repute of Peter.* [See Note XXVII., p. 41.] 
 But the briefer his stay at that time, devoted to making the personal ac- 
 quaintance of Peter, had been, the more it told against the notion of his 
 having received instruction, although Paul naturally could not, and would 
 not, represent this time as shorter than it had really been. Riickert’s arbitrary 
 conjecture is therefore quite superfluous, that Paul mentions the fifteen 
 days on account of the false allegation of his opponents that he had been 
 first brought to Christianity by the apostles, or had, at any rate, spent a long 
 time with them and as their disciple, but that he sought ungratefully and 
 arrogantly either to conceal or deny these facts. According to Holsten, 
 Peter and James were the representatives of the érepov evayy., who in conse- 
 quence could not have exerted any influence on Paul’s Gentile gospel. But 
 this they were not at all. See onii. 1 ff. and on Acts xv. 
 
 8 Hofmann is of opinion that Paul desired 
 his readers to understand that he could not 
 have journeyed to Jerusalem in order to 
 ask the opinion and advice of the “* apostolic 
 
 body” there. Asif Peter and James could 
 not have been ‘‘apostolic body’? enough ! 
 
 1 Theodoret. 
 
 2 See Windischmann andReithmayr. 
 
 3 Comp. also the passages from Josephus 
 in Krebs, Qdss. p. 318. 
 
 4 See Wetstein and Kypke. 
 
 5 Comp. Chrysostom. 
 
 6 Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. 
 
 7 Comp. Matt. xxvi.55; John i.1; and the 
 passages in Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 202. 
 Comp. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 653. 
 
 Taking refuge in this way behind the dis- 
 tinction between apostles and the apostolic 
 body was foreign to Paul. 
 
CHAPY re 19! 33 
 
 Ver. 19. Dut another of the apostles saw I not, save James the brother of the 
 Lord. Thus this James is distinguished indeed from the circle of the twelve 
 (1 Cor. xy. 5) to which Peter belonged, but yet is included in the number of 
 the apostles, namely in the wider sense (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7) ; which 
 explains the merely supplementary mention of this apostle.*— érepov is not 
 qualitative here, as in ver. 6, but stands in contrast to the one who is named, 
 Peter. In addition to the latter he saw not one more of the apostles, except 
 only that he saw the apostle in the wider sense of the term—James the 
 brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to the church at Jerusalem as its 
 president), —a fact which conscientiously he will not leave unmentioned.— 
 On the point that James the brother of the Lord was not James the son of 
 Alphaeus,—as, following Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, 
 Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars, and among the exposi- 
 tors of the epistle Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hof- 
 mann, Reithmayr, maintain,—but a real brother of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 35; 
 Mark vi. 3), the son of Mary, called James the Just,” who, having been a 
 Nazarite from his birth, and having become a believer after the resurrection 
 of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 7 ; Acts i. 14), attained to very high apostolic reputa- 
 tion among the Jewish Christians (ii. 9), and was the most influential pres- 
 byter of the church at Jerusalem,*® see on Acts xii. 17 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; Huther 
 on Ep. of James, Introd. § 1; Laurent, Neutest. Stud. p. 175 ff.* By the 
 more precise designation, tov adeAgdv tov Kupiov, he is distinguished not only 
 from the elder James, the brother of John,° but also from James the son of 
 Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve.* The whole figment of the identity 
 of this James with the son of Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural (Matt. 
 i. 25; Luke ii. 7) although ecclesiastically orthodox” belief (extending 
 beyond the birth of Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary.® [See 
 Note XXVIII, p. 41.] We may add that the statement, that Paul at this 
 time saw only Peter and James at Jerusalem, is not at variance with the 
 inexact expression tov¢ aroardéiove, Acts ix. 27, but is an authentic historical 
 definition of it, of a more precise character. [See Note XXIX., p. 41.] 
 
 1 After et ny We must supply not cidov 
 merely (as Grotius, Fritzsche ad Matth. 
 p. 482, Winer, Bleek in Stud. u. Krit. 1836, 
 p. 1059, Wieseler), but, as the context re- 
 quires, eiSov tov amdartodov. 
 
 2 Heges. in Hus. ii. 23. 
 
 3 Wieseler also justly recognizes here the 
 actual brother of Jesus, but holds the 
 James, who is named in ii. 9, 12 (and Acts 
 Sil. 17, xv. 18,215 1 Cor. xv. 7) as the head 
 of the Jewish Christians, not to be identi- 
 eal with this brother of the Lord, but to be 
 the apostle James the son of Alphaeus; af- 
 firming that it was the latter also who was 
 called 6 Sixcatos, ‘‘the just.”” See, however, 
 on ii. 9. The Gospel of the Hebrews, in 
 Jerome, Vir. il]. 2, puts James the Just 
 among the apostles who partook of the 
 last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless 
 
 3 
 
 represents him as a brother of the Lord, for 
 it makes him to be addressed by the Risen 
 One as “‘ frater mi,” ‘““my brother.’’ Wiese- 
 ler, indeed, understands jfrater mi, ‘‘my 
 brother,”’ in a spiritual sense, as in John xx. 
 17, Matt. xxviii. 10. But, just because the 
 designation of a James as adeAdds Tod Kuptov, 
 “the Lord’s brother’’ is so solemn, this in- 
 terpretation appears arbitrary ; nor do we 
 find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus 
 addressed the disciples as brethren. 
 
 4 [Also, Sieffert, article James, Herzog’s 
 Real-Encyel., 2d ed., vol. vi.] 
 
 5 Hofmann and others. 
 
 6 Comp. Victorinus, ‘‘ cum autem fratrem 
 dixit, apostolum negavit,” ** but when he said 
 ‘brother,’ he denied ‘ apostle.’ ”” 
 
 7 Form. Cone. p. 767. 
 
 8 Comp. on Matt. xii. 46; 1 Cor. ix. 5. 
 
34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Ver. 20. Not a parenthesis, but, at the conclusion of what Paul has just 
 related of that first sojourn of his at Jerusalem after his conversion (namely, 
 that he had travelled thither to make the acquaintance of Cephas, had re- 
 mained with him fifteen days, and had seen none of the other apostles 
 besides, only James the brother of the Lord), an affirmation by oath that in 
 this he had spoken the pure truth. The importance of the facts he had just 
 related for his object—to prove his apostolic independence—induced him to 
 make this sacred assurance. For if Paul had ever been a disciple of the 
 apostles, he must have become so then, when he was with the apostles at 
 Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion ; but not only had he been 
 there with another object in view, and for so few days, but, besides Peter, 
 he had met with James only. The reference to all that had been said 
 from ver. 12,' or at least to vv. 15-19,’ is precluded by the fact that ére:rain 
 ver. 18 begins a fresh section of the report (comp. ver. 21, i. 1), beyond 
 which there is no reason to go back. —The sentence is so constructed that 4 
 62 ypddo buiv stands emphatically by itself as an anacoluthon ; and before érz, 
 that, we have again to supply ypdgu, But what I write to you—bvehold in the 
 sight of God I write, that I lie not ; that is, in respect to what I write to you, 
 I write, I assure you before the face of God,* that I lie not.* Schott takes 
 bre as since, ‘ coram Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior,” ‘‘in the sight of God 
 I write, since I lie not,” whereby 4 dé yp. tu. does not appear as an anacolu- 
 thon. But this siguidem non mentior, ‘‘ since I lie not,” wouid be very flat ; 
 whereas the anacoluthon of the prefixed relative sentence is precisely in keep- 
 ing with the fervency of the language.® The completely parallel proteste- 
 tion also, 6 Oed¢... oldev. . . bre oF etdouas,° is quite unfavorable to the ex- 
 planation of 67: as siguidem. To supply with Bengel, Paulus, and Riickert 
 (comp. Jerome), an éori after Ocov (671, that), does not make the construction 
 casier ;7 on the contrary, it is arbitrary, and yields an unprecedented mode 
 of expression. 
 
 Ver. 21. After this stay of fifteen days in Jerusalem (érevta, comp. ver. 
 18), I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia ; and consequently was 
 again far enough away from the seat of the apostles !— 7jc Zupiac] As it is 
 said in Acts ix. 30 that Paul was accompanied from Jerusalem to Caesarea, 
 it is assumed by most modern expositors : ‘‘ Syriae eam partem dicit, cui 
 Phoenices nomen fuit,” ‘‘ He is speaking of that part of Syria which had the 
 name of Phoenicia,” Winer.’ This view runs entirely counter to the design 
 of the apostle. For here his main concern was to bring out his compara- 
 tively wide separation from Judaea, as it had occurred in his actual history ; 
 the whole context (comp. ver. 22) shows that it was so, and therefore the 
 reader could only understand rice Spice as meaning Syria proper (with 
 
 1 Calvin, Koppe, Winer, Matthies. note thereon. 
 2 Hofmann. 62Cor. xi. 81; comp. Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. 
 8 )9 9995, so that Ihave God present 3. 33. 
 ri devin Be 7 Rickert. 
 as witness. 
 
 8 So also Koppe, Riickert, Usteri, Mat- 
 thies, Schott. Comp. Matt. iy. 24; Acts 
 > O.4b Bh 
 
 4 Comp. Buttmann, newt. G7. p. 338. 
 5 Comp. Matt. x. 14; Luke xxi. 6, and the 
 
CHAP: E.; 223 35 
 
 Antioch as its capital). It could not in the least occur to him to think of 
 Phoenicia,‘ the more especially as alongside of rij¢ Lupiac Cilicia, which 
 borders on Syria proper, is immediately named (comp. Acts xv. 238, 41 ; 
 Plin. v. 22, xviii. 30). Anappeal is also wrongly made to Matt. iv. 24? and 
 Acts xxi. 3.5. The relation of our passage to Acts ix. 30 is this : On leaving 
 Jerusalem, Paul desired to visit Syria and Cilicia ; he was accordingly con- 
 ducted by the Christians as far as the first stage, Caesarea,* and thence he 
 went on by land to Syria and Cilicia. Comp. on Acts ix. 30.—or what 
 object he visited Syria and Cilicia, he does not state ; but for this very 
 reason, and in accordance with ver. 5, it cannot be doubted that he preached 
 the gospel there. Tarsus was certainly the central point of this ministry ; 
 it was at Tarsus that Barnabas sought and found him (Acts xi. 25). 
 
 Ver. 22. But I was so completely a stranger to the land of Judaea, that at 
 the time of my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia I was personally unknown to 
 the churches, etc. These statements (vv. 22-24) likewise go to prove that 
 Paul had not been a disciple of the apostles, which is indeed the object aimed 
 at in the whole of the context. Asa pupil of the apostles, he would have 
 remained in communication with Jerusalem ; and proceeding thence, he 
 would first of all have exercised his ministry in the churches of Judaea, and 
 have become well known tothem.® Others, inconsistently with the context, 
 suppose that Paul desired to refute the allegation that he had been a learner 
 from the churches of Judaea,® or that he himself had taught judaistically in 
 Judaea,’ or that he had visited Syria and Cilicia as the deputy of the churches 
 of Judaea.* — 76 rpooarw| as regards the (my) countenance, that is, personally. 
 
 1 Which eyen Wieseler, though not un- 
 derstanding it alone to be referred to, in- 
 cludes, 
 
 2 Where, in the language of hyperbole, a 
 very large district—namely, the whole prov- 
 ince of Syria, of which Judaea and Sama- 
 ria formed portions—is meant to be desig- 
 nated. 
 
 3 Where likewise the Roman province is 
 intended, and that only loosely and indefi- 
 nitely with reference to the coast district. 
 For any one sailing from Patara and pass- 
 ing in front of Cyprus to the right has the 
 Syrian coast before him towards the east, 
 and is sailing towardsit. Thus indefinitely, 
 as was suggested by the popular view and 
 report, Luke relates, Acts xxi. 3, éwAéouev 
 els Xupiay, “we sailed into Syria,’ without 
 meaning by the kat xarnxdnuev eis Tupor, 
 “and landed at Tyre,” that follows to make 
 this Zvpiav, “Syria,” equivalent to Phoenicia. 
 For instance, a man might say, ‘‘ We sailed 
 towards Denmark and landed at Gliick- 
 stadt,’ without intending it to be inferred 
 that Denmark is equivalent to Holstein. 
 
 4The Roman capital of Judaea, not 
 Caesarea Philippi. 
 
 5 According to Hofmann, the end at 
 which Paul aims in ver. 22 f. is conveyed 
 
 by wat ed0&agov «.7.A. in ver. 24, so that vv. 
 22, 23 are only related to this as the prota- 
 sis to the apodosis. This ideais at variance 
 with the independent and important na- 
 ture of the two affirmations in vy. 22, 23; 
 if Paul had intended to give them so sub- 
 ordinate a position as that which Hofmann 
 supposes, he would have done it by a 
 participial construction (ayvootvtes 6& ... 
 wLovov S€ akovortes, OTL K.T.A., Cd0EaCov K.T.A.), 
 perhaps also with the addition of cacrep, or 
 in some other marked way. In the form 
 in which the apostle has written it, his re- 
 port introduced by ێmecra in ver. 21 is com- 
 posed of propositions quite as independent 
 as those following ezecra in ver. 18, and vy. 
 £2, 23 cannot be intended merely to intro- 
 duce ver. 24. Hofmann is therefore the 
 more incorrect in asserting that Paul, from 
 ver, 21 onwards, is not continuing the 
 proof of his apostolic independence in con- 
 tradistinction to the other apostles, but is 
 exhibiting the harmony of his preaching with 
 the faith of the mother-church at Jerusalem 
 and its apostles. 
 
 6 Oecumenius, Gomarus, Olshausen. 
 
 7 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius; 
 comp. Usteri. 
 
 ® Michaelis. 
 
36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 17.—Traic¢ éxxAyoiare tHe ’Iovd.] This is meant to refer to 
 the churches out of Jerusalem, consequently in the ’Iovdaia y7, John iii. 22. 
 For that he was known to the chruch in the capital is not only a matter of 
 inference from his pre-Christian activity, but is certain from that fifteen 
 days’ visit (ver. 18), and is attested by Acts ix. 26-30.’ 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. Aé] places pévov axobovreg joav in correlation to juny ayvoobpevoc 
 T@ spooorw ; it is not, however, to be understood as a mere repetition of 
 the former dé (Hofmann), for it introduces another? subject.* The maseu- 
 line refers to the persons of whom those éxxAyoia: consisted.* The participle 
 with joav, however, does not stand for the simple imperfect (Luther renders 
 quite incorrectly, ‘‘they had heard”’), but prominence is given to the pred- 
 icate as the main point.° The clause expresses the sole relation in which 
 they were to Paul; they were simply in a position to hear.® — éri 6 dtokwv 
 nuac Tore kK.T.A.] Ore is explained most simply, not by a supposed transition 
 from the indirect to the direct form,’ but as the recitativwm,® the use of which 
 by Paul is certain not merely in quotations of Scripture, but also in other 
 cases (Rom. ili. 8; 2 Thess. ili. 10). 
 in vividness. In 6 didkwv jude, yuac applies to the Christians generally ; the 
 joyful information came to them from Christian lips (partly from inhabi- 
 tants of Jerusalem, partly perhaps directly from Syrians and Cilicians). The 
 present participle does not stand for the aorist (Grotius), but quite substan- 
 tivally : our (former) persecutor.? —riv xictiv] never means Christian doc- 
 trine,® not even in Acts vi.7, where faith in Christ is conceived as the authority 
 commanding submission (comp. on Rom. i. 5) ; it denotes the faith —re- 
 garded, however, objectively... He preaches the faith (in the Son of God, 
 ver. 16), which formerly he destroyed. On the latter point Estius justly 
 remarks, ‘‘ quia Christi fidelibus fidem extorquere persequendo nitebatur,” 
 ‘“because by his persecution he was endeavoring to wrest faith from believ- 
 ers.””? —év éuoi] does not mean propter me,* in support of which an appeal 
 was erroneously made to Eph. 1v. 1 e¢al.: for év, used with persons, is never 
 on account of (Winer, p. 363) ; but it means, ‘‘they praised God on me,” so 
 that their praise of God was based on me as the vehicle and instrument of 
 the divine grace and efficacy (1 Cor. xv. 10). God made Himself known 
 to them by my case, and so they praised Him 3; éAov yap 76 Kaz’ éué, dyot, THe 
 
 Moreover, the statement thus gains 
 
 1 Neither in Acts ix. 26-80 nor in Acts a rumor among them,’’ Erasmus. Comp. 
 
 xxvi. 19 f. (see on these passages) is there 
 any such inconsistency with the passage 
 before us, as has been urged against the 
 historical character of the Acts, especially 
 by Hilgenfeld, Baur, and Zeller. 
 
 2 Hofmann appeals to Eur. Jph. 7. 1367. 
 But in this, as in the other passages quoted 
 
 aby Hartung, I. p. 169, the well-known repe- 
 
 tition of the same word with &€ occurs. 
 
 3’ Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97. 
 
 4See Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 39; Winer, 
 p. 586. 
 
 5 See Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 1179. 
 
 5 ** Rumor apud illos erat,’ ‘‘ there was 
 
 Vulgate: ‘“‘tantum autem auditum habe- 
 dant,” “ but they only had the tidings.” 
 
 7So most expositors, including Riickert 
 and Wieseler. 
 
 8 Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
 Hofmann. 
 
 * See Winer, p. 331; Bremi, a@ Dem. adv. 
 Aphob. 17. 
 
 10 Beza, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rtickert, 
 and others. 
 
 11 Comp. on iil. 2, 23. 
 
 12 Comp. ver. 13. 
 
 13 As was generally assumed before 
 Winer. 
 
NOTES. 37 
 
 yapitoc Fv Tov Oeov, ‘‘ For as to me, all, he says, was of the grace of God,” 
 Oecumenius.' It was not, however, without a purpose, but with a just feel- 
 ing of satisfaction, that Paul added kai éddfalov év éuoi tov Oedv ; for this im- 
 pression, which Paul then made on the churches in Judaea, stood in start- 
 ling contrast to the hateful proceedings against him of the Judaizers in Ga- 
 latia.—Mark further,? how ver. 23 rests on the legitimate assumption that 
 Paul preached in substance no other gospel than that which those churches 
 had received from Jerusalem, although they were not yet instructed in the 
 special peculiarities of his preaching ; as, in fact, the antagonism between 
 the Pauline teaching and Judaism did not become a matter of public inter- 
 est until later (Acts xv. 1). 
 
 Notres By AMERICAN Eprtor. 
 
 I. Ver. 1. otk an’ avpdrwv ovd? Ov’ avOparov. 
 
 «When Meyer asserts a distinction between a causa remotior and a causa 
 medians, this is not accurate, since the subject treated is not the two causes for 
 the one act of the call, but the authorization of the office, and the call of the 
 person”’ (Sieffert). ‘‘ There are few points more characteristic of the apostle’s 
 style than his varied but accurate use of prepositions, especially of two or 
 more in the same, or immediately contiguous, clauses’’ (Ellicott). 
 
 II. Ver. 1. avdpadrov. 
 
 On the other hand, Eadie: ‘‘ The change to the singular forms a designed 
 antithesis to the following clause, while it denies the intervention of human 
 agency in any form and to any extent.’’ So also Sieffert. Meyer is supported 
 by Brenz, who, however, loses sight of the distinction in the prepositions — viz., 
 Per Christum adhuc humanam vitam in terris agentem, while by the same inter- 
 pretation the ovk az’ avOpézav becomes A duodecim Apostolis, “ By the twelve 
 apostles.”’ 
 
 Ill. Ver. 1. av§parov. 
 
 The statement requires qualification. Instead of saying: ‘It was not a 
 man,” etc., the author himself would not dissent from the better interpre- 
 tation of Calovius : ovK yAdc avOpeéroc. The participation by the entire divine- 
 human person of divine majesty, honor, and dominion does not demand the 
 limitation of a subordination. As tothe chief passage quoted (1 Cor. xv. 28) the 
 explanation of Philippi is in point (Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. 379): ‘‘ That 
 after the attainment of its goal, the Son of God surrenders His place of pre- 
 eminence as the Head and Leader of humanity, and with respect to the 
 human race returns to His original co-ordination with the Father.” 
 
 IV. Ver. 1. Geov marpoc. 
 
 Eadie: ‘‘ The name is probably inclusive of all these relations.” 
 
 1Comp. John xvii. 10; Ecclus. xlvii. 6. Lex. Soph. I. p. 598. 
 See generally Bernhardy, p. 210; Ellendt, 2 In opposition to Holstein and others. 
 
38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 V. Ver. 1. Oeov rarpoc. 
 
 Here Meyer’s subordinationism again appears. The climax, however, is to 
 be retained. For while in the Trinity ‘‘none is before and after other ;” yet 
 with respect to the order of their subsistence, as declared when it is said that 
 one emanates or proceeds from the other, such distinction is correct. Not 
 then “‘ from the Higher to the Highest,” with respect to actual diginity, authority, 
 or age, but with regard to their order of working in the economy of grace. 
 The idea here is also: from the incarnate Son to the unincarnate Father ; from 
 the God-man to Him who is God and not man; from the Mediator to Him 
 with whom he mediates. 
 
 VI. Ver. 1. tov éyeipavtoc abrov Ex vexpdv, 
 Luther based this on Rom. iy. 25. 
 
 VilieVierd 
 
 For the grace and peace here mentioned are in direct opposition to the legal 
 righteousness of the Jews. 
 
 VIII. Ver. 4. aidvoc tov éreotéroc. 
 
 Sieffert protests against this interpretation, and maintains that aidv is not 
 applicable to the period of the world preceding the Parousia, and is never so 
 used. As to éveotdc, as a perf. part., it may designate what, although having 
 entered for a longer or shorter period, still extends, with its consequences, into 
 the present, hence the present ; or more seldom it may mean that which ar- 
 nounces itselfas threatening. In the latter sense, it occurs in N. T., 1 Cor. vii. 
 26; 2 Thess. ii. 2. The former meaning, present, it has very frequently in 
 profane Greek, and in the N. T. at Rom. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 26 ; Heb. 
 ix. 9, and here. For as Rom. viii. 38 contrasts ta éveotéra with ra péAdovra, 
 so here the aidév évestdéc is in manifest antithesis to aidv péAAwv, Eph. i. 24 ' 
 (Matt. xii. 32; Heb. vi. 3), and is therefore the same as what Paul elsewhere 
 terms 6 aidv 6uvtoc, Rom, xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 6, 8, iii. 18 ; or 6 vvv Kaipéc, 
 Rom. viii. 38 ; or 6 aiwy row Kocuov TobTov, Eph. ii. 2. With this Alford and Eadie 
 concur, and to it Ellicott inclines. 
 
 IX. Ver. 4. 6mwe éSéAnrat. 
 
 Sieffert here again dissents. ‘*As mostly in the LXX. and always in the N. T. 
 (Acts vii. 10, 34, xii. 11, xxiii. 27, xxvi. 17) to liberate from a power. Asa 
 further end of the atoning death of Christ it designates as the final statement 
 our deliverance from the power wherewith the present age of the world subjects 
 us to its evil influences, consequently a moral operation, as in 2 Cor. v. 15; 
 Eph. v. 26; Tit. ii. 14. This, with essential correctness, has been the inter- 
 pretation of nearly all expositors since Chrysostom, although some in modern 
 times, entirely against the connection, think chiefly (de Wette, Meyer, Eadie) 
 or alone (Weiss, Bibl. Theol., § 80) of deliverance from misery, punishment, and 
 danger.”’ 
 
 X. Ver. 6. ottw Tayéwe. 
 
 ‘«‘ Probably the apostle had no precise time in his reference, The unexpected- 
 
 ness of the apostasy appears to be his prominent element of rebuke ” (Eadie). 
 
NOTES. 39 
 
 “Jn the N. T.rayéwe always stands without the specification of a terminus a 
 quo; hence, with the exception of the passage, in which, in combination with 
 a future idea, it includes a temporal reference to the present (1 Cor. iv. 19; 
 Phil. ii. 19, 24; 2 Tim. iv. 9) in an absolute sense (Luke xiv. 21, xvi. 6; 
 John xi. 31 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22), so also here the more for the reason 
 that the verb yerarifecre in the present designates the still progressive devel- 
 opment of the apostasy ’’ (Sieffert). 
 
 XI. Ver. 6. amd rod Kadécartoc, 
 
 Regarding the dz6 Tov Kadécavroc as referring to God, the remark of Brenz is 
 worthy of note, that to turn from God is therefore, as the argument here shows, 
 not necessarily to become an atheist, or to lapse into heathenism, but simply 
 to hold that ‘‘ to attain forgiveness of sins and salvation through faith in Christ 
 is not sufficient, and that they must be merited also by the works of the law.” 
 
 XII. Ver. 7. érepoc. 
 
 “‘Hven in Matt. xi. 3, adduced by Ellicott to show that érepoc does not 
 always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply another indi- 
 vidual, but one different in position and function” (Eadie). 
 
 XIII. Ver. 7. revéc eicw ol tapdocortec. 
 
 The tivéc is not without a strain of contempt (Paraeus, Eadie). Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 
 lex: 
 XIV. Ver. 8. etc. 
 
 Estius, de Wette, Olshausen, Conybeare, regard 7jeic used by enallage for éyw. 
 Cf. 2 Cor, x. 2-16. Lightfoot, on the contrary: “St. Paul never seems to use 
 the plural when speaking of himself alone.’’ Luther: «‘I and my brethren, 
 Timothy, Titus, and as many as with me teach Christ purely.” Ellicott main- 
 tains that whether there is an enallage or not must be determined from the 
 context ; and that while here there is none, yet it may be found in 1 Thess. 
 Wye 
 
 XV. Ver. 8. é& ovpavod. 
 
 The é£ ovpavod is in distinction from a fallen angel (Olshausen, Eadie), 
 
 XVI. Ver. 8. zap’ 6 einyyedc dueba, 
 
 On the contrary, Lightfoot : ‘St. Paul is here asserting the oneness, the in- 
 tegrity of his gospel. It will not brook any rival. It will not suffer any foreign 
 admixture. The idea of ‘contrariety,’ therefore, is alien to the general bearing 
 of the passage, though independently of the context the preposition might well 
 have this meaning.’’ Alford correctly observes that the preposition really 
 includes both ideas. 
 
 XVII. Ver. 10. 
 
 This explanation is referred by Sieffert not to the curse twice pronounced, but 
 to the fact that what had been previously uttered in an indefinite and general 
 way, is not repeated with reference to particular persons. 
 
40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 XVIII. Ver. 10. adpre ydp avOparove. 
 
 Sieffert seeks to reconcile both views : ‘* With special reference to his oppo- 
 nents, although expressed generally.” 
 
 XIX. Ver. 11. adeAdoi. 
 
 «Still dear to him, in spite of their begun aberration, as in ili, 15, iv. 12, 
 v. 13, vi. 1” (Eadie). 
 XX. Ver. 12. oddé yap eyo. 
 
 Sieffert at some length argues that Meyer’s statement that the interpretation 
 of oidé yap, as neque enim, is inconsistent with emphasis on the éya, is incorrect, 
 He attaches to it a conjunctive force, and derives the antithetical idea from 
 v.11. That the airéc is unnecessary, as Meyer states, is sufficiently disproved by 
 the solitary eyé in 1 Cor. xi. 23. Ellicott’s interpretation impresses us most by 
 extending the subjects of the antithesis even beyond the apostles—viz., ‘‘I, as 
 little as any others, whether ypiorodidaktor or dvOpwrodidaxrot.”” 
 
 XXI. Ver. 12. otre édudayOnv. 
 
 The oidé belongs to the whole sentence; the otre connects its parts. See 
 Winer’s N. T. Grammar, § 55, 6. : 
 
 XXII. Ver. 12. dv’ dmoxadspeoc, «.1.2. 
 
 Sieffert regards the period here specified too narrow, as it may have covered 
 the entire time between his call at Damascus and his undertaking the work of 
 apostle to the Gentiles, with which he concludes this review of his lite in 
 vy. 21-23. 
 
 XXII. Ver. 14. év te yéver pov. 
 
 «« An accidental proof that he is addressing Gentile converts” (Lightfoot). 
 
 XXIV. Ver. 14. mepicootépwc Cydwrye, K.7.A. 
 
 ‘©We cannot agree with Meyer, followed by Alford, Ellicott, and others, in 
 saying that the adjective and pronoun limit these traditions to the sect of the 
 Pharisees, Paul being dapicaioc, vide dapioaiov. We rather think, with Wieseler, 
 that the reference must be as wide as the phrase év r@ yévev’’ (Lightfoot). 
 
 XXYV. Ver. 17. «cic ’ApaBiav. 
 
 The place, the object, and the length of time of the visit to Arabia are alike 
 uncertain. For the indefinite limits of the term Arabia, see especially Cony- 
 beare and Howson, Vol. I., 96 sqq. Many, among them Sieffert, locate this visit 
 in a region neighboring Damascus—Arabia Deserta ; others fix it in Arabia 
 Petraea ; still others, in Arabia Felix. As to the object, Sieffert dissents from 
 Meyer, on the ground, that not until ver. 21 sqq. do we find the record of the 
 beginning of his missionary activity, and that the eiféac does not limit the 
 evayyéAwpuat, as Meyer intimates. Luther’s view harmonizes with that of Meyer : 
 ‘* What else would he have done than preach Christ.” But in the absence of all 
 evidence to this effect in Acts, the probabilities incline to its being for a season 
 
NOTES. 41 
 
 of quiet preparation in the desert for his great work. As Neander, however, 
 remarks (Planting and Training of Christian Church, E. T., p. 93): ‘Either view 
 equally suits the antithesis in this passage, that Paul did not go up to Jerusa- 
 lem in order to make his appearance under the sanction of those who were 
 apostles before him.” Cf. Schaff’s Hist. of Apostolic Church, p. 236; Farrar’s 
 Lifeand Work of St. Paul, chap. xi. Kitto (Bible Illustrations) adopts the hypoth- 
 esis of a retreat from the heat and insalubrity of Damascus during the summer 
 season. 
 
 XXVI. Ver. 18. peta étn Tpia. 
 
 The argument for the necessity of this partial correction presented in com- 
 mentary on Acts ix. 26 are insufficient. The interval of three years need not 
 have been three full years, but, like the three days of our Lord’s abode with 
 the dead, parts of three years, amounting to little more than a full year. The 
 argument Meyer draws from the distrust of the disciples rests partially on 
 the unproved hypothesis that Paul had spent the interval in Arabia in preach- 
 ing. He concedes that ‘‘ the distrust may in some measure be explained from a 
 long retirement in Arabia.’”’ For a harmonizing of the two accounts see Excur- 
 sus A of the volume of the Handy Commentary (Sanday) on Galatians. 
 
 XXVIT. Ver. 18. ‘Hyuépac dekarévre. 
 
 «While the fifteen days were amply sufficient for the communication of par- 
 ticular historical details which Paul did not regard essential to his gospel, they 
 were actually too short for Paul, after having for three years developed inde- 
 pendently in his Christian convictions, to have been advised in spiritual depend- 
 ence by Peter” (Sieffert). 
 
 XXVIII. Ver. 20. tov adeAgdv Tov kvpiov. 
 
 It is surprising that such interpretation should be given the language of the 
 Form. Concord., which does contain it even by remotest implication. See 
 Miiller’s edition, p. 679, § 24; English translation (Jacobs), p. 628, § 24. Meyer 
 has evidently in mind the Latin translation of the Smalcald Articles, Miller, 
 p- 299, whose rendering, however, does not make the perpetuity of Mary’s vir- 
 ginity confessional. On the Lord’s brethren, see the Excursus of Lightfoot. 
 
 XXIX,. Ver. 20. érepov** ovk eidov, «.7.2. 
 
 ‘*The intention is to show, not asin v. 18, that he has not learned the 
 gospel of the apostles, but that he had not received a formal commission to 
 preach the gospel : as this would have had to proceed from the entire body of 
 apostles” (Sieffert).” 
 
42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 CHAR PER, al. 
 
 Ver. 5. oi¢ otdé] is wanting in D* Clar.* Germ. codd. Lat. in Jerome and 
 Sedul., Ir. Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Primas. Claudius antissidor.1 Con- 
 demned by Seml., Griesb., Koppe, Dav. Schulz, But the omission is much too 
 weakly attested, and arose simply from dé in ver. 4 being understood antithet- 
 ically, and from the belief, induced by the remembrance of the apostle’s prin- 
 ciple of accommodation, that it was necessary to find here an analogue to the 
 circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) ; oddé stood in the way of this, and with 
 it, on account of the construction, oi¢ was also omitted. This oi¢ was wanting 
 at most only in manuscripts of the It. (see Reiche, p. 12), and ought not to 
 have been rejected by Grot., Morus, and Michael. — Ver. 8. cai éuoi] With 
 Lachm. and Tisch., read, according to preponderating testimony, kapoi. — 
 Ver. 9. ’IdxwBoc xai Kynoéc] DEF G, It., and several Fathers, have Ilérpog kai 
 *IdxwBoc. A transposition according to rank.?—év, which is wanting in Elz. 
 and Tisch. (bracketed by Lachm.), is to be deleted, according to BF GHK 
 L &*, min. vss. and Fathers. Inserted on account of the dé which follows. — 
 Ver. 11. Here, and also in ver. 14, Kygdc¢ and Kngd is the correct reading ac- 
 cording to preponderating evidence. Comp. oni. 18. The very ancient fiction 
 (see the exegetical note) that it is not the Apostle Peter who is here spoken of, 
 testifies also to the originality of the Hebrew name. — Ver. 12. 7A§ov| B D* F 
 G 8, 45, 73, codd. It., read #29ev. So Lachm.* Comp. Orig. : eA@dvrog ’ laxeGov. 
 An ancient clerical error after ver, 11. — Ver. 14. The position of the words xai 
 ovk (Lachm., and Tisch. ody) “Iovdaixae Ge is to be adopted, with Lachm., fol- 
 lowing decisive testimony. No doubt kai ov« ’Iovdaixo¢ is wanting in Clar. 
 Germ. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Agapet. ; but this evidence is much too weak to in- 
 duce us (with Seml. and Schott) to pronounce the words a gloss, especially as 
 their omission might very easily be occasioned by the similar terminations of 
 the two adverbs. — 7c] Elz. Tisch. read 7/, in opposition to decisive testimony. 
 — The evidence is also decisive against the omission of dé, ver. 16 (Elz.), which 
 was caused by eldérec being understood as the definition of what precedes, 
 with which view dé was not compatible. The omission was facilitated by the 
 fact of a lesson beginning with eidérec. — Ver. 18. Instead of cuviornu read, 
 with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., cvrvictdve. — Ver. 20. Tod viod tod Oeod] 
 Lachm. reads Tov @cod kai Xpiorov, according to B D* F G, It. But most prob- 
 ably this reading arose from the writer passing on immediately from the first 
 rod to the second, and thus writing rov Orov only ; and, as the sequel did not 
 harmonize with this, ca? Xpictov was afterwards added. If, as Schott thinks, 
 tov Ocov x, Xpictov was written because God and Christ are mentioned in vv. 
 19, 20, the original rov viod tov Ocov would have been turned into rov Oeov k, 
 
 1 Jerome, Sedul., Primas, have the ois, 3 Who (Praef. p. xii.) conjectures as to 
 but not the ovde, this reading that t.vi should be read instead 
 2 A. omits cai Kydbas. of Tuas. 
 
CHORE OT Mile 43 
 
 viov aitod. If, however, tov Orov x. Xpicrov had been the original text, there 
 would have been no reason whatever for altering this into ov vivi r, Ocov. 
 
 ConTENTs.—Paul continues the historical proof of his full apostolic in- 
 dependence. On his second visit to Jerusalem, fourteen years after, he had 
 laid his gospel before those in repute, and had been, not instructed by 
 them, but formally acknowledged as an apostle ordained by God to the 
 Gentiles (vv. 1-10). And when Peter had come to Antioch, so far was 
 Paul from giving up his apostolic independence, that, on the contrary, he 
 withstood Peter openly on account of a hypocritical line of conduct, by 
 which Christian freedom was imperilled (vv. 11-21). 
 
 Ver. 1. Onvv. 1-10, seeC. F. A. Fritzsche in Friteschior. Opuse. p. 158 ff ; 
 Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 1-10, ete., 1852; Reiche, Comm. 
 - Crit. p. 1 ff. On ver. 1, see Stélting, Beitrdge 2. Hveg. d. Paul. Briefe, 
 1869, p. 155 ff. [Schwegler, Nachap. Zettalt. I. p. 116 sqq. Baur, Paulus, 
 2d ed. I. p. 119 sqq. Zeiler, Apostelge. p. 216 sqq. Neander, Gesch. d. 
 Pflanz., 4th ed. p. 208 sqq., American translation, p. 204 sqq. Lechler, 
 Ap. u. Nachap. Zeitalt. I. 116 sqq. Ritschl, Althath. k. 1857, p. 128 sqq. 
 Trip, Paul. nach, d. Apostelgesch. p. 75 sqq. Oecrtel, Paul. in d. Apostelg. p. 
 226 sqq. Ebrard, w. Krit. d. evang. Gesch. 3d ed. 1868, p. 878 sqq. 
 Lipsius, Apostel-convent in Schenkel’s Bibl. Lex. 1869. Overbeck, Apostel 
 geschichte, 1870, p. 216 sqq. Pfleiderer, Pauwlinism, 1873, p. 500 sqq. 
 Weizsiicker, Apostelkonzil, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1873, p. 191 sqq. K. 
 
 Schmidt, Apostel-Konvent in Herzog’s Realencycl. 20 ed. 1877. Keim, Aus. d. 
 Urehr. 1878, p. 64 sqq. W. Grimm, Der Apostelkonvent in theol. Stud. u. 
 Krit., p. 405 sqq. Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, 249 sqq. 
 Schaff’s Church History, I. p. 341 sqq. Conybeare and Howson’s Life 
 and Epistles of St. Paul, I. 223]. —éreta] thereafter, namely, after my so- 
 journ in Syria and Cilicia ; correlative to the érecra in i. 21, and also in i. 
 18. *Ere:ra joins the statement to what is narrated immediately before. 
 Therefore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, i. 18.'— dca dexatecodpwv 
 érav| interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an interval of fourteen years.? The 
 length of this period quite accords with the systematic object of the apostle, 
 inasmuch as he had already, up to the time of this journey, labored for so 
 many years entirely on his own footing and independently of the original 
 apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end to any suspicion of 
 his being a disciple of these apostles.* Following Oeder* and Rambach, 
 
 1 Wieseler. 
 
 2Comp. Polyb. xxii. 26. 22, 6” érav tpiay ; 
 Acts xxiv. 17. 
 
 3 As to the use of 6:4, which is based on 
 the idea that the time intervening from the 
 starting-point to the event in question is 
 traversed when the event arrives (comp. 
 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally 
 Bernhardy, p. 285; Kriiger, § 68. 22. 3; 
 Winer, p. 336; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 50, and 
 in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 162 f. ; Herod. iv. 1, 
 amobnunoavtTas OKTw kK. eiKoot ETEA Kal dia Xpovov 
 
 tocovrTov (after so long an interval) catidyvras 
 k.T.A. 3 Deut. ix. 11, dca recoapaxovTa nuepov, 
 “at the end of forty days and forty nights” 
 
 . . €OwkE KUPLOS esol Tas SVO TAaKas ; JOSeph. 
 Antt. iv. 8.12. Comp. the well-known 6a 
 xpovov, Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 8.1; dv 
 ai@vos, Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1003 ; 
 6va pakpov, Thue. vi. 15. 3; d:’ €rovs, Lucian, 
 Paras. 15; 60 yjuépwv, Mark ii. 1, and the 
 like ; also 4 Mace. xiii. 20. 
 
 4In Wolf. 
 
44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Theile,? Paulus and Schott have understood dia as within, ‘‘ during the 14 
 years I have now been a Christian ;” or, as Stélting, acceding to this ex- 
 planation, gives to it the more definite sense, ‘‘ during a space of time which 
 has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and is now, at the time I am writing 
 this epistle, finished.”” But against this view may be urged the grammatical 
 objection that did is never used by Greek authors with respect to duration 
 of time, except when the action extends throughout the whole time,’ cither 
 continuously, as Mark xiv. 538, or at recurring intervals, as Acts 1. 3.5 Even 
 the passages which are appealed to, Acts v. 19, xvi. 9, xvii. 10, xxiii. 31, 
 admit the rendering of dud tHe vuxtd¢ as throughout the night, without devi- 
 ation from the common linguistic usage.* Moreover, how unintelligibly 
 Paul would have expressed himself, if, without giving the slightest inti- 
 mation of it,* he had meant the present duration of his standing as a Chris- 
 tian! Lastly, how entirely idle and objectless in itself would be such a 
 specification of time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys 
 which he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident ; but whether 
 at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a Christian had lasted 14 
 years, or longer, or shorter, was a point of no importance for the main ob- 
 ject of the passage, and the whole statement as to the time would be with- 
 out any motive in harmony with the context. — From what point has Paul 
 reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the ascension of Christ,* must at 
 once be excluded as quite opposed to the context. Usually, however, the 
 conversion of the apostle is taken as the terminus a quo,’ an appeal being 
 made to the analogy of i. 18. Thus the three years of i. 18 would be again 
 included in the fourteen years. But waa and the dvd, indicating the in- 
 terval which in the meantime had elapsed, point rather to the jirst journey 
 to Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The radav points back to the jirst jour- 
 ney, and so did dexateos. érov presents itself most naturally as the period in- 
 tervening between the first journey and this daw. If Paul had again 
 written erd, as in i. 18, we might have inferred from the intentional iden- 
 tity of expression the identity also of the starting-point ; but since he has 
 here chosen the word dé not elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after 
 an interval of fourteen years), the relation or this dia to ra/v leads us to 
 take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting-point of the reckoning. 
 This is the reckoning adopted by Jerome, Chrysostom on ver. 11, Luther,* 
 
 1In Winer’s Neue krit. Jour. VIIL. p. 175. 
 
 2 Valekenaer, ad Herod. vi. 12; Ast, ad 
 Plat. de Leg. p. 399. 
 
 3 See Fritzschior. Opuse. l.c. 
 
 4See on these passages the Commentary 
 on Acts. There is no cause for accusing 
 (with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper devi- 
 ation from the Greek usus loguendi. Comp. 
 on 6a vuktos, Thue. ii, 4. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 
 22. On the Homeric da vixra, during the 
 night, see Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, 
 ed. 3. 
 
 5 Possibly by é& ob év Xprore eiue, “from 
 when I am in Christ,’”’ or in some other 
 
 way. 
 
 6 Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud. 
 Cappellus, Paulus. 
 
 7 So Olshausen, Anger, Matthies, Schott, 
 Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, 
 Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p.55, 
 Stilting, Eadie. 
 
 8In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena 
 1612, I. p. 386 B), ‘‘ Post annos 14, quibus si 
 annos tres, quos supra memorayit, adjunx- 
 eris, jam 17 aut 18 annos eum praedicasse 
 invenies, antequam conferre  voluerit,”’ 
 “* After 14 years, and if to these you add the 
 three which he mentioned above, you will 
 
CHAP bis le 45 
 
 Ussher, Clericus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth,’ Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger, 
 Hug, Mynster, Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Riickert, Usteri, Zeller, 
 Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, labors under 
 an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the section beginning with i. 21.? 
 — dexateccdpwv| emphatically placed before irév (differently in i. 18), in or- 
 der to denote the long interval.* — radw avéByv sic ‘Tepoo. | Paul can mean by 
 this no other than his second * journey to Jerusalem, and he says that be- 
 tween his first and his renewed (7dAvy) visit to it a period of 14 years had 
 elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul had meant a third 
 journey, and had kept silence as to the second, he would have furnished his 
 opponents, to whom he desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the 
 apostles, with weapons against himself ; and the suspicion of intentionally 
 incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, so far as his ad- 
 versaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on occasion of a second visit to 
 Jerusalem, here passed over, he had not come at all into close contact with 
 the apostles (and how highly improbable this would be in itself !), he would 
 have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very character of a 
 journey which had had nothing to do with any sort of instruction by the 
 apostles,° it would have been of the greatest importance for his object, in 
 opposition to the suspicions of his opponents.° To have kept silence as to 
 this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole historically apologetic 
 demonstration, which he had entered upon in i. 13 and still continues from 
 i. 21 (though Hofmann thinks otherwise).* This purely exegetical ground 
 is quite decisive in favor of the view that Paul here speaks of his second 
 journey to Jerusalem ;° and considered by itself, therefore, our passage pre- 
 
 find that he had been preaching 17 or 18 
 years already before he wished to confer.” 
 Even with fis reckoning, his conversion 
 still remains ‘“‘the great event by which 
 Paul measures for himself all Christian 
 time”? (Ewald); for the whole reckoning 
 begins at i. 18 from this event as its starting- 
 point. 
 
 1Jn the Repert. fiir bibl. u. 
 IV. p. 41. 
 
 2 See on i. 22. 
 
 3 Comp. Herod. /.¢. 
 
 4 Very correctly put in the Chron. Fuseb., 
 © eime madtv, SyAovoTL ETEpa EeaTiv avaBacrs 
 airy, ‘‘in that he says again, it is manifest 
 that this is another journey.” 4 
 
 5 Comp. i. 18. 
 
 © Wieseler’s objection that Paul, accord- 
 ing to our view of his historical argument, 
 would also have left unmentioned the jour- 
 ney spoken of in Acts xviii. 22, whereby 
 the reasoning above would fall to the 
 ground as nimium probans, *‘ proving too 
 much,” is incorrect. For if he had shown 
 that up to the apostolic council (see the sequel) 
 he could not have received the instruction 
 of the apostles, histask of proof was com- 
 
 morgenl. Lit, 
 
 pletely solved ; because on occasion of his 
 presence at that council he received formal 
 acknowledgment and sanction as the apos- 
 tle to the Gentiles. If up to that time he 
 had not been a disciple of the apostles, now, 
 when he had received in an official way the 
 fullest acknowledgment as an independent 
 apostle, there could no longer be any dis- 
 cussion as to his having at some subsequent 
 date procured apostolic instruction in Je- 
 rusalem. It would therefore have been 
 purely unmeaning, and even absurd, to have 
 continued the history of his journeys to Je- 
 rusalem beyond the date of the apostolic 
 council. But up to that date he could not 
 omit any journey, without rendering his 
 historical deduction nugatory as a proof. 
 
 7 Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 55. 
 
 8 Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67 f., and Schott 
 find wo journeys mentioned in ver. 1: the 
 former obtains them from waaw (after 14 
 years I made the second journey to Jerusa- 
 lem, undertaken with Barnabas) ; and the 
 latter brings them out thus: ‘intra 14 an- 
 nos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas, 
 cum Barnaba quidem (Act. xi. 30), posthac 
 (Act. xv.) assumto etiam Tito,” ‘‘ The go- 
 
46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 sents no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we compare it 
 with Acts. According to the latter, the second journey (Acts xi. 30, xii. 25) 
 is that which Paul made with Barnabas in the year 44 in order to eonvey 
 pecuniary assistance to Judaea ; hence many hold our journey as identical 
 with that related in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25. So Tertullian c. Mare. i. 20, 
 Chron. Huseb., Calvin,’ Keil (Opuse. p. 160, and in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 
 68), Gabler (neutest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 ff.), Rosenmiiller, Siiskind (in 
 Bengel’s Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff.), Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.), 
 Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149), Niemeyer (de temp. 
 quo ep. ad Gal. conser. sit, Gott. 1827), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff.), 
 Kiichler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 1828, p. 27 f£.), 
 Flatt, Fritzsche, Béttger, Stélting. So also Caspari (geograph. chronol. 
 Hinl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But the chronology, through the 14 years, 
 is decisively opposed to this view. For as the year 44 a.p. or 797 v.c. is 
 the established date of the journey in question,* these 14 years with the ad- 
 dition of the three years (i. 18) would carry us back to the year 27 a.p. ! 
 Among the defenders of this view, Béttger has indeed turned dexareccapwv 
 into teccdpwr ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. Fritzsche, 
 on the other hand, has endeavored to bring out the 14 years, by supposing 
 the reckoning of Luke iii. 1 to begin from the year of the joint regency of 
 Tiberius, that is, the year 765 v.c., as, following Ussher, has been 
 done by Clericus, Lardner, and others,* and now also by Wieseler.* Itis 
 assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His ministry in 779, and 
 was crucified in 781 ; that Paul became a Christian at the beginning of 783, 
 and that 14 years later, in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took 
 place. But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be reckoned 
 from Paul's conversion, see above. Besides, the year of the conversion 
 cannot, for other chronological reasons, be put back beyond the year 35 A.D., 
 that is, 788 u.c.° Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in iii. 1 did not reckon 
 from the actual commencement of the reign of Tiberius, is nothing but a 
 forced expedient based on extraneous chronological combinations, and find- 
 ing no support at all in the plain words of Luke himself,® The opinion, 
 
 ing up to Jerusalem having been repeat- 
 ed within 14 years, with Barnabas in- 
 deed (Acts xi. 30), and afterwards Titus 
 also having been taken.’ Both views are 
 introduced into the passage inconsistently 
 with the text. For according to Bloch’s ex- 
 planation, Paul must have spoken previ- 
 ously of a journey made with Barnabas; 
 and in Schott’s interpretation not only is 
 éva wrongly understood (see above), but it 
 would be necessary at least that instead of 
 ovumapad, kai Titov the text should run, eira 
 5€ cuumapad. x. T. Nevertheless Lange, 
 apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 99 f., has again resorted 
 to the evasion that rad is to be referred to 
 peta Bapy. and presupposes an earlier jour- 
 ney already made with Barnabas (Acts xi.) 
 1 Among the older expositors, J. T. Major 
 
 is also named as in favor of this view, whose 
 Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are 
 quoted by Gabler and Winer. But in the 
 second edition of Major’s Annotata, which 
 appeared after his death, Jena 1670, 4to, 
 Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for 
 the view which holds the journey men- 
 tioned in Gal. ii. 1 to be identical with that 
 in Acts xv. 
 
 2 See Introd. to Acis. 
 
 3 See on Luke iii. 1. 
 
 4In Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 547 ff , and 
 especially in his Beitr. 2. Wiirdigung d. 
 Evang. 1869, p. 177 
 
 5 See on Acts, Introd. 
 
 6 See further, in opposition to it, Anger, 
 vat. temp. p. 14 f., and z. Chronol. d. Leh- 
 ramtes Chr. 1. 
 
CHAP; 112, i: 47 
 
 therefore, that the journey Gal. ii. 1 is identical with that mentioned in 
 Acts xi., must be rejected ; and we must, on the other hand, assume that 
 in point of fact those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who 
 consider it as the same which, according to Acts xv., was undertaken by 
 Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference.’ This result is, however, to 
 be based in the first instance not on a comparison of the historical references 
 contained in Gal. ii. and Acts xv., but on dia dexatecodpwv érav 3 and the his- 
 torical references of Acts xv. afterwards serve merely as a partial, although 
 very material, confirmation. For the point of view, from which the journey 
 is brought forward in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it 
 cannot present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative of Acts, 
 whether we take it in connection with Acts xi. or Acts xv. By the search 
 for points of agreement and of difference, with the view of thereby arriving 
 at a decision, far too much room is left for argument pro and contra, and con- 
 sequently for the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result. 
 I. Thus in support of the identity of the journey Gal. ii. 1 with that of 
 Acts xi. xii., it is argued’—(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in 
 Cilicia and Syria (i. 21, ii. 1; comp. Actsix. 30, xi. 25 ff.). But why should 
 not Paul, in the ézevra, ii. 1, have also mentally included his first missionary 
 journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts xiii. xiv.) as 
 preceding, seeing that he made this journey from Antioch and after its com- 
 pletion again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing that his 
 object made it important not so much to write a special history of his labors, 
 as to show at what time he had first come into closer official connection with 
 the apostles, in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them ? 
 (2.) That it is probable that Paul soon after the beginning of his labors as 
 the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. i. 23; Acts xi. 25 f. ; comp. Acts xv. 23, 
 ix. 30) expounded his system of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the 
 apostles for their opinion. But this argument proves too much, since it is 
 evident from i. 16 that Paul commenced the exercise of his vocation as an 
 apostle to the Gentiles immediately after his conversion ; so that, even if 
 the 14 years be reckoned from the conversion, there still remains this long 
 period of 14 years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to 
 be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of ii. 1, this period is in- 
 creased from 14 to 17 years ; but, if Paul had taught 14 years without the 
 approbation of the apostles, he may just as well have done so for 17 years. 
 
 1 So Irenaeus, adv. haer. iii. 13, Theodoret, 
 Jerome, Baronius, Cornelius & -Lapide, 
 Pearson, and most of the older expositors, 
 Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gabler’s 
 Journ. fiir auserl. theol. Lit. I. 2, p. 249 ff.), 
 Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Hind. I. p. 192 
 and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug, 
 Winer, Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P. 
 ep.ad Gal. tribus prim. capp., Lips. 1832), 
 Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger, 
 Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Leke- 
 busch, Elwert, Lechler (post. u. nachapost. 
 
 Zeitalt. p. 894 ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche, 
 Ewald, Ritschl, Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann, 
 Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel, Lipsius, 
 Pfleiderer, Weizsiicker, K. Schmidt, Keim, 
 Lightfoot, Eadie, and others. Riickert does 
 not come to a decision, but (in his Com- 
 mentary and in the ereget. Mag. I. 1, p. 118 
 ff.) denies the identity of our journey with 
 that related in Acts xi. xii., and leaves it a 
 matter of doubt whether the journey men- 
 tioned in Acts xy. or that in xviii. 22 is the 
 one intended. 
 2 See Fritzsche, J.c. p. 227. 
 
48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (3). That the sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles 
 (ii. 9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned in Acts xi. xil., 
 because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have set them apart (Acts xiii. 
 2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. But might not the ordination of the two to 
 be teachers of the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 2) have taken place previously, and the 
 formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the apostles in 
 Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period ? This latter view, indeed, 
 is supported even by the analogy of abrot 62 eic¢ rHv repitouqy (Gal. ii. 9), in- 
 asmuch as James, Peter, and John had been already for a long time before 
 this apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destination for- 
 mally in concert with Pauland Barnabas. (4.) That the stipulation respect- 
 ing the poor (ii. 10) was occasioned by the very fact of Paul and Barnabas 
 having brought pecuniary assistance (Acts xi. 30). But the care for the 
 poor lay from the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and 
 was so much an object of apostolic interest (Acts ii. 44 f., iv. 34 ff., vi. 1ff.), 
 that there was certainly no need of any special occasion for expressly making 
 the remembrance of the poor one of the conditions in the concert, ii. 9 f. 
 (5.) That the apostles, according to ii. 8, had insisted on the circumcision 
 of Titus,—a non-emancipation from Mosaism, which might agree with the 
 time of Acts xi. xii., when the conversion of the Gentiles was still in its in- 
 fancy, but not with the later time of Acts xv. But see the note on ver. 3. 
 Even if we allow the erroneous idea that the apostles had required this cir- 
 cumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much later point 
 (Acts xxi. 17 ff.) required Paul to observe a completely Jewish custom, froin 
 which it is evident how much, even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles 
 accommodated themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented 
 to it. (6.) That in Acts xv. there is no trace of the presence of John at Jeru- 
 salem. But although John is not mentioned by name, he may very well 
 have been included in the general of axécroAo. (Acts xv.). (7.) Lastly, 
 Fritzsche remarks, ‘‘ Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum 
 esse (v. Act. ix. 30, xi. 25; Gal. i. 18, cf. Gal. ii. 1; Act. x1. 380), quis 
 tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria aboleverit . . . prae- 
 fracte negare sustineat ?” etc.! Paul may certainly have been a long time in 
 Syria and Cilicia, but how long, must remain entirely undetermined after 
 what we have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments’ it has been urged?® 
 that the conduct of Peter at Antioch (ii. 11 ff.) is too contradictory to the 
 apostolic decree of Acts xv. to permit our identifying the journey in ques- 
 tion with that made to the conference ; that in the whole of the epistle Paul 
 makes no mention at all of the authority of the conference ; and lastly, that 
 
 1° That Paul tarried about nine years in Ci- 
 licia,who then would venture to persistently 
 deny since the memory of many acts had 
 perished fromthe memory of the apostles ?” 
 
 2 As a revelation afforded to Paul himself 
 must certainly be intended, the assertion 
 often brought forward, that Kar’ amoxdAuyuw 
 in ii. 2 applies to the narrative about the 
 prophet Agabus (Acts xi. 28 ff.), is so evi- 
 
 dently incorrect, that it does not merit 
 notice. Also the special ground brought 
 forward by Bottger, in order to confirm 
 the identity of the journey Gal. ii. 1 with 
 that described in Acts xi. xii., carries with 
 it its own refutation. See, on the contrary, 
 Riickert, in the Magaz. f. Hxeg. u. Theol. des 
 NE Tee a), spell Sith. 
 3 See especially Siiskind and Keil. 
 
CHAP Sins Tt 49 
 * 
 
 after the conference Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of cireumci- 
 sion than he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on these argu- 
 ments ; since (@) even if our journey were that mentioned in Acts xi. xii., 
 still the reproach of inconstancy (grounded on his natural temperament) 
 would rest upon Peter, because he had in fact at an earlier period been 
 already divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the Gen- 
 tiles to Christianity (Acts x. 8 ff., xi. 2 ff.) ; (0) in the principle of his apos- 
 tolic independence Paul had quite sufficient motive’ for not mentioning the 
 apostolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians ;? and lastly (ce) 
 the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity of circumcision in our 
 letter was, in his characteristic manner, adapted altogether to the polemical 
 interest of the moment : for that he should pass judgment on the same sub- 
 ject, according to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes 
 more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom and elasticity of 
 his mind. Hence the passages cited for the freer view (Acts xvi. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 
 20 ff.; Acts xxi. 20 ff.) cannot furnish any absolute standard. —II. To prove 
 the identity of our journey with that of Acts xv., appeals have been made to 
 the following arguments : (1) That Titus, whom Paul mentions in ii. 1, is in- 
 cluded in twa¢ dAAoue 2 aitov, Acts xv. 23 (2) That in ver. 2, dvedéuny airoic 
 TO evayy. 6 Knp. év Toig é9v. is parallel to Acts xv. 4, 12 ; (3) That the Judaizers 
 mentioned in Acts xv; 5 are identical with the rapecdxrore evdadéAdorc, Gal. 
 li. 4 ; (4) That the result of the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts xv. 
 quite corresponds with 47’ obdé Tiroc . . . qvayxacdy repitundjpvat, Gal. ii. 3 ; 
 (5) That in an historical point of view, Gal. ii. 11 agrees exactly with Acts xv. 
 30 ; (6) That in Acts xi. Barnabas still has precedence of Paul, which, how- 
 ever, is no longer the case throughout in Acts xv. (only in vv. 12, 25); (7) 
 That in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the important 
 journey of Acts xv. But on the part of those who look upon our journey as 
 that related in Acts xi. xii., or even in Acts xviil. 22,° such grounds for 
 doubt are urged against all of these points,‘ that they cannot be used at least 
 for an independent and full demonstration of the identity of our journey with 
 that of Acts xv., but merely furnish an important partial confirmation of the 
 proof otherwise adduced ; to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Gal. 
 
 ii. and Acts xv. present also points of difference, from which attempts have 
 been made with equal injustice to deny the whole historical parallel, and to 
 abandon unduly the historical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts.°—The 
 result of all the discussion is as follows :—As Paul, in accordance with his own 
 clear words in Gal. ii.1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in the passage, 
 can mean no other journey whatever except the second which he made as an apostle to 
 Jerusalem, and as, moreover, the dia Sexateccdporv ét ov forbids our think- 
 ing of that journey which is related in Acts xi. xii. as the second ; the journey repre- 
 sented by him in Gal, ii.1 as his second journey must be held to be the same as that 
 represented by Luke in Acts xv. as the third,—an identity which is also con- 
 
 1 Comp. Introd. § 3. Wieseler, p. 557 ff. 
 2 Comp. Ritschl, alikathol. K. p. 149. 5 Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, 
 8 Wieseler. Holsten. 
 
 4 See especially, Fritzsche J/.c. p. 224 ff. ; 
 
 + 
 
50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Jirmed by the historical parallels to be found in Gal. ii. and Acts xv. Tn this 
 way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians conflicts with that 
 of Acts ;? but, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to decide on which 
 side the historical truth lies. [See Note XXX., p. 95.] The account of 
 Luke, as given in Acts xi. xii., that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas 
 to convey the moneys collected, must be described as in part unhistorical. 
 Perhaps (for it is not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy 
 originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas (Acts xi. 30), and 
 then, probably even before reaching Judaea (see below), induced by circum- 
 stances unknown to us, allowed Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem ; and 
 thereafter the latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned 
 to Antioch together (Acts xii. 25), but Barnabas only visited Jerusalem in 
 person. Schleiermacher® assumes an error on the part of Luke as author ; 
 that, misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts xv., into 
 two different journeys, Acts xi. and xv. But the total dissimilarity of the 
 historical connection, in which these journeys are placed by the narrative of 
 Acts, makes us at once reject this supposition ; as, indeed, it cannot pos- 
 sibly be entertained without unjustifiably giving up Luke’s competency for 
 authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions of his book 
 
 1 Accordingly, the opinions that our pas- 
 sage relates to a journey still later than 
 that reported in Acts xv. fall to the ground 
 of themselves, for the journey Acts xv. can 
 neither be historically disputed nor ean it 
 have been omitted by Paul. Following Jac. 
 Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Kohler 
 (Abfassungsz. p.8) has found our journey in 
 Acts xviii. 22,—a view more recently de- 
 fended by Wieseler, Chronologie ad. ap. Zei- 
 talt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also 
 in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. art. Galaterbrigf ; 
 but Schrader transfers it to the interval 
 between vy. 20 and 21 of Acts xix.—to the 
 time of the composition of the Second Epis- 
 tle to the Corinthians. Against K6hler and 
 Schrader, sce especially Schott, Hrdrterung, 
 p. 22 ff.; Wurm, in the Z%ibing. Zeitschr. 
 1833, I. p. 50 ff.; Anger, vat. temp. p. 153 ff. 
 According to Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 4, even 
 the journey of Acts xxi. 15-17 is the one in- 
 tended ! Against Wieseler, who is supported 
 by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 
 1849, p. 460 ff. ; Zeller, Aposé. p. 218 f.; Hil- 
 genfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, 
 p. 144 ff.; Méller on de Wette (ed. 3), p. 
 35 ff. Comp. also Diisterdieck in Reuter’s Re- 
 pert. Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Gesch. d. chr. 
 ix. I. p. 181 ff. [Am. Rev. Ed. I. p. 335 sqq.], 
 Holtzmann. in Schenkel’s kirchl. Zeitschr. 
 1860, 8, p. 55 ff.; Ebrard, and others. It is 
 unnecessary for us here to go further into 
 Wieseler’s arguments from an exegetical 
 point of view ; for the supposition of some 
 later journey than Acts xv, must at all 
 
 events from Gal: ii. 1 appear an exegetical 
 impossibility, so long as we allow this much 
 at least of truth to the Acts of the Apostles 
 —that Paul was at the apostolic council, 
 The journey to this council cannot have 
 been passed over by Paul in his narrative 
 given in our passage ; and consequently the 
 journey Acts xviii. 22—which, too, he can- 
 not have taken in company with Barnabas 
 (Acts xv. 36 ff.)\—cannot have been the one 
 intended by him. This is completely suffi- 
 cient to invalidate even the latest discus- 
 sions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes 
 (Comm. crit. p. 3): “ Paulus aut non affuisse 
 in apostolorum conventu Act. xv., aut male 
 causae suae consuluisse, silentio id praeter- 
 jens, censendus esset,”’ ‘“‘ Paul would have 
 to be regarded either as not having been 
 present at the apostolic conference, Acts 
 15, or, by passing it over in silence, to have 
 administered his cause unsuccessfully.” 
 
 2 Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees) 
 still contents himself with the superficial 
 current evasion, that Paul had no need to 
 mention the journey related in Acts xi., 
 because it did not afford his opponents any 
 matter for suspicion. As if his opponents 
 were to be reckoned so innocent and guile- 
 less in their judgment, and asif Paul would 
 not have been shrewd enough to see the 
 use that would be made of his passing over 
 in silence one of the journeys made by him 
 to the seat of the apostles! 
 
 3 Hinl. in’s N. T. p. 369 f. 
 
CHAP, If} 1, DA. 
 
 in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. Credner also’ has pro- 
 nounced himself inclined to the hypothesis of an error on the part of Luke. 
 He, however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Acts xi. xii.) as far 
 as Judaea, only not as far as the capital ; assuming that Paul remained 
 among the churches of the country districts, and made the acquaintance 
 with them presupposed ini. 22-24, Rom. xv. 19. But, on the one hand, 
 looking at his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having 
 arrived in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, after so long an 
 absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat of the church, especially 
 when he had come as deputy from Antioch ; on the other hand, we should 
 expect that, in order to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of mis- 
 representing him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence in Judaea 
 (comp. i. 22), and mentioned it in fact with the express remark that at that 
 time he had not entered Jerusalemitself. And, as regards the acquaintance 
 with the churches in the country districts presupposed in i. 22-24, he may 
 have made it sufficiently during the journey to the conference. The fact 
 itself, that Paul during the journey recorded in Acts xi. was not at Jerusa- 
 lem,” remains independent of the possible modes of explaining the so far 
 unhistorical account there given. — eva Bapva3a] The following cvurapaa. 
 x. Titov shows that Paul recognized himself as on this occasion the chief 
 person, which agrees with Acts xv. 2, but not with Acts xi. 25, 30, xii. 25. 
 —ovuraparaBav kai Titov] having taken along with us (as travelling compan- 
 ion) also Titus. This xai finds its reference in vera Bapvaa, to which the civ 
 In ovurapad. also refers ; not among others also (Wieseler),—a meaning which 
 is not suggested by the text. Whether, however, at Acts xv. 2, Titus is 
 meant to be included in kai tivac dAAove 2F adtSv, Must remain an open ques- 
 tion. If heis meant to be included, then our passage serves to put the state- 
 ment on the more exact historical footing, that Titus was not sent with the 
 others by the church at Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof. 
 The idea that he was sent on the part of the opposite party? cannot, on a 
 correct view of Acts /.c., be entertained at all. [See Note XXXL. p. 95.] 
 
 Note. — Tecoapwv, which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bertholdt, 
 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, Rinck, Kichler, B6hl, Matthaei 
 (Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), Schott (in his Isagoge, p. 196, not in his later writ- 
 ings), Wurm, Ulrich, and Bottger, wish to read instead of dexateccdpwr, is a 
 mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, confirmed by no author- 
 ity whatever, not even by the Chronic. Huseb., from the words of which it is, on 
 the contrary, distinctly evident that the chronographer read Jexateccdpwr,* but 
 
 . Kat et wy Tovto 
 
 1 Fini. J. 1, p. 315. 
 
 2 Which is admitted by Neander, ed. 4, p. 
 188, following Bleek, Bettr. p. 55, and has 
 been turned to further account by Baur and 
 his school against the historical character 
 of the narrative of the Acts; see on Acts 
 xi. 30. 
 
 3 Fritzsche. 
 
 4To elmety avtov Sta 18 eTa@yv Soxet por 
 TOVS XpoVvOUS THY amTOTTOAWY TOUS amd THs ava- 
 
 AjWews apudmety avTov. . . 
 Sa@mev, evpedyaetat 6 xpovos ad’ ov eBantiady 
 kal avéBAcWev, ws meptexovaory at pagers, ETH 
 6’, “By his saying after fourteen years, he 
 seems to me to number the times of the 
 apostles from the Ascension. If we do not 
 grant this, the time will be found to be that 
 from which he was baptized and looked up, 
 four years as comprised in Acts.” 
 
52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for that recorded in 
 Acts xi. xii., suggested trecodpwv.! See Anger, Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 
 160 ff. ; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit., 
 has again judged it necessary to read recodpwr, specially because the few mat- 
 ters related of Paul in Acts x.-xv. cannot be held compatible with his having 
 been seventeen years an apostle, and also because so early a conversion, as 
 must be assumed from the reading Jexatecodpwr, does not agree with Acts i.- 
 ix., several of the narratives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer, 
 perhaps a ten years’, interval between the ascension of Christ and the conver- 
 sion of the apostle ; as indeed the existence of churches already established in 
 Judaea at the-time of this conversion (Gal. i. 22) points to the same conclusion, 
 and 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff., where the a7oxd2vyuc refers to the conversion, agrees with 
 reocdpwv, but not with dexatecodpwv inour passage. But when we consider the 
 great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of Acts, the possi- 
 bility of explaining the establishment of the Judaean churches even in a shorter 
 period embracing some four years, and the groundlessness of the view that 
 2 Cor. xii. 2 (see on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these 
 arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for an unanimously 
 attested reading. 
 
 Ver. 2. Aé] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repetition of the same 
 word, as in Rom. iii. 22; 1 Cor. ii. 6 ; Phil. ii. 8, e¢ al.°-— kara aronddvyuy] 
 in conformity with a revelation received. What an essential element for de- 
 termining the bearing of the whole narrative |! Hence avé3. da . am. is not 
 parenthetical (Matthias). But what kind of aroxddvpc it was—whether 
 it was imparted to the apostle by means of an ecstasy (Acts xxii. 17; 
 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance (Acts xvi. 9, xviii. 19,xxiil. 
 11, xxvii. 23), or generally by a prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a com- 
 munication from the Spirit (Acts xvi. 6, 7, xx. 22, 23), or in some other 
 mode—remains uncertain. According to Acts xy. 2, he was deputed by the 
 church of Antioch to Jerusalem ; but with this statement our cata aroxadvyuv 
 does not conflict :* it simply specifies a circumstance having reference to 
 Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before or after that reso- 
 lution of the church, and was probably quite unknown to Luke. Luke nar- 
 rates the outward cause, Paul the inward motive of the concurrent divine 
 suggestion, which led to this his journey ; the two accounts together give 
 us its historical connection completely. Comp. Acts x., in which also a rev- 
 elation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining Peter to go 
 to Caesarea. The state of the case would have to be conceived as similar, 
 even if our journey were considered identical with that related Acts xi. xil., 
 in which case kata dzoxdé2upw would apply not—possibly—to the prophe- 
 sying of Agabus, but likewise to a divine revelation imparted to Paul him- 
 self. Hermann,‘ as before him Schrader, and after him Day. Schulz,° have 
 explained it : ‘‘explicationis causa, i.e., ut patefieret inter ipsos, quae vera es- 
 
 11Tt is therefore a pure error, when 7eo- 4 De P. ep.ad Gal. trib. prim. capp. Lips. 
 odpwv is sometimes styled a varia lectio. 1832, also in his Opuse. V. p. 118 ff. . 
 
 2 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 361; Baeumlein, 5 De aliquot N. T. locor. lectione et interpr. 
 Partik. p. 9. | 1833. 
 
 * As Baur and Zeller maintain. 
 
CHAPALE.« 25 53 
 
 set Jesu doctrina,” ‘‘for the purpose of explanation, i.e., that among them 
 it might be made known what was the true doctrine of Jesus.”” No doubt 
 kara might express this relation.’ But, on the one hand, the account of 
 Acts as to the occasion of our journey does not at all require any explain- 
 ing away of the revelation (see above); and, on the other hand, it would by 
 no means be necessary, as Hermann considers that on our interpretation it 
 would, that xara swva aroxdAvwww should have been written, since Paul’s ob- 
 ject is not to indicate some sort of revelation which was not to be more pre- 
 cisely defined by him, but to express the qualifying circumstance that he 
 had gone up not of his own impulse, but at the divine command, not aq’ 
 éavtov, but kard aroxddvyv, conformably to revelation. Moreover, it is the 
 only meaning consonant with the aim of the apostle, who from the begin- 
 ning of the epistle has constantly in view his apostolic dignity, that here 
 also, as in i. 12, 6, azoxa2. should express a divine revelation,? as in fact the 
 word is constantly used inthe N. T. in this higher sense.*— dvedéuqr] I laid 
 before them, for information and examination.* — airoic] that is, the Chris- 
 tians at Jerusalem, according to the well-known use of the pronoun for the 
 inhabitants of a previously named city or province.® The restriction of the 
 reference to the apostles,° who are of course not excluded, is, after ei¢ ‘Tepocd- 
 Zoya, even still more arbitrary” than the view which confines it to the pres- 
 byterium of the church.* Reuss also ° wrongly denies the consultation of the 
 congregation. — 70 evayy. 5 knpboow év roic é3v.] The main doctrine of which is 
 that of justification by faith. Chrysostom aptly remarks, 76 yopic¢ repirouie. 
 The present tense denotes the identity which was still continuing at the time 
 the epistle was written ; 7° év roic édvecr does not, however, mean among the 
 nations,** but that it was his gospel to the Gentiles which Paul laid before the 
 On the contrary,if avrots applied to the apos- 
 
 1Comp. Wesseling, ad Herod. ii. 151; 
 
 Matthiae, p. 1859; Winer, p. 376. 
 
 2 Comp. Eph. iii. 3. 
 
 3 Comp. i. 12. 
 
 4 Comp. Acts xxv. 14; 2 Macc. iii. 9, and 
 Grimm thereon. Among Greek authors, in 
 Plutarch, Polyb., Diog. L., ete. 
 
 5 Bernhardy, p. 288; Winer, p. 587. 
 
 6 Chrysostom,Oecumenius, Calvin, Koppe, 
 Schott, Olshausen, and others. 
 
 7 Tf avrots applied to the apostles, there 
 was no need for regarding (with Chrysostom 
 and others) xa7’ iétav 5é rots Soxovor AS AMOre 
 precise definition of avedéuny avrors ; for if 
 so, Paul would have expressed himself in a 
 way very illogical and liable to misunder- 
 standing, because kar’ idiavy 6€ would be 
 without meaning, if it was not intended to 
 denote some act different from the general 
 avetéuny avtots. Paulmust have written sim- 
 ply avetéuny avrots x.7.A., avetéeuny dé Tots Sox, 
 This remark applies also against the view 
 of Baur and Zeller, who, although they allow 
 that the language warrants our view, take 
 the sense to be, ‘‘I set it forth to them, but 
 only to those of highest repute in particular.” 
 
 tles, the meaning, as the passage runs, 
 would have to be taken as Schott (comp. 
 Olshausen) gives it: ‘‘doctrinam . . . apos- 
 tolis omnibus exposui, privatim vero (ube- 
 Trius ac diligentius) iis, qui magni aestuman- 
 tur, apostolis auctoritate insignibus, Petro, 
 Johanni, Jacobo,” “I set forth the doctrine 
 to all, but in private more fully and assid- 
 uously to those who are regarded of high 
 repute, viz., the apostles eminent in influ- 
 ence, Peter, John, James.”” But how im- 
 probable it isin itself, that Paul should have 
 held such a separate conference with a 
 select few of the apostles, and should not 
 have vouchsafed an equally circumstantial 
 and accurate exposition of his teaching to 
 the whole of the apostles as such! Apart, 
 however, from this, the three doxovvtes ap- 
 pear to have been the only apostles present 
 in Jerusalem at that time. 
 
 § Winer, Matthies. 
 
 9 In the Revue théol. 1859, p. 62 ff. 
 
 10 Comp. i. 16. 
 
 11 Usteri. - 
 
54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 mother-church of Jewish Christianity. "— kar’ idiav 68 toic doKovor] sc. avedéunv 
 70 evayy. 6 Kypboow év toig E3v. But apart, that is, in one or more separate 
 conferences, to those of repute.* Toic doxovcr singles out the aestumatos from 
 the body of Christians at Jerusalem. This, however, is not meant to apply 
 to members of the church generally in good repute,* but (see on ver. 9) to 
 James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. The other apostles who were 
 still alive appear already to have ceased from personal connection with the 
 church at Jerusalem. Vv. 6, 7, 9 show that it is not the anti-Pauline par- 
 tisan adherents of those three who are referred to ;* and, indeed, it would 
 have been entirely opposed to his apostolic character to lay his gospel spe- 
 cially before doxoior in this sense. Moreover, the designation of the three apos- 
 tles as of doxovvtec is not ‘‘an ironical side-glance,”* nor has it proceed- 
 ed from the irritation of a bitter feeling against those who had habitually 
 applied this expression to these apostles ;° but it is used in a purely histori- 
 cal sense : for an ironical designation at this point, when Paul is about to re- 
 late his recognition on the part of the earlier apostles, would be utterly de- 
 void of tact, and would not be at all consonant either with the point of view 
 of a colleague, which he constantly maintains in respect to the other apostles, 
 or with the humility with which he regards this collegiate relation (1 Cor. 
 xv. 8 ff.). He has, however, purposely chosen this expression (‘‘ the authori- 
 ties”), because the very matter at stake was his recognition. Homberg, Paulus 
 and Matthies wrongly assert that roi¢ doxovoc means putantibus, ‘* those think- 
 ing,” and that the sequel belongs to it, ‘‘ gui putabant, num jorte in vanum 
 currerem,” ‘* who thought that perhaps I had run in vain.” Vv. 5, 6, 9 testi- 
 fy against this interpretation ; and the introduction of ¢ofeic#a into the notion 
 of doxeiv is arbitrary, and cannot be supported by such passages as Hom. J. 
 x. 97, 101.7 Besides, it would have been inconsistent with apostolic dignity 
 to give such a private account to those who were suspicious. In classical 
 authors also oi doxovvtec, without anything added to define it, means those of 
 repute, who are much esteemed, nobiles.°—But why did Paul submit his gospel 
 not merely to the Christians in Jerusalem generally, but also specially to the 
 three apostles? By both means he desired to remove every suspicion which 
 might anywhere exist in the minds of others,’ that he was laboring or had 
 labored in vain ; but how easy it is to understand that, for this purpose, he 
 had to address to the apostles a more thorough and comprehensive state- 
 ment, and to bring forward proofs, experiences, explanations, deeper 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. xi. 13. hausen. 
 2 On kar idtay, comp. Matt. xvii. 19: Mark 7 See, on the contrary, Hartung, Pariikell. 
 iv. 34, ix. 28; Valckenaer, ad Hur. Phoen. II. p. 1388 f. 
 
 p. 439. It is, like the ‘颢, more usual in the 
 classical authors (Thue. i. 182. 2, ii. 44. 2; 
 Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 4, Anab. v. 7. 13, vi. 2. 13; 
 Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 88), the contrast to 
 ko.vy Or Synpooia (comp. Mace. iv. 5). 
 
 3 Comp. avSpas nyoumevous ev Tols adeAdois, 
 Acts xv. 22. 
 
 4 Grotius. 
 
 5 Schwegler; I. p. 120. 
 
 6 Cameron, Riickert, Schott, comp. Ols- 
 
 8 See Eur. Hec. 295, and thereon Schaefer 
 and Pflugk; Porphyr. de abstin. ii. 40, e¢ al.; 
 Kypke, II. p. 274; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii. 
 56. Comp. also Clem. Cor. 1.57. Just so the 
 Hebrew awn. See Gesenius, Ves. I. p. 531; 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 889 f. Comp. déxcmor, 
 Plat. Pol. x. p. 618 A; Herod. 1.65; Blom- 
 field, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 109. 
 
 ® Comp. Chrysostom. 
 
CHAPS IL; 2: 55 
 dialectic deductions, etc.,’ which would have been unsuitable for the gen- 
 eral body of Christians, among whom nothing but the simple and popular 
 exposition was apprepriate !_ Therefore Paul dealt with his colleagues ca~ 
 idiav. But we must not draw a distinction as to matter between the public 
 and the private discussion, as Estius and others have done : ‘ publice ita 
 contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mo- 
 sis . . . privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit 
 ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae Legis . . . esse liberandos,” 
 etc., ‘In public he devoted himself to the proof that the Gentiles are under 
 no obligation to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses ; but in the 
 private and secret conference held with the apostles, it was resolved that 
 even the Jews should be liberated from the observance of the Mosaic law.” 
 In this way Paul would have set forth only the half of his gospel to the 
 mass of the Christians there ; and yet this half-measure, otherwise so opposed 
 to his character, would not have satisfied the Jewish-Christian exclusiveness. 
 Thiersch also wrongly holds? that the subject of the private discussion was 
 Paul’s apostolic dignity ; it was nothing else than 7d eiayyédiov x.7.2., and 
 only in so far his apostolic legitimacy. The odject of the private discussion 
 was, in Winer’s opinion : ‘‘ut non, si his videretur P. castigandus, pub- 
 lica expostulatione ipsius auctoritas infringeretur,” ‘‘so that if it should 
 seem to them (the doxovor) that Paul ought to be reprimanded, his influ- 
 ence might not be broken by the public complaint.” But this also is not 
 in accordance with the decided character of Paul ; and if he had dreaded a 
 public expostulation, he would not have ventured first to set forth his gospel 
 publicly, because the apostles, in the event of disapproval, would not have 
 been able to withhold public contradiction. The view that the private dis- 
 cussion with the doxovo. preceded the general discussion with the church,? 
 runs counter to the account of our passage, which represents the course of 
 events as the converse. [See Note XXXII., p. 96.]—pgrwe cic xevdv tpéyo 
 édpayov| Taken by itself, uw may signify either lest possibly, ne forte, and 
 thus express directly the design of the avedéunv,* or whether... not possibly, 
 num forte,* thus indirectly interrogative. The former interpretation is decid- 
 edly to be rejected, because the indicative aorist édpavov does not suit it ; 
 for, according to the Greek use of the particles of design with the indicative 
 aorist or imperfect,°® the aveféuyv would not actually have taken place ; and 
 besides this, we should have to assume—without any ground for doing so in 
 the context—that rpéyw and édpayov are said ex aliorum judicio,’ ‘from the 
 
 1 This was a case in which the principle 
 beyond doubt applied, codiay 5 Aadodpmev ev 
 Tots TeAevois, 1 Cor, ii. 6. 
 
 2 Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 128. 
 Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 100. 
 
 3So Neander, p. 277 [Am. Ed., p. 124]; 
 Lekebusch, Apostelgesch. p. 295. 
 
 4 So, following the Vulgate and the Greek 
 Fathers, Erasmus, Luther, and most exposi- 
 tors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rtickert, 
 Schott. 
 
 Comp. 
 
 5 Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Wieseler. 
 
 6 See on iv. 17. 
 
 7 Those who do not agree with this, fall 
 into forced interpretations, as Fritzsche, 
 Opuse. p. 175: “ne forte frustra etiam tum, 
 quum epistolam ad Galatas scriberet, apos- 
 toluslaboraret, aut . . . avteiter jam labor- 
 avisset,”’ ‘“‘lest, perhaps, it was in vain that 
 the apostle labored even when he wrote 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, or that he had 
 already labored previously to the journey.” 
 
56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 judgment of others,” and that rpéyo is subjunctive, although by its connec- 
 tion with édpayov it evidently proclaims itself indicative. Hence p#ro¢ must 
 be rendered num forte, and the reference of the nwm is supplied by the idea, 
 ‘for consideration, for examination,” included in aveféuyv.' The passage 
 is therefore to be explained : ‘‘ [laid before them my gospel to the Gentiles, 
 with a view to their instituting an investigation of the question whether I am not 
 possibly running or have run in vain.” The apostle himself, on his own part, 
 was in no uncertainty about this question, for he had obtaimed his gospel 
 from revelation, and had already such rich experience to support him, that 
 he certainly did not fear the downfall of his previous ministry ;? hence 
 unzec is by no means to be understood ? as implying any uncertainty or 
 apprehension of his own (in order to see, in order to be certain, whether). 
 But he wanted to obtain the judgment and declaration of the chureh and the 
 apostles.* Observe, moreover, that the apostle does not say eitwe (whether 
 possibly) ; but, with the delicate tact of one who modestly and confidently 
 submits himself to the judgment of the church and the apostles, while hos- 
 tile doubts as to the salutary character of his labors are by no means unknown 
 to him, he writes wyrwe, whether . . . not possibly (iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5), that 
 is, in the positive sense, whether perhaps.° In no case has the apostle in 
 pyrwc k.7.2. expressed the intention of procuring for himself a conviction of 
 the correctness of his teaching. °— cic xevdv] in cassum, ‘in vain.””’ Paul 
 conceives his running as vain, that is, not attaining the saving result aimed at,® 
 
 1 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 137, 140. 
 
 2 Holsten. Against Holsten’s exaggera- 
 tion Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 117 f.) 
 has justly declared himself. The counter 
 remarks of Holsten, z. Hv. d. Petr. u. Paul. 
 p. 277, are immaterial. 
 
 3 With Usteri and Hilgenfeld, also Butt- 
 mann, veut. Gr. p. 303, and Holsten. 
 
 4 So, correctly, Wieseler ; comp. Hofmann, 
 Schriftbew., II. 2, p. 44 f., who, however, 
 heil. Schr. N. T. I. p. 86, supplies only 
 avedéunv (without 7d evayy. x.7.A) after T. 
 Soxover, thus making pyrws x.7.A. the matt 
 itself laid before them ; but this would be at 
 variance with the essential idea of laying 
 before them the gospel, of which Paul is 
 speaking, for he does not repeat avedéunv, 
 and that a/one. According to Hofmann, the 
 state of the case would amount to this, that 
 Paul desired to have the answer to the 
 question py7ws x.7.A. from the doxoda: only, 
 and not also from the church,—a view 
 which would neither harmonize with the 
 position of the latter (comp. Acts xv. 22 f.), 
 nor would leave apparent in the text any 
 object for his submitting his gospel to the 
 church at all. 
 
 5 In pijws «.7.A., let us conceive to our- 
 selves the moment when the apostle has 
 laid his gospel before those assembled, and 
 then says as it were, ‘‘Here you have my 
 gospel tothe Gentiles; by it you may now 
 
 judge whether Iam perhaps laboring in vain, 
 or—if from the present I look back upon 
 the past—have so labored /’’ The supposition 
 of irony (Marcker in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1866, 
 p. 537) is not warrantable amidst the 
 gravity of the whole surrounding circum- 
 stances. 
 
 6 Winer (p. 470) justly lays stress upon this 
 in opposition to Fritzsche, but is of opinion 
 (with de Wette) that Paul desired to obviate 
 the frustration involved in pymws x.7.A., by 
 inducing the assent of the apostles to his 
 gospel, “‘ because without this assent and 
 recognition the Christians who had been 
 converted by him would have remained 
 out of communion with the others’? (de 
 Wette). But this latter idea is unnecessa- 
 rily introduced ; and even in the event 
 of non-recognition, Paul, looking to his 
 direct calling and the revelation he had re- 
 ceived, could not have regarded it as in- 
 volving the result of his labor being in vain. 
 
 7 See Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 328. Comp. 
 the passages from Josephus in Kypke; 
 from the LXX., Isa. Ixv. 23 ef al. ; from the 
 N. T., 2 Cor. vi. 1, Phil. 11: 16,0) @hessiain: 
 Comp. also the use of eis couvdv, eis Karpov, eis 
 kadov, ‘‘in common, in season, in good 
 time,” and the like, in Bernhardy, p. 221. 
 
 8 Comp. the classical avdévnra movetv, ‘to 
 perform senseless labors,’’ Plat. ep. 486 C. 
 
CHAP. II., 3. 57 
 
 if his gospel be not the right and true one. —zpéyw] a figurative expression, 
 derived from the running in the stadiwm, for earnestly striving activity—in 
 this case, official activity, as in Phil. ii. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 7.1. The present 
 indicative transfers us into the present time of the aveéuyv, from which 
 édpayov then looks back into the past. A clear and vivid representation.? 
 
 Note.—Acts xv. 4, 12 must not be adduced as proof either for or against 
 (Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others) the identity of our journey with that of Acts 
 xv. The two facts—that related in Acts xv. 4, 12, and that expressed by dve- 
 Ogunv x.T.A. in Gal. ii, 2—are two different actions, both of which took place at 
 that visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, although what is stated in our passage 
 was foreign to the historical connection in Acts xv., and therefore is not re- 
 corded there. The book of Acts relates only the transactions conducive to his ob- 
 ject, in which Paul took part as deputy from the church of Antioch. What he did 
 besides in the personal interest of his apostolic validity and ministry,—name- 
 ly, his laying his gospel as well before the church (not to be identified with the 
 assembly of the council) as before the doxovyrec also separately,—forms the sub- 
 ject of his narrative in Gal. ii., which is related to that in the Acts, not as ex- 
 cluding it and thereby impugning its historical character, but as supplement- 
 ing it (contrary to the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). Comp. on 
 Acts xv. 19 f. As to the non-mention of the apostolic decree, see Introd. § 3. 
 
 Ver. 3. Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of his discus- 
 sions with the doxovo: until ver. 6, and consequently it is ver. 6 ff. which 
 corresponds to the a7’ idiav dé doxovor in ver. 2; so that vv. 3-5 have refer- 
 ence to the result of the laying his gospel to the Gentiles before the Chris- 
 tians in Jerusalem generally, and correspond with the first part of ver. 2 
 (avebéunv avtoic TO evayy. 6 Kyp. év tT. év.). — But so little had that exposition 
 of my gospel to the church at Jerusalem a result counteracting it and im- 
 plying the eic¢ xevov tpéyw 7 Edpayov, that, on the contrary, not even Titus, etc. 
 Thus 447’ ovdé * introduces a fact which—in contrast to the idea of ‘‘ running 
 in vain,” which had just been brought forward as the point for inquiry in 
 that exposition of his gospel —serves as the surest palpable proof how tri- 
 umphantly the Gentile gospel of the apostle (which rejected the necessity 
 of circumcision for the Hellenes) maintained its ground then before the 
 church of Jerusalem, and how very far people were from ascribing to the 
 apostle a running, or having run, in vain. For otherwise it would have 
 been absurd, if the church had not pleaded for, and accomplished, the cir- 
 cumcision at least of Titus.4 ‘‘ But not even this was done, to say nothing 
 of its being a duty of the church to reject my gospel, which was altogether 
 opposed to the circumcision of Gentiles, and to decide that I cic kevov rpéyo 
  édpazov |” This line of argument involves a syllogism, of which aA’ ovdé 
 
 1In other passages, Christian activity p. 810; also Ellendt, Zexw. Soph. IT. p. 104. 
 in general, as 1 Cor. ix. 24 f., Gal. v. 7, Heb. 3 Comp. Luke xxiii. 15; Acts xix. 2. 
 xii. 1. Comp. Rom. ix. 16. 4 The latter, as associated with the apostle 
 2As to the indicative generally with in teaching, must, in his uncircumcised Gen- 
 the indirect interrogative uy, whether not, tile condition, have been specially offensive 
 see Bernhardy, p. 397; Hermann, ad Viger. to those who had Judaistic views. 
 
58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 . . . mepitunOjvat is the minor. —"EAAnv ov] Although a Hellene, a Gentile.? 
 We have no further details as to his descent. — jvayxdoby|] From vy. 4, 5 it 
 follows that, on the part of certain Christians at Jerusalem (not of the apos- 
 tles also, who are not referred to until ver. 6, where the kav’ idiav dé roic dok. 
 is resumed), the circumcision of Titus had been urged, but had not been 
 complied with on the part of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and this resistance 
 was respected by the church ;? hence the oi jvayxdoty repiruntigvar, there was 
 not imposed on him the necessity of submitting to be cirewmeised. 
 itors, however, adopt the common opinion that oidé . . . qvayxdoby mepir. 
 implies that the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, which is ad- 
 duced by Paul as a proof of his agreement with the apostles.* This view is 
 decisively set aside by the sequel (see on ver. 4), apart from the fact that 
 here the relation to the apostles is not yet under discussion. Moreover, if 
 the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, there would have been 
 no occasion for the expression jvayxdob7. Certain individuals in the church, 
 no doubt instigated by the false brethren (ver. 4), had really come forward 
 with the demand that Titus must submit to be circumcised.* To look upon 
 the false brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision of 
 Titus ® does not suit ver. 4, in which they appear only as the more remote 
 cause of the demand ; they kept in the background.° 
 
 Most expos- 
 
 Note.—An inconsistency with Acts xv., in which the argument and decision 
 are against the necessity of circumcision, would only emerge in ver. 3, if the 
 matter in question here had been the principal transactions of the council itself, 
 and if those who required the circumcision of Titus had been the aposiles (or 
 had at least included the apostles), as Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and 
 others assume. But as neither of these is the case, and as, indeed, it does not 
 even follow from our passage that the apostles had so much as merely advised 
 the circumcision of Titus (Wieseler’s earlier opinion, which he has now rightly 
 abandoned), this passage cannot furnish arguments either against the identity 
 of the journey Gal. ii. with that of Acts xv. (Fritzsche, p. 224), or against the 
 historical character of Acts xv. (Baur and his followers). 
 
 Ver. 4 f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made as to Titus 
 was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (comp. eifayev, ver. 5). 
 It was refused on account of the false brethren, to whom concession would 
 
 1 This ‘although a Hellene’’ refers to 0 avv 
 é€uot. Paul is conscious of the boldness, nay, 
 of the defiance (comp. Jerome on ver. 1, 
 “‘qusus sit’), which was involved in bring- 
 ing the Helene with him to the council at 
 Jerusdem, the seat of Judaism. In the 
 sense of my official colleague (Reiche, Wiese- 
 ler), the simple o civ éuoc is not in harmony 
 with the context. 
 
 2 For the qvayxdody wepitundqvar, if it had 
 oceurred, could only have occurred through 
 the church—and indeed possibly even the 
 apostolie college (as the Tiibingen criticism 
 asserts)—joining in the demand made on 
 
 Titus, and adopting it as their own. 
 
 3. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
 lact, Oecumenius, and many others, includ- 
 ing Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, de 
 Wette, Hofmann, Sieffert. 
 
 4 Comp. the subsequent case of Timothy, 
 who, under different circumstances, was 
 circumcised by Paul himself (Acts Xvi. 3). 
 
 5 Bleek, Wieseler, and others. 
 
 6 Holsten wrongly reverses the relation, 
 when he holds that behind the false breth- 
 ren Paul saw the Christians of Jerusalem 
 and the Soxovrtes. 
 
CHAP. Il., 4. 59 
 
 otherwise have been made in a way conducive to their designs against 
 Christian liberty.— dvd dé rode mapeiodKtove evdadérgouc| sc. obk HvayKdoby 
 repitunOjva.' These words, however, are not, properly speaking, to be sup- 
 plied ; in did 62 tr. x. . they receive their more precise definition, made spe- 
 cially prominent by 06é, autem: on account, however, of the false brethren. 
 Though Paul might have subjoined this immediately without dé, he inserts 
 the dé not superfluously,? but on account of the important bearing of the 
 matter on his argument. The case is similar when a more precise defini- 
 tion is made prominent by dé, the same word being repeated, as in ver. 2.* 
 On dé Bengel justly remarks, ‘‘ declarat et intendit,” ‘‘he declares and 
 intends,” as in fact dé is often used by classical authors for giving promi- 
 nence to an explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course 
 again understood.* As to the matter itself, observe how Paul under 
 other circumstances, where there was no dogmatic requirement of oppo- 
 nents brought into play, could bring himself to allow circumcision ; see 
 Acts xvi. 8. Consequently after ver. 3 a comma only is to be placed, not 
 a full stop, or even a colon.® Others *® supply avé8nv, which, however, 
 after ver. 3, could not possibly occur to the mind of a reader.’ Rinck ® 
 assumes an anacoluthon,—that ov« eigauev was intended to follow on sa 
 d& Tove TapeioadKT. WevdadéAd., but that Paul had been led off by the long 
 parenthesis and had then added oic. Buttmann® leaves the choice to 
 be made between this view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write, 
 on account of the false brethren we have not yielded, he would not in doing 
 so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he had not yielded ; 
 by using oic he would thus have altered" the sense of what he had begun to 
 
 1 To supply merely yvayxaodn mepitp. with- 
 out ovk (Koppe), so that yvayxacdy is to be 
 understood in the altered sense, ‘‘ But on 
 account of the false brethren, it was insisted 
 on in this case,” is entirely inadmissible, 
 both on account of this very diversity of 
 sense,and also because in ver. 8 the nega- 
 tion is essential and indeed the chief point. 
 
 2 Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact. 
 
 3 So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsu— 
 estia, Augustine, Camerarius, Erasmus, 
 Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius, 
 Bengel, and others: more recently, Schott, 
 Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 Ellicott, Reithmayr; also Matthies, who, 
 however, so explains the passage that we 
 should rather expect it to run, da 5é ray 
 Tapeccaktwv WevdaderApav. 
 
 4 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 359. 
 
 5 Lachmann, Tischendorf. 
 
 ® As Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Her- 
 mann, Matthias. 
 
 7 Olshausen takes a similar but still more 
 harsh and arbitrary view, that the idea in 
 Paul’s mind was, ‘“‘I went indeed up to 
 Jerusalem, in order to lay my gospel before 
 the apostles (?) for examination ; on account 
 
 of these, however, it was really not at all 
 necessary ... but, on account of the false 
 brethren, I found myself induced to take 
 steps.”” In theardor of his language, Paul 
 had allowed himself to be diverted from the 
 construction he had begun; and described 
 instead the nature of the false teachers. 
 
 8 Lucubr. crit. p. 170 f. (so previously 
 Grotius, and recently Wieseler). 
 
 9 Neut. Gr. p. 329 f. 
 
 10 Wieseler seeks to avoid this by taking 
 Sua 5€ tovs mapero. Wevdad. as equivalent to 
 tov d5€ WevdadéApwv Kedevdvtwy Todo, ‘‘ the 
 false brethren demanding this :” with their 
 demand Paul had not exhibited compliance. 
 But é4 means nothing else than an account 
 of, that is, according to the context, with 
 reference to them (comp. Acts xvi. 3), namely, 
 because they lurked in the background in 
 the matter, and it was inexpedient to take 
 account of their designs or to give them 
 any free scope. Also in Heb. ii. 10, vi. 7%, 
 John vi. 57, 6é with the accus. is simply on 
 account of, and has to receive its more pre- 
 cise meaning from the context. In the 
 passages quoted by Wieseler (Xen. Cyr. vy. 2. 
 35, and Plut, Cam. 35), dua, according to the 
 
60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 say, and would simply have occasioned perplexity by the mixture of an ac- 
 count of and to whom. But there is no need to resort at all to an anacolu- 
 thon when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to complete 
 the sense. This remark holds good also against Winer, p. 529, who! as- 
 sumes that Paul mixed up the two thoughts : ‘‘ We did not have Titus cir- 
 cumcised on account of the false brethren ;” and, ‘‘I might nowise yield to 
 the false brethren.” Hofmann? also produces an unnecessary anacoluthic 
 derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a new sentence begins with 
 Oia O& Tapecoakt. pevd., but that the relative definition oitwvec x.7.A. does not 
 allow it to be completed ; that, in fact, this completion does not take place 
 at all, but with ver. 6 a new period is begun, attached to what immediately 
 precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, ce. Mare. v. 8, Ambrose, 
 Pelagius, and Primsius (opposed by Jerome), Riickert, followed by Elwert, 
 supplements the passage as follows : ‘‘ But on account of the false brethren 
 I withal allowed Titus to be circumcised” (consequently repretuqOy). Accord- 
 ing to his view, this is the course of thought in the passage : ‘‘ Even Titus 
 was at that time not forced to be circumcised ; there was not, and could not 
 be, any question of compulsion ; but because I saw that there were false 
 brethren, whose sole endeavor was to discover a vulnerable point in us, I 
 considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and had Titus circum- 
 cised. Nevertheless, to yield out of obedicnce to them, and to acknowledge a 
 necessity in respect to all Gentiles, never occurred to me for a moment,” 
 etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged, first, that in ver. 3 the 
 emphasis is laid on Tiroc and not on 7vayxaoby, and in ver. 5 on zpd¢ dpav and 
 not on rH irorayy 3 secondly, that the idea of ‘‘ acknowledging a necessity 
 in respect to all Gentile Christians” is not even hinted at by any word of 
 Paul ; and thirdly, the general consideration that a point so important and 
 so debatable as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus would 
 have been, would have needed, especially before the Galatians (comp. v. 2), 
 a very different elucidation and vindication from one so enigmatically in- 
 volved, in which the chief ideas could only be read between the lines. But 
 such a compliance itself shown towards false brethren, —not for the sake, pos- 
 sibly, of some weak brethren, who are imported into the case by Elwert, nor 
 on account of the Jews, as in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3),— 
 would have been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the interpre- 
 tation of Riickert comes that of Reiche, who places the (supposed) circum- 
 cision of Titus not at the time then being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier 
 period, at which it took place either in Antioch or elsewhere.* But against 
 
 well-known Greek usage, is ‘‘ for the sake 
 of,” that is, through merit or through fault 
 of any one. 
 
 1 Comp. Hilgenfeld. 
 
 2 Comp. his Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 46. 
 
 3 At vero... ut rem aliam hic interpo- 
 nam, vy. 3-6(nam ver. 6 oratio ad apostolos 
 redit), Titi nimirum circumcisionem, quam 
 quis forte modo dictis ver. 2 opponat, qua- 
 si apostolorum aliorumye auctoritate vel 
 
 jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem le- 
 gisque observationem necessariam duxerim 
 6 f. parum mihi constans, sufficiat mon- 
 uisse :— nec Titus ille comes meus et adjutor, 
 Graecus natus, minime est coactus circumcide 
 ame vel a quocunque ; propter falsos autem 
 Sratres, qui tum nos speculabantur, qaomodo 
 immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis 
 parta uteremur, eo consilio, ué denuo nos sub 
 legis servitium redigerent ... propter hos dico 
 
CHAP, II., 4. 61 
 
 this view may be urged partly the arguments already used against Riickert, 
 and in addition the arbitrary procedure involved in shifting vv. 3-6 to an 
 earlier time ; although Tiro¢ 6 civ éuoi, evidently referring back to cuuzapa- 
 AaBov cai Tirov in ver. 1, precludes our taking this event out of the course 
 of the narrative begun in ver. 1. Moreover, sepietuiy as supplied by 
 Reiche cannot be invested with the sense ‘‘ liber e¢ volens circumcisionem 
 suscepit,” ‘‘ freely and voluntarily received circumcision,”—a sense which, 
 for the very sake of the contrast, since the emphasis lies on liber et volens, 
 would need to be expressed (by éAeA0vtT Hv TepretuAOy or the like). Lastly, 
 an un-Pauline compliance * would be the result of the sense which would 
 follow from the omission of oj¢ ovdé in ver. 5 (see the critical notes) : ‘‘ But 
 on account of the false brethren . . . I gave way momentarily and caused 
 Titus to be circumcised,” to which also the sentence of purpose which fol- 
 lows, iva 7 GAfOeca x.7.2., would be utterly unsuitable ; for, according to the 
 point of view of our epistle, the ‘‘ truth of the gospel” could only continue 
 with the Galatians if such a compliance did not take place. — rapecodkrove] 
 subintroductos (Vulgate), brought in by the side, that is, privily and “illegiti- 
 mately,—namely, into the association of Christian brotherhood, of which 
 they are not at all true members.* The word does not occur elsewhere in 
 ancient authors ;*° but it must have been employed on several occasions, as 
 mapeicaxtov is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, and zapercaxrove by 
 Zonaras, being explained by aAAérpiov and addorpiove, ‘* pertaining to another 
 and to others.”” The word has also been preserved as a name (by-name) in 
 Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, Ilapeicaxtoc éxuxAnbeic TroAenaioc. The verb rapewcdyw 
 is very current in later authors.* — pevdadéAdove] as in 2 Cor. xi. 26, persons 
 who were Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature 
 of Christianity—from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, Judaizing reac- 
 tionaries against Christian freedom, The article points out that these peo- 
 ple were historically known to the readers, Acts xv. 1, 5. — oituvec x.1.A.] 
 
 
 
 Titus ritum hune externum .. . suscepit vo- 
 fens, ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa 
 et materies praeripiatur,’”’ etc., ‘But to 
 
 might be taken away from them, etc.” 
 1 Reiche seeks to evade this by thus ex- 
 plaining ver. 5: ‘‘guibus, quanquam pru- 
 
 interpose here another subject, vv. 3-6 
 (for in vy. 6 the argument returns to the 
 apostles), forsooth, the circumcision of 
 Titus, which some one perhaps opposes to 
 what has just been said, v. 2, as though 
 with little consistency I did this by the in- 
 flueuce or command of the other apostles, 
 it is sufficient to have taught : Neither was 
 Titus, my companion and assistant, born 
 a Greek, in any way compelled to be cir- 
 ecumcised either by me or by any one; but 
 because of false brethren who were then 
 spying us out, as to how we were employ- 
 ing the immunity from the law of Moses, 
 acquired for us by Christ, that they might 
 anew bring us under bondage to the law— 
 because of these, I say, Titus voluntarily un- 
 derwent this rite, that the occasion and 
 material of calumniating and injuring ws 
 
 dentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumci- 
 dere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad fidem lib- 
 ertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne 
 paulisper quidem cessimus iis obtemperantées,” 
 “Although it would have been the part of 
 prudence to circumcise Titus because of 
 them, yet in matters generally pertaining to 
 Christian faith and liberty, we yielded by 
 obeying them, not even for a little.” We 
 should thus have in ver. 5a saving clause, 
 the most essential point of which (‘‘ ceterum, 
 in rebus,”’ etc., ‘* but, in things,” etc.) would 
 have to be mentally supplied. 
 
 2 See the note after ver. 5. 
 
 8 Prol. Sir. in Biel, III. p. 48, and Schleus- 
 ner, IV, p. 228, mpodAoyos mapeiocakros adyAov. 
 
 4Plut. Mor. p. 828 D; Polyb. ii. 7. 8, vi. 56. 
 12; Diod. xii. 41; 2 Pet. ii. 1. Comp. zape- 
 cedvcoay, Jude 4, 
 
62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 quippe qui, ‘‘ since they,” contains the explanation as to the dangerous char- 
 acter of these persons, by which the 6d 637. 7. p. is justified. — raperoq- 
 Gov." The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by Hofmann) is here 
 accordant with the context, and indicated purposely by the twice-repeated 
 mapelc.? —kataoxorjoat] in order to spy out, hostilely to reconnoitre, to watch.* 
 — iv éixowev év XptotS "Iyo.].a more precise definition of the preceding 
 quov.* This freedom is, as may be gathered from the entire context, nothing 
 else than the freedom from Mosaism (Rom. x. 4) through justification by faith.® 
 Matthies introduces also the Christian life, but without warrant ; the spying 
 of the pseudo-Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what ex- 
 tent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of the Mosaic law. 
 "Ev Xpio7@ implies asits basis the solemn idea of the év Xpicr@ elvac.° Hence : 
 in Christ, as our element of life by means of faith,’ as Christians. — iva jude 
 Katadoviacovorr®| is the dangerous design which they had in view in their 
 Kataoxorf#oa. ‘Huac applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely 
 to Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile Christians 
 (Baur) ; for it must be the wider category of those to whom, as the genus, 
 the iyeic in ver. 5 belongs as the species. We must also notice dvayeivy in 
 ver. 5, which is correlative to the éyouev in ver. 4. The future after iva indi- 
 cates, that the false brethren expected their success to be certain and en- 
 during.’ In classical authors we find only érwc, d¢pa, and yA thus construed, 
 and not iva, as Brunck, ad Hur. Bacch. 1380, supposed,” but in the Hellen- 
 ists and Fathers iva also." Kara strengthens the idea of the simple verb : to 
 make us wholly slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave us.:? The mode in which the 
 apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with the inten- 
 
 1 Comp. Lucian, Asin. 15, ei Aveos maperoeA- 
 Sor; Polyb. ii. 55. 3. 
 
 2 Comp. generally on Rom. y. 20, and see 
 Chrysostom on our passage. 
 
 SiConips Joshy ih 2, si) 2Sam. px. os 1 
 Chron. xix. 3; Eur. Hel. 1623; Polyb. x. 2; 
 also katackomos, @ spy. 
 
 4 Comp. Eph. ii. 4 e¢ qd. 
 
 5 Comp. iii. 18, v. 1. 
 
 Give (62) Cor, Vv. 213) phe ili. 
 Comp. Eph. i. 7, iii. 12. 
 
 7 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17. 
 
 8 The Recepta, defended by Reiche, is 
 katadovAwowrv7ar, But B** F G, 17, Dam., 
 have katadovAwowow ; and AB* C D E &, 
 min., catadovAdcovoery (SO Lachmann, Scholz, 
 Tischendorf). The middle (to which, more- 
 over, Lucian, Scloec. 12, assigns an un- 
 founded difference from the active) is ac- 
 cordingly abandoned unanimously by the 
 best mss., and is the more readily to be 
 given up, because in this case the ver- 
 sions cannot come into consideration, 
 and consequently the importance of 
 the mss. is all the greater. The middle 
 being most familiar from the LXX. (Gen. 
 xlvil. 21; Ex. i, 14, vi, 5; Lev. xv. 46; Ezek. 
 
 6, et al. 
 
 xxix. 18; the active, only in Jer. xy. 14, xvii. 
 4; the Apocrypha has the mtddle only), in- 
 truded itself unsought. This much in oppo- 
 sition to Reiche, who derives the active 
 from 2 Cor. xi. 20. Further, as catadovAw- 
 covo.v has the great preponderance of testi- 
 mony, and was very easily liable to the al- 
 teration into the subjunctive usual after 
 tva, it is to be adopted (with Usteri, Schott, 
 Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to be con- 
 sidered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of 
 the subjunctive. The fecepta catadovAwowr- 
 tat, Which K and most of the later mss. 
 have, shows that the change into the sub- 
 junctive must have been very prevalent at 
 an early date. Nevertheless L and one 
 min. have katadovAdcorvtar, which must 
 have sprung from the original ckatadovAwaov- 
 ov, 
 
 ® See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 683, Rost, ad Duncan. Lex. p. 870. 
 
 10 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629. 
 
 11 Comp. Winer, p. 271; Buttmann, newt. 
 Gr. p. 202. 
 
 12 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20; Plat. Pol. i. p. 315 
 B, SovActabar adicws Kkal KxatadedovA@odar: 
 Thue. iii. 70. 2, and Duker én doc. 
 
CHNPS Tie, de 63 
 
 tion (de Wette) ; it represents the latter correctly according to the fact 
 (they desire to bind the Christians to the law), but in the form which it as- 
 sumed from the Puuline point of view.} 
 
 Ver. 5. Connection : —‘‘ On account of the false brethren, however, Titus 
 was not compelled to be circumcised ; to these we did not yield even for an 
 hour. Had we consented to the suggestion, which was made to us by Chris- 
 tians at Jerusalem (see on ver. 3), at least to circumcise Titus, we should 
 have thereby yielded to the false brethren standing in the background, who 
 declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be necessary ; but this 
 did not at all take place.” ? — oic] in the sense of rotbrove yap, ‘‘ for to these.” 
 See Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f.; Kithner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1. 64 ; Ellendt, 
 Lex, Soph. Il. p. 871. — pic bpav] not even for an hour, indicating a very 
 short duration of time. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Philem. 15 ; John v. 35; 1 
 Thess. ii. 17 ; also rpdc¢ piav porgv, ‘in one moment,” Wisd. xviii. 12 ; xpdc 
 ddiyov, mpd¢e Bpayt, and the like. — cifauev] namely, I and Barnabas and 
 Titus. — 7H trorayi | belongs not to dcaveivy (Matthias), an inverted arrange- 
 ment which would be without motive, but to cifauev, beside which it stands: 
 ‘through the obedience claimed by the false brethren,” that is, by render- 
 ing to them the obedience which they desired. On the matter itself, see Acts 
 xv. 1, 5. Matthies regards 77 irorayf as an appositional explanation of oic.® 
 But the yielding takes place not to the obedience, but to the demand (77 
 évroay). Fritzsche correctly takes it in an ablative sense, but explains, ‘eo 
 obsequio praestito, quod apostoli postularent,” ‘such obedience being af- 
 forded as the apostles demanded.” But in combination with oic . 
 eigauev, and with iva yuac Katadov4. preceding, it would not occur to the 
 reader to think of anything else than the obedience claimed by the werdad2- 
 dot. Besides, it was not the apostles at all who demanded the circumcision 
 of Titus, but (see on ver. 3) Christians at Jerusalem, acting on the instiga- 
 tion of the evdadeAgor, so that these latter would have been obeyed by the 
 circumcision in question. Comp. the state of matters at Acts xxi. 21. 
 Holsten, without any indication of support in the context, interprets : ‘ by 
 the subordination to the doxoivtec, Which had been demanded by the false 
 brethren.” Lastly, Hermann (who is followed by Bretschneider), entirely in 
 opposition to the context, explains it, ‘‘quibus ne horae quidem spatium 
 Jesu obsequio segnior fui,” ‘‘than whom I was more slow in obedience to 
 Jesus not even for the space of an hour. —ive 7 aAgOera «.7.2.] Object of this 
 non-compliance at that time, which, although in the nature of the case it 
 concerned Pauline Christians generally, is represented concretely as refer- 
 ring to the Galatians: ‘‘in order that the truth of the gospel may abide with 
 you ; in order that by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should 
 not be shaken, and ye should not be induced to deviate from the truth, 
 which forms the subject-matter of the gospel (ver. 14 ; Col. i. 5), by mixing 
 it up with Mosaism” (comp. érepov evayyéAtov, i. 6). A purpose, therefore— 
 and this the readers were intended to feel—to which their present apostasy 
 
 1 Comp. vi. 12 f. (Hilgenfeld in his Zettschr. 1860, p. 121). 
 
 2 Paul was therefore by no means “‘ nearly 3 As to this usage, see Fritzsche, Diss. in 
 compelled to haye Titus circumcised” 2 Cor. Ii. p. 135 f. 
 
64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 entirely ran counter !— pic tuac] as rpd¢ airéy, i. 18, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7; 
 here also it is not the with of simple rest, but expresses the relation of an 
 active bearing on life ; Bernhardy, p. 265. Besides, Paul might justly say 
 mpo¢ buac, as the Galatians were for the most part Gentile Christians, and in 
 that opposition to the false brethren it was the freedom of the Gentile Chris- 
 tians which he sought to maintain. “The iyac individualizes the readers of 
 the letter (iii. 26, iv. 6 ; Col. i. 25 ; Eph. iii. 2, and frequently). The ref-~ 
 erence to the yet wneonverted Gentiles, whom the truth of the gospel had 
 still to reach (xpi¢ tua), as suggested by Hofmann,’ is in complete -opposi- 
 tion to the text.—dcayeivy | permaneret, ‘might continue ;” denoting the abiding 
 continuance, The truth which they have received was not again to be lost. 
 Heb. i. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; Luke xxii. 8; and frequently in Greek authors. 
 
 Note.—As by the wevdadeAgor (vv. 4, 5) cannot be meant the Judaizers at work 
 among the Galatians (which is assumed by Fritzsche entirely in opposition to 
 the connection), but only the same persons mentioned in Acts xv. 1, 5; they 
 cannot be described as false brethren in relation to any one particular church (e.g. 
 to the church of Antioch, into which they had crept from Jerusalem, as Baur 
 and Reiche think). On the contrary, the general form of their antagonism, vy. 
 4, 5, as well as the further account in vv. 7-10, and the whole argument of the 
 epistle, admit only of one point of view,—that the apostle, out of the certainty 
 of the a/7Geva Tov evayyediov, styles them false brethren in relation to Christianity 
 generally, of which they had, as regards their Judaizing character and action 
 looked at from a Pauline standpoint, falsely pretended to be professors. This 
 does not in itself exclude the fact that they had come from Jerusalem to Anti- 
 och (Acts xy. 1). The inflexible opposition offered to them by the apostle in 
 Jerusalem doubtless contributed much to the bringing about of the apostolic 
 decree. Comp. Marcker, l.c. p, 539. [See Note XXXIII., p. 96.] 
 
 Ver. 6. Paul having described in vv. 3-5 the momentous result of his 
 relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem (airvoic, ver. 2), now passes on 
 (corresponding to the xa7’ idiay dé Toi¢g doxovor, Ver. 2) to his relations towards 
 the apostles, explaining that the same result had then followed his discus- 
 sions with them. — The construction is anacoluthic. For when the apostle 
 wrote amd dé tov doxoivtwy eivai tt, he intended subsequently to finish his 
 sentence with oidév éAaBov, oddév édidaxOnv, ‘*I received nothing, I was taught 
 nothing,” or something of that kind; but by the intervening remarks 
 éroiol rote . . . Aauaver he was completely diverted from the plan which 
 he had begun, so that now the thought which floated before his mind in 
 ard dé tov dokobvtwr civai te is no longer brought into connection with these 
 words, but is annexed in the form of a ground (yap) to rpécwrov Cede avOpd- 
 rov ov AauBaver ; and this altered: chain of thought occasions éuoi to be now 
 placed emphatically at the beginning. Properly speaking, therefore, we 
 have here a parenthesis beginning with dézoio., which, without any formal 
 conclusion, carries us back again by éwoi ydp x.r.2. to the main thought, 
 leaving the words ard 62 tév doxotytwv eivai te entirely unconnected, and 
 
 1 Comp. Windischmann. 
 
CHAP, Im”, 6 65 
 
 merely pointing back by means of oi doxoivrec, as by a guide-post, to that 
 abandoned commencement of the sentence. For it is only in substance, 
 and not in form, that the parenthesis is concluded with AauBdvec. Comp. 
 Rom. v. 12 ff. ; Eph. ii. 1 ff. An anacoluthon is also assumed by Erasmus, 
 Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius 3 Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Koppe, 
 Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette, Hilgenfeld, Eadie, and others ; so that—according to the usual 
 view (Wiescler takes the correct one)—with éuoi yap «.7.4. Paul again takes 
 up the thread of the discourse which had broken off with ard dé doxotyrwr 
 elvai v1, and merely continues it actively instead of passively (Winer, p. 529). 
 But this is opposed both by éwoi, which logically would not be in its proper 
 place at the head of the resumed sentence, and also by yép, which does not 
 correspond to the mere inguam, ‘‘I say” (ov, dé), after parentheses, but in 
 the passages concerned’ is to be taken as explaining or assigning a reason. 
 
 
 
 Hermann makes out an aposiopesis, so that quid metuerem ? ‘‘ what was I to 
 fear ?” has to be supplied after dzd. . . elvai rv.? But this is not suggested 
 by the context, nor is it permitted by the tranquil flow of the discourse, in 
 which no such emotion as warrants an aposiopesis is discoverable. Fritzsche 
 supplies the very same thing which in ver. 4 was to be supplied after wev- 
 dadéAgovc, making Paul say, ‘‘a@ viris autem (nempe), qui auctoritate valerent 
 [circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit],” ‘‘but by the men who 
 had influence [he did not allow the necessity of circumcision to be imposed 
 on himself].” But however easy and natural this supplement was in ver. 4 
 after pevdadéAgovc, because it was suggested as a matter of course by the 
 words immediately preceding, in the present case it appears both harsh and 
 involved, as the whole body of ideas in vv. 4, 5 intervenes and hinders the 
 reader from going back to that supplement. And how abrupt would be 
 the position of the following ézoio: x.r.2. | Lastly, the (erroneous) idea, 
 that the apostles had demanded the circumcision of Titus, is thus violently 
 imported into the text. Holsten’s involved construction*—according to 
 which ad dé rév dox. «.7.A. is to be carried on to ver. 9 in conformity with 
 
 
 
 the notion of defiac AauBdavery axd6—is shown by éuol yap x.7.4., where the 
 Joxovvrec already reappear, to be an impossible solution of the anacoluthon, 
 which even thus is not avoided. The passage is explained without suppos- 
 ing either supplement or anacoluthon :—1. Most simply, and without 
 violence to the language, by Burk,* making ¢ivai te belong to ovdév por 
 dtadéper : ‘* That on the part of those in authority (by their recognition) I am 
 something (namely, as respects my outward position), I reckon of no value.” 
 But, in reality, Paulattached to his recognition by the original apostles the 
 true and great value which it necessarily had for him in confronting his 
 opponents ; and hence he very carefully relates it in ver. 7. This interpre- 
 tation therefore runs counter to the context.®° 2. Just as little allowable is 
 
 1 Also Rom. xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 19. 3 2, Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 273 f. 
 
 2 Comp. Day. Schulz, who believes that 4In the Stud. wu. Krit. 1865, p. 734 ff. 
 quidnam tandem adversus me actum est ? 5 Comp. also, against it, Mareker in Stud. 
 ‘“what pray was done against me?” is sup- u. Arit. 1866, p. 532 ff. 
 pressed. 
 
 Oo 
 
2 
 
 66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 it? to connect aro dé r. dox. é. r. with the words preceding, ‘‘ but certainly 
 (this enduring confirmation of Christian freedom was only possible) through 
 the authority of the doxovrte¢ eivai tu.” But to the signification of amé, from 
 the side of, a sense would thus be arbitrarily ascribed, which is not justified 
 by passages such as Matt. xvi. 21, and must have been expressed by some 
 such explanatory addition as in Acts ii. 22. It was impossible also for 
 Paul—above all in this epistle—to conceive the maintenance of the truth of 
 his Gentile gospel as conditional on the authority of the original apostles. 
 Lastly, instead of the sentence which next follows asyndetically (ézotoz 
 k.T.4.), we should expect an emphasized antithesis (such as GAA’ éroioz x.T.2.). 
 3. The Greek Fathers and Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae, Bolten, Borger, and 
 others, interpret the passage, ‘‘ But as regards those of repute, it is one and 
 the same thing to me,” etc., by which, however, az6 is quite in violation of 
 language interchanged with zep/. So also Riickert,’? who at the same time 
 wishes to preserve for azé its due signification (‘‘on the part of any one, it 
 makes no difference to me ; that is, what concerns him, is quite indifferent 
 to me”), without authority, however, from any actual linguistic usage. 
 4, Following Homberg, Ewald understands it as if it stood répv dé doxod- 
 prov. . . ovdev diadépw, ‘* But compared with those who, etc., however high 
 they once stood, Zam in nothing inferior.” 5, Hofmann ® brings azé dé rév 
 Soxovrtuwv eivai te (ard, from the side of ) into regimen with ver. 9, and in such 
 a manner that the three doxovvtec oriA0 eivas in ver. 9 are supposed to form 
 the subject of the period beginning with azo «.7.2. in ver. 6 ; but this mode 
 of construction is decisively condemned by its very inherent monstrosity, 
 with its parentheses inserted one within another ; and besides this, the repe- 
 tition of oi doxovvrec in ver. 6 would be entirely without aim and simply 
 perplexing, if the continuation of the construction as regards a7é 0.7. 0. €. T. 
 were still to follow, as is supposed by Hofmann. Nevertheless, Laurent* 
 has agreed with the latter, but has at the same time arbitrarily removed 
 from the disjointed construction ézoio: . . . tovvavriov as a marginal note of 
 the apostle, —another expedient, whereby a4/a robvartiov, so violently dealt 
 with by Hofmann, finds the connection with idévrec, which it evidently has 
 (see below) dissevered.— On doxeiv eivai 71, Which may mean either ¢o 
 reckon oneself tobe something great, or to be esteemed great by others (so here), 
 see Wetstein.® The same persons are meant who are referred to in ver. 2 
 by roic doxovor. But the addition of 7 eiva:, and the droite: x.t.A. which 
 follows, betray here a certain irritation in reference to the opponents, who 
 would not concede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original 
 apostles, as 1f elvai te belonged pre-eminently to the latter. — éoioi rore joav] 
 Now come the parenthetical remarks, on account of which Paul leaves his 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 With Méarcker. Cyr. iv.'1. 4. 
 
 2Comp Olshausen, who, however, as- 3 Comp. above, against Holsten. 
 sumes that in using avo Paul had at first 4 neut. Stud. p. 29f. 
 some other phrase in his mind, but that he 5 Comp. Plat. Huthyd. p. 303 C, Trav modAA@v 
 afterwards inexactly followed it up with avipuTwv Kat Tov cenvav dy Kat SoxovyTwY TL 
 ovdév wor dSuadeper. In all essential points Mat- civac ovdév vury méder,** forthe many men,both 
 
 thias agrees with Riickert, as does also as well as for the revered and those seeming 
 Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. to be something, you have no concern.” 
 
CHAPS E,,.6. 67 
 
 aro d& tov dok. civai te standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the 
 high estimation of those apostles—which in itself, according to the real 
 (and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by no means calls in 
 question—should lead to the inference that he had needed instruction from 
 them. Comp. the subsequent éuoi yap oi do. oidév xpocaré#., and the thought 
 already floating before the apostle’s mind in the anacoluthic ad dé trav 
 Soxobvtwv elvai te (see above). Wieseler affirms too generally, that ‘‘ Paul 
 desired to check the ovérvaluing of the older apostles.” The real state of 
 the case is this : Paul, with all decision, in order to counterbalance that 
 doxeiv eivai tc of those men of high standing which he does not dispute, 
 throws into the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of 
 this counterbalancing lies precisely in déroioi wore jay, so far as the latter 
 belongs to ovdéy wor diagdéper, and is not, as Hofmann will have it, an appen- 
 dage to tov doxovvtwy eivai tt. — The roré, with a direct or indirect interroga- 
 tive, is the strengthening cunque or tandem which occurs constantly in 
 Greek authors,’ although not elsewhere in the N. T.? Whosoever they were, 
 in whatsoever high repute they stood® while I was then with them, é¢ is all 
 the same tome. Riickert makes droio: mean, ‘‘ whether high or low, apostles 
 or what else ;” holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an indefinite way 
 of these men in high repute, as if he did not exactly know that they were 
 apostles (?), in order to give the less offence in what he said. How strange 
 this would be ! for every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuit- 
 able to his purpose ! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he 
 received from the apostles. Many refer éroiorore joav back to the lifetime 
 of Jesus, when those apostles had been His trusted disciplés : some taking 
 moré as olim;* and others, with us, as ewngve.° But in the case of James (see 
 on ver. 9) this reference would not be even historically applicable, or it 
 would need at least to be applied to a different kind of relation (that of 
 kinship). And besides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retro- 
 spective reference to that remote past ; the context points merely to the 
 time of Paul’s sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must not, with others 
 still, be referred to—what was quite foreign to the apostle’s aim—the pre- 
 Christian condition of the apostles, in which they had been sinners,’ or 
 idiora, and jishermen,® zoré being likewise understood as olim. * —oidév pot 
 diapéper| matters to me nothing.” — rpdcwrov Oed¢ avOpdrov ov AauBdver| WS 19 
 
 1 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 
 
 2 Comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 32; see also Ellendt, 
 Lex. Soph. Il. p. 615 f. 
 
 3 Not: how friendly and brotherly they 
 were towards me (Matthias), to which 
 meaning ovdév por dtadeper is far from suited. 
 
 4 Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, Luther, 
 Beza, and others, including Matthies, 
 Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
 Ewald. 
 
 > Quiqui illi fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso 
 Jesu instituti, perinde est,” ‘‘ Whoever they 
 were, even though appointed by Jesus 
 Himself, it is the same,’? Hermann; comp. 
 
 Winer. 
 
 6 See Hilgenfeld. 
 
 7 Estius ; comp. Augustine. 
 
 8 Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, and others. 
 
 * Tt was entirely in opposition to the con- 
 text, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
 Jerome referred it to the earlier feaching of 
 the apostles; taking Paul to say, that 
 whether at an earlier date they had been 
 Judaizers or not was to him a matter of in- 
 difference. 
 
 10 See Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. p. 294; Lo- 
 beck, ad Phryn. p. 394. 
 
68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 NRW) DTN, an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, state- 
 ment of the reason for oidév poe diagéper.' DID SWI, rpdowrov AauBaverr, 
 properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), is used in the 
 O. T. both in a good (to be inclined, or gracious, to any one, Gen. xix. 21, 
 Xxxll. 21, et al.) and in a bad sense, implying a favor and respect which is 
 partial, determined by personal considerations.* In the N. T. dt is used 
 solely in this bad sense.* The transposed arrangement of the words lays the 
 chief emphasis upon rpécwrov, and then by O¢dc avfpeorov makes us sensible of 
 the contrast between the manner and dignity of the divine procedure and — 
 such partiality for hwman authority.* — éuoi yap of doxoivrec ovdév rpocavéberto] 
 Proof, not of his independence of the apostles generally, but specially for 
 what he had just said, rpécwrov Occ avip. ov AauBaver, from personal experi- 
 ence. Hence éusi is emphatically placed first : ‘‘for to me, for my part— 
 although others may have received instruction from them, to me—they have 
 communicated nothing.” Paul’s idea therefore is, that if God had been 
 partial, He would not have placed him on such parity with the dorover, that to 
 him, etc. Riickert, wrongly anticipating, says that the prefixed éuoi finds 
 its antithesis in ver. 11: ‘‘to me they have communicated nothing, ete. ; 
 but indeed, when Peter came to Antioch, J was compelled to admonish 
 him.” But in this case, at least ver. 11 must have begun with éy dé or aAw’ 
 éyo. According to Wieseler, Paul in évoi is thinking of ‘‘to me, the former 
 persecutor,” an idea gratuitously introduced. In Hofmann’s view the antith- 
 esis is intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything sub- 
 mitted, but the converse.© But if this were so, Paul must have written ov 
 yap éuol x.7.2., just as afterwards a42a roivavtiov abroi k.t.A., In order to have 
 given at least a bare indication of this alleged antithesis. — oddév rpocavé- 
 Gevro] quite as in i. 16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no communica- 
 tions* to me, namely, in order to instruct and advise me,—a sense which is 
 here also demanded by the context ; see the sequel, and comp. i. 12. It is 
 usually understood : oidév rpocénkav, ovdév diapOwoar, ‘they added nothing ; 
 they corrected nothing” (Chrysostom), ‘‘nihililli praesumserunt lis adjicere, 
 quae prius a Christo accepta docueram inter gentes,” ‘‘they presumed to 
 add nothing to those things which, having formerly received of Christ, I 
 had taught among the Gentiles,” Beza.? Comp. Wieseler, Miarcker, and Hil- 
 
 1° Det judicium sequebatur, Paulus,” 7 As also Valla, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, 
 
 “*Paul followed God’s judgment,” Bengel. 
 
 2 Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17, e¢ al. ; Ecclus. 
 iv. 27; 3 Esr. iv. 39. 
 
 3 Matt. xxii. 16; Mark xii. 14; Luke xx. 
 21; Jude 16. Comp. Acts x. 34; Jas. ii. 9; 
 Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 26; Jas. 
 1s ae y 
 
 4Comp. Hom. Qd. xix. 363 f., 4 oe epi 
 Zevs avdpwrwv AxInpe Seovdéa Fueov ExovTa, 
 “‘surely Zeus hated thee above all men, 
 though thou hadst a God-fearing spirit.” 
 
 5 Comp. tuvés in Chrysostom, and the Par- 
 aphrase of Erasmus. 
 
 6 ‘* Nihil contulerunt,” Vulgate. 
 
 Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, 
 Matthies, Schott, and others, Baur arbitra- 
 rily (I. p. 141, ed. 2) brings in the thought, 
 “They have brought forward nothing 
 against me, wherein I should have had to 
 acknowledge them in the right.” Ovéév is 
 made to mean, nothing conclusive and con- 
 vincing—nothing whereby they would have 
 confuted him and brought him over to their 
 side (comp. Baur in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 
 463). There is not the most remote allusion 
 in the passage to any conflict between Paul 
 and the original apostles; on the contrary, 
 it implies the complete understanding on 
 
y 
 
 CHAP UL 7s 69 
 genfeld : ‘‘They submitted nothing in addition to that which had been 
 submitted by me ; they approved the gospel, which I am preaching among 
 the Gentiles.” But zpéc¢ expresses merely the direction, and not insuper 
 (see oni. 16). Should avaribyu, however, be understood as to impose, xpéc 
 would certainly express the idea novwm opus imponere (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8); 
 as Riickert ' explains it, ‘‘ they imposed on me no further obligations,” the ob- 
 servance of the law being the point principally alluded to.? But in opposi- 
 tion to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite needless 
 departure from the signification of the same word in i. 16, the circumstance 
 is decisive, that rpocavari#nu: in the middle would necessarily mean ‘ susci- 
 pere novum opus,” ‘‘ to wndertake a new work,” as Xen. Mem. l.c., and not 
 “‘imponere novum opus,” ‘* to impose anew work,” even though the com- 
 parison of the apostle’s obligation to a burden (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16 f.) 
 should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature of the matters im- 
 posed. — oidév] either the accusative of the object, or more strongly (comp. 
 i. 16), in no point, in no respect whatever. The idea that a revelation is 
 intended as the contents of zpocar. (Holsten), must be sought for in the 
 context : it is not conveyed by the words per se, 
 
 Ver. 7. ’AZAa tovvartiov] to be separated merely by a comma from the 
 preceding, being still connected with yap. ‘‘To me they made communica- 
 tion of no kind whatever ; but, on the contrary, when they had seen, etc., 
 the three pillar-apostles concluded with me and Barnabas the apostolic 
 alliance,” etc. (ver. 9). “Hofmann, to force a regimen for a7é rév doxotvTwr 
 in ver. 6, very arbitrarily tears asunder the clear and simple connection 
 ‘which the words obviously present, taking 4224 roivavriov by itself and dis- 
 severed from what follows, and supplementing the sense by the insertion, 
 ‘¢ They have not proposed anything to me, but conversely, I to them.’ But 
 this strange ellipsis is a device utterly unprecedented. * — iddvrec] after they 
 had seen, namely, from the way in which I xa7’ idiav avebéunv 7d evayy. 6 
 Kypvoow év Toi¢ évecr, ‘‘ privately communicated to them the gospel which I 
 preach among the Gentiles” (ver. 2). Usteri, ‘‘ from the blessed result of 
 my preaching.” So also Rosenmiiller, Winer, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, 
 Hofmann ; Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Wieseler, mix the two views ; and 
 Fritzsche includes the previous labors of the apostle among the Gentiles, e.g., 
 in Tarsus and Antioch, among the grounds of knowledge. But nothing 
 beyond what we have just given can be gathered from the context. Eras- 
 mus appropriately paraphrases, ‘‘ ubi communicato cum illis evangelio meo 
 perspexissent,” ‘‘ when they had perceived upon the communication of my 
 
 both sides, which was the result of the dis- 
 cussion. The conflict affected the members 
 of the church who were stirred up by the 
 WevdddeApo. and the false brethren them- 
 selves (vv. 3-5). 
 
 1So also Bretschneider and Lechler, 
 p. 412. 
 
 2 Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 235. 
 
 3 Comp. on Tovvarriov, 2 Cor. ii. 7, 1 Pet. 
 jii. 9; very frequently (also tavaytia) oecur- 
 
 ring in Greek authors (Schaefer, ad Bos, 
 Ell. p. 297. 
 
 4 Certainly the aAAa rovvavtiov was, for 
 Hofmann at least, the most refractory part 
 of the sentence, which had in some sort of 
 way to be forcibly torn from its natural 
 connection with idovres,—a connection 
 justly unassailed by expositors. And he 
 has managed it by the device of the above~ 
 mentioned ellipsis ! 
 
70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 gospel with them.”— érz mezior. r. ebayy. T. apoB. «.7.2.] The emphasis is laid 
 on Kalo lérpo¢ tHe mepit., as ver. 8 shows. They saw that my having been 
 divinely entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles was just such (just as 
 undoubted, true, direct, etc.), as was that of Peter for the Jews ; conse- 
 quently there could be no question of any zpocavafeiva:, and nothing could 
 follow but complete recognition (ver. 9). The construction? in the sense of 
 meriotevtai por TO evayy. (as F G, 19*, 46** actually read) is regular ; as to the 
 perfect, used of the enduring subsistence of the act.” — ric axpoBvoriac] that 
 is, TOv axpoBiotwr, ‘of the circumcised,” * the gospel which belonged to the 
 uncircumcised, and was to be preached to them. — xafl&c létpog ti¢ repirop. | 
 Thus Peter appears as the representative of the Jewish apostles, in accord- 
 ance with his superiority among them.‘ The destination of Peter as an 
 apostle to the Gentiles also® is not negatived, but @ potiori jit denominatio. 
 — That this passage relates not to two different gospels, but to the same gospel 
 for two different circles of recipients, to whose peculiarities respectively the 
 nature and mode of preaching required special adaptation, is obvious of it- 
 self, and is clear from vv. 8,9. But the passage cannot be worse misunder- 
 stood than it has been by Baur,® according to whom there wasa special gos- 
 pel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, differing 
 in this respect, that the one maintained the necessity of circumcision, while 
 the other allowed it to drop.” 
 
 Ver. 8. A parenthetic historical substantiation of the preceding reicrev- 
 pat TO Evayy. THE aKpoB., Kaa Tletp. tH¢ wepiz. : for He who has been efficacious 
 Sor Peter as regards the apostleship to the circumcision, has also been efficacious 
 Sor me as regards the Gentiles ; that is, ‘‘for God, who has wrought effect- 
 ually * in order to make Peter the apostle to the Jews, has also wrought 
 effectually for me, to make me an apostle to the Gentiles.” The stress les 
 on évepyfjoac and évfpynoe : God [see Note XXXIV., p. 96] has been not in- 
 active, but efficacious, etc. But that in 6 évepyjoac Paul did not refer to Christ,° 
 is evident not only from passages such as 1 Cor. xii. 6, Phil. i. 13, Col. i. 
 29, but also from the fact that he constantly considers his apostleship to be 
 the gift of God’s grace, bestowed upon him through the mediation of Christ 
 (i. 1, 15 ; Rom. i. 5, xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iit. 2, 7, e al.). —TMérpp 
 is the dativus commodi, ‘‘ dative of advantage.’’!° — ei¢ ta éOvy] in reference to 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. iii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 17. belonging thereto. It is not the divine 
 
 2 See Winer, p. 255. 
 
 3 Rom. ii. 26, iii. 30 ; Eph. ii. 11. 
 
 4 Matt. xvi. 18 ; Acts ii. ili. iv. v. e¢ al. 
 
 5 Acts xv. 7: 1 Pet... 1. 
 
 ® Theol. Jahresbericht, 1849, p. 548. 
 
 7 Comp. Holsten, who discovers the dis- 
 tinctive feature of the Gentile gospel in the 
 “* gnosis of the death of the cross,’’ in spite 
 of 1 Cor. i. 23 f. In opposition to such a 
 separation, see also Ritschl, aikath. K. 
 p. 127 f. 
 
 8 Namely, by communicating the requi- 
 site endowments, enlightenment, strength- 
 ening, and generally the whole equipment 
 
 action towards the attainment of the 
 arogtoAy (Vatablus, Schott, Fritzsche) that 
 is meant, but the making jit for it; the 
 attainment was indicated in ver. 7, and is 
 substantiated in ver. 8 by the further divine 
 action which had taken place. But neither 
 are the results of the office, brought about 
 by God’s helpful operation, referred to 
 (Winer, Usteri, Baur, de Wette, Hofmann), 
 which would anticipate the sequel. 
 
 ® Paulus, comp. Chrysostom. 
 
 10 Comp. Prov. xxix. 12 (xxxi. 12), accord- 
 ing to the usual reading, évepyet yap To avdpi 
 els ayata. 
 
CHAP. II., 9. yal 
 
 the Gentiles. The precise sense follows from the first half of the verse, 
 namely, eic arocrodyv tov évdv. The well-known comparatio compendiaria, 
 ‘‘eompendious comparison.”’ There is therefore the less reason for assum- 
 ing that Paul desired to avoid the expression eic azoor. 7. éAvwv.? Observe, 
 however, how Paul places himself on a par with Peter ; ‘‘ perfecta aucto- 
 ritas in praedicatione gentium,” ‘‘ perfect authority in preaching to the 
 Gentiles,” Ambrosiaster. 
 
 Ver. 9. Kai yvévrec] is connected, after the parenthesis, with idévrec¢ x.7.2. 
 in ver. 7.2 — rv yap tv dofeicdy jor] is not arbitrarily to be limited either to 
 the apostolic office,* or to the success of the same ;° but is to be left quite general : 
 the grace which had been given me. They recognized that Paul was highly 
 gifted with grace, and was—by the fact that God had so distinguished him 
 by means of His grace and thereby legitimized him as His apostle—fully 
 fitted and worthy to enter into the bond of collegiate fellowship with them. 
 His apostolic mission, his apostolic ecdowments, the blessed results of his 
 labor, are all included in the ydapic which they recognized,—a general term 
 which embraces everything that presented itself in him as divinely-bestowed 
 
 
 
 grace and working on behalf of his office. — ’Iaxwoc] the same as in i. 19 ; 
 not the brother of John (Augustine), who at that time had been long dead 
 (Acts xii. 2) ; also not the son of Alphaeus ;° but the brother of the Lord, as is 
 The mention of 
 his name here before the other two is not in compliance with the view of 
 the false teachers,* but is quite in due form, as the apostle is relating an 
 official act done in Jerusalem, where James stood at the head of the church.’ 
 There isacertain decorum in this—the tact of a respectful consideration tow- 
 ards the mother-church and its highly-esteemed representative, who, as 
 the Lord’s actual brother, sustained a more peculiar and unique relation to 
 Him than any of the twelve. The higher rank possessed by Peter and the 
 apostles proper generally as such, is surely sufficiently established by i. 18 f. 
 But James, just as the brother of the Lord, had already attained a cer- 
 tain archiepiscopal position in the Jewrsh-Christian mother-church, and con- 
 sequently for Jewish Christianity generally, agreeably to the monarchic 
 principle which was involved in the latter. If James had been precisely 
 one of the twelve, Paul would not!" have given him precedence over Peter ; 
 for, as mouthpiece of the twelve, Peter was the first for Jerusalem also and 
 for the whole of the Jewish Christians.!! The precedence, however, finds . 
 
 obvious of itself after what has been remarked on i. 19.7 
 
 1See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5.43; Wi- 
 ner, p. 578 ; Fritzschiorum, Opusc. p. 217 f. 
 
 2 Holsten. 
 
 3 While iddvres denotes the immediate im- 
 pression of the phenomenon, yvovtes repre- 
 sents the knowledge of reflection. A further 
 step in the description. Hofmann wrongly 
 remarks, “It signifies nothing further than 
 that they had heard of the occurrence of his 
 calling.” But this they must have already 
 Known years before (i. 18 f.). 
 
 4 Piscator, Estius, and others; also Hof- 
 
 mann. 
 
 5 Morus, Koppe, Winer, Fritzsche; de 
 Wette, both. 
 
 6 Wieseler on i. 19, and in the Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1842, p. 95 f. 
 
 7 Comp. on Acts xii. 17. See also Hilgen- 
 feld, p. 158 ff. ; and Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. 
 Zeit. p. 221 ff. 
 
 8 Windischmann. 
 
 ® Comp. Credner, Hint. I. 2, p. 571 ff. 
 
 19 Comp. i. 18. 
 11 Ver. 7. 
 
72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 its explanation and its justification solely in the wnigue personal relation to 
 Christ, —which belonged to none of the apostles. James, as the eldest of 
 the brethren of the Lord,’ was, as it were, his legitimate hereditary successor 
 kava odpka, ‘‘ as to the flesh,” in Israel. — oi doxodvrec orvAor eivar| who pass (not 
 passed, see vv. 2, 6) as pillars, namely, of the Christian body, the continued 
 existence of which, so far as it was conditioned by human agency (for 
 Christ is the foundation), depended chiefly on them. The metaphor? is 
 current in all languages.* Looking at the jrequent use of the figure, it can- 
 not be maintained that Paul here thought of the body of Christians exactly as 
 a temple,* although he certainly regarded it as oixodouy, ‘‘ building.”® These do- 
 Kovvrec oTvAo® eivat, according to their high repute now, when the decisive final 
 result is brought forward, designated with solemn precision and mentioned by 
 name, are the very same who were characterized in ver. 2 as oi doxovvrec, and 
 in ver. 6 as doxowvre¢ eivai t7, aS is evident from the uniform term oi doxovvrec 
 being used three times. Hofmann nevertheless understands the expression 
 in vv. 2 and 6 more generally, so that what the three doxovvtec orvAor eivac did 
 is supposed to be designated as that which was done for the sake of the false 
 brethren on the part of those standing in special repute ; but this view is based 
 on the misinterpretation, by which an awkward grammatical connection 
 with ver. 9 is forced upon the anacoluthic a7 dé rev doxovvTwv in ver. 6, and 
 at the same time—in the interest of harmonizing (with Acts xv.)—a posi- 
 tion in relation to the older apostles, unwarranted by the text, is invented 
 to explain the notice dia dé Tove mapeccakt. WevdadéAd. in ver. 4. —deElac.. . 
 kotvoviac| On the separation of the genitive from its governing noun (in this 
 case, because the following clause of purpose, iva jjueic x.7.4., gives the ex- 
 planation of kovvwviac), see Winer, p. 179 f. ; Kiihner, § 865. 1; Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. II. p. 330 f. Both words are without the article, because deEsac did not 
 require it ;7 and in xo.wwwviac the qualitative element is to be made prominent : 
 right hands of fellowship. For the giving of the right hand is the symbol of 
 alliance.* In opposition to the idea of an alliance being concluded, the 
 objection must not be made® that the act took place on the part of the 
 apostles only ; for, as a matter of course, Pauland Barnabas clasped the prof- 
 fered hands. — iva jueic ei¢ Ta eAvy k.t.A.] The verb to be supplied must be 
 furnished by the context, and must correspond with eic.” Therefore either 
 
 1 Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3. 
 
 2 Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15; Rey. iii. 12; Clem. 
 Cor: T. 5. 
 
 3 Pind. Ol. ii. 146, "Extop’ eopade Tpotas 
 
 II. 1: “Brave peers of England, pillars of 
 the state.” Milton, Par. Lost, II. 302: ‘In 
 his rising seemed a pillar of state.”’] 
 
 41 Cor: iii. 16; Eph ii: 21° 
 
 auaxov actpaBy xKiova; ‘* Hector, the im- 
 pregnable, erect pillar of Troy, he caused to 
 fall,” Eur. Jph. 7. 50. 67 (Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
 VII. p. 120); Hor. Od. i. 35. 18, and Mitscher- 
 lich in loc. Comp. Maimonides, in Jfore 
 Nevoch. ii. 23, “* accipe a prophetis, qui sunt 
 columna generis humani,” “receive of the 
 prophets who are the column of the human 
 race ; also the passages in Schoettgen, 
 Hor. p. 728f.; and the Fathers in Suicer, 
 Thes. 11. p. 1045f. [Shakespeare, Henry VL., 
 
 SHCon ails 
 
 6The accentuation usual before Lach- 
 mann, o7vAo, is incorrect. See Lipsius, 
 gramm. Unters. p. 48. 
 
 71 Macc. vi. 58, xi. 62, e¢ al.,; Kriiger, 
 § 50. 2. 18. 
 
 ® Dougt. Anal. p. 123,1 Mace. vi. 58, and 
 Grimm in loc. 
 
 9 With Hofmann, who finds merely a 
 promise of fellowship. 
 
 10 See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 338. 
 
CHAP. OE, 10. "3 
 
 ropevdauev and ropevddor,' or apostolatu fungeremur, ver. 8,? or ebay- 
 yediooueba.® The latter, inno way unsuitable to eic,+is to be preferred, because 
 it is suggested immediately by the protasis in ver. 7, from which, at the 
 same time, it isevident that the recognition was not merely that of a cuvepyéc, 
 but really amounted to an acknowledgment of apostolic equality.° Moreover, 
 as regards the partition here settled, the ethnographical bearing of which 
 coincided on the whole with the local division of territory, we must not supply 
 any such qualification as praecipue.* On the contrary, the agreement was, 
 “¢ Ye shall be apostles to the Gentiles, and we to the Jews ;” and nothing beyond 
 this, except the appended clause in behalf of the poor, was thereby settled : 
 so that the state of things hitherto existing in respect to the field of labor 
 on both sides remained undisturbed. The modifications of this arrangement 
 obviously and necessarily connected with its practical working, primarily 
 occasioned by the existence of the Jewish d:acropa4—in accordance with 
 which the principle of the division of the spheres of labor could in fact be 
 carried out merely relatively, and without exclusive geographical or 
 ethnographical limitation’—were left an open question, and not discussed. 
 The idea that the recognition of Paul on the part of the apostles was 
 merely external—simply an outward concordat—and that they themselves 
 would have wished to know nothing of the ministry among the Gentiles,® 
 is not conveyed in the text, but is, on the contrary, inconsistent with the 
 representation given vv. 7-9. According to this, the apostles recognized 
 the twofold divine call to apostleship, by which two nationally different 
 spheres of labor were to be provided with the one gospel ; but a merely 
 external and forced agreement, without any acknowledgment or ratification 
 of the principles and modes of procedure which had long regulated the 
 action of Paul and Barnabas, would have been as little compatible with 
 such a recognition as with the apostolic character generally. If, however, 
 we take the xowvia in our passage to be true and heartfelt,® then the doubts 
 thrown by Baur and his followers upon the truth of the account of the 
 apostolic council in Acts fall in substance to the ground. How little Paul 
 especially considered his apostolic call to the Gentiles as excluding the con- 
 version of the Jews from his operations, may be gathered, even laying Acts 
 out of view, from passages such as 1 Cor. ix. 20, Rom. i. 16, ix. 1 ff., xi. 14. 
 
 Ver. 10. After wévov interpreters usually supply a verb such as airowrtec, 
 “asking,” or rapaxadovvrec, ‘‘ demanding,” which in itself would be allow- 
 
 
 
 able,”® but is nevertheless quite superfluous ; for pévov tov rTwyov iva wn. Ap- 
 pears dependent on defvac édaxav éot kai Bapv. xowv., So that it is parallel with the 
 preceding iva and limitsit. Comp. Matthies, Fritzsche, Hofmann. ‘‘ They 
 made with us a collegiate alliance, to the end that we should be apostles 
 
 ° 
 
 1 Bengel, Fritzsche, Wieseler. * Thiersch (Kirche im apost. Zeit. p. 129) 
 2 Erasmus, Schott, and many others. well remarks: ‘‘ When they bade farewell, 
 3 Winer, Usteri, de Wette. it was not a parting like that when Luther 
 4 See on 2 Cor. x. 16. in the castle at Marburg rejected the hand 
 5 In opposition to Holsten. of Zwingli, or when Jacob Andreae at 
 ® Bengel, Schott, and others. Montbeliard refused that of Theodore 
 7 Comp. Lechler, p. 415. Beza.” 
 
 = Baur, Zeller. 10 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 207 f. 
 
74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 to the Gentiles; . . . only that we should not omit to remember the poor 
 of the repitouy (not merely of the mother-church) as to support.” In that 
 alliance nothing further, im respect to our relation to the repitoph, was 
 designed or settled. On yvjuoveterr in the sense of beneficent care, comp. Ps. 
 ix. 12 ; Hom. Od. xviii. 267. —:6vorv, which belongs to the whole clause, 
 and tov zrwyov stand before iva on account of the emphasis laid upon them. 
 The poverty of the Christians ef Palestine, which was the principal motive 
 for this provision being added, finds its explanation in the persecutions 
 which they underwent, in the community of goods which they had at first, 
 and perhaps also in the expectation of the Parousia as near which they most 
 of all cherished. Moreover, the wévov x.7.A. by no means excludes the ordi- 
 nances of the apostolic council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his ree- 
 ognition as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private discus- 
 sions held with the latter. How Baur misuses pévov «.7.2., as contrasted 
 with the supposed irreconcilable diversity subsisting in doctrine, may be seen 
 in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 470; Paulus, I. p. 142 ff. ed. 2; comp. also 
 Holsten. In the face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles cer- 
 tainly would not have tendered Paul their hands ; and had they desired to 
 do so, Paul would have refused them his.? [See Note XXXV., p. 96.]— 
 6 kat éorovdaca aid TovTo Torqoar| The aorist, not used instead of the pluper- 
 fect, relates to the time from that apostolic alliance to the composition of 
 the epistle. Paul, however, continues in the singular ; for soon afterwards 
 he separated himself from Barnabas (Acts xv. 39). Those*who identify our 
 journey with that related in Acts xi. xii. must conclude, with Fritzsche, that 
 Paul desired to report concerning himself, and hence only mentioned Barnabas 
 (and Titus) as well, where it was necessary. Nevertheless this joint-mention, 
 although not necessary, would have been very natural in our passage ; for 
 iva pvnuovetouev had just been said, and then in a single stroke of the repre- 
 sentation, with 6 kai éorovdaca k.7.2., 18 given the conclusion of the matter so 
 referred to. —avrd rovro] is not superfluous,* as neither aizé alone’ nor rovre 
 alone® is used ; it is the emphatic epexegesis of 6, hoc ipsum,? ‘‘ this very thing,” 
 whereby Paul makes his readers feel the contrast between the Jewish Chris- 
 tian antagonism and his zeal of love thus shown. Studer and Usteri find in 
 avré rovro the tacit antithesis, ‘‘ but nothing further which the apostles had 
 imposed on me.” Inappropriately, for the idea of any other matters imposed 
 was already excluded by the previous account. Schott proposes to take’ 
 6 as dv 6,° but the assumption of this poetical use cannot be justified except 
 by a necessity such as is presented to us in the N. T. only at Acts xxvi. 16. 
 
 1 Comp. on Eph. iii. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 29; 
 2 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 7, e¢ al. 
 
 2 Tertullian (de praescr. 23) already gives 
 the right view: “inter se distributionem 
 oficit ordinaverant, non separationem evan- 
 geltti, nee ut alivd alter, sed ut ailiis alter 
 praedicarent,”’ ‘‘ They arranged among one 
 another a distribution of office, not a separa- 
 tion of the Gospel; nor so that one would 
 preach one thing, and another, another, 
 
 but so that one would preach to some, 
 and another to others.” 
 
 3 So, correctly, Estius, Winer, Usteri, 
 Schott. 
 
 4 Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Morus. 
 
 5 Winer. p. 140. 
 
 6 See Matthiae, p. 1050; Kiihner, II. p. 527. 
 
 7 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. LIL. 
 
 8 See on Acts xxvi. 16. 
 
Gras ite, 11; 5 
 
 Still more easily might aird rovro be explained’ as on that very account (2 Pet. 
 i.5; Xen. Anad. i. 9. 21). But in that case 6 would so naturally take up 
 what preceded, that there would be no reason why Paul should have 
 brought on that very account so prominently forward. It would rather have 
 the appearance of suggesting that, if it had not been for the agreement in 
 question, Paul would noé have cared for the poor. — We have no historical 
 vouchers for the truth of 6 kai éorotdaca x.t.2. ; for the conveyance of the 
 contributions in Acts xi. took place earlier than our journey ; and the col- 
 lection mentioned 1 Cor. xvi., 2 Cor. viii. f., Rom. xv. 27, comp. Acts xxi. 
 17 f., xxiv. 17, occurred after the composition of our epistle. But who would 
 doubt that assurance ? Looking at the more or less fragmentary accounts in 
 Acts and the Pauline epistles, who knows how often Paul may have sent 
 pecuniary assistance to Palestine ? as indeed he may have brought the like 
 with him on occasion of his own journey, Acts xviii. 20-22. It has, however, 
 been wrongly asserted that, by means of this obligation in respect to the 
 poor, a connection was intended to be maintained between the Gentile 
 churches and the primitive church, and that at the bottom of it lay the wish 
 to bring over the preliminarily converted Gentiles gradually more and more to 
 the principles and the mode of life of the primitive church.? This is an insin- 
 uation derived from mere fancy. [See Note XXXVL., p. 96 seq. | 
 
 Ver. 11. Paul now carries still further the historical proof of his apostolic 
 independence; ‘‘ ad summa venit argumentum,” ‘the argument has come to 
 the height,” Bengel. For not only has he not been instructed by the apostles ; 
 not only has he been recognized by them, and received into alliance with 
 them ; but he has even asserted his apostolic authority against one of them, 
 and indeed against Peter. There is no ground in the text for assuming 
 (with Hofmann) any suspicion on the part of the apostle’s opponents, that 
 in Antioch he had been defiant, and in Jerusalem submissive, towards Peter. 
 — bre dé 7A0e Knoac x.r.4.] After the apostolic conference, Paul and Barnabas 
 travelled back to Antioch, Acts xv. 30. During their sojourn there (Acts 
 xv. 33) Peter also came thither,—a journey, which indeed is not mentioned 
 in Acts, but which, just because no date is given in our passage, must be 
 considered as having taken place soon after the matters previously related.® 
 —Ky~ac| The opinion deduced from the unfavorable tenor of this narrative, 
 as bearing upon Peter, by Clement of Alexandria,‘ that the person meant is 
 
 1 Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1.21; Matthiae, 
 p. 1041; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 204 A. 
 2 Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 141. 
 
 3 Not so late as Acts xviii. 23, as held by 
 Neander, Baumgarten, Lange; and by 
 Wieseler, in favor of his view that the jour- 
 ney Gal. ii. 1 coincides with that of Acts 
 Xviii. 22. Grotius, although he considers 
 the journey Gal. ii. 1 as identical with that 
 in Acts xy., strangely remarks: ‘* Videtur 
 significare id tempus, de quo in Act. xiii. 1,” 
 “He seems to indicate the time treated in 
 Acts xiii.1. Also Hug and Schneckenburger, 
 Zweck d. Apostelg. p. 108 ff., place the occur- 
 
 rence at Antioch earlier than the apostolic 
 council,—a view which, according to the 
 chronological course of Gal. i. ii., is simply 
 an error; in which, however, Augustine, 
 ep. 19 ad Hieron., had preceded them.— 
 Whether, moreover, Peter then visited the 
 church at Antioch for the first time (Thiersch, 
 Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 432) must be left 
 undecided ; but looking at the length of 
 time during which this church had already 
 existed, it is not at all probable that it was 
 his first visit. 
 4 Ap. Huseb. i. 12. 
 
76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 not the apostle, who certainly in this case is far from corresponding to his 
 destination as ‘‘ the rock ” of the church, but a certain Cephas, one of the 
 seventy disciples, has been already refuted by Jerome, and also by Gregory, 
 Hom. 18 in Hz. — kata rpdowrov| To his face Lopposed him. See Actsiii. 18 ; 
 often in Polybius.’ The opinion of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 several Fathers, that the contention here related was nothing more than a 
 contention in semblance (kata mpécwrov = secundum speciem ! ‘‘ in appear- 
 ances”’), is only remarkable as a matter of history.* — 67 kateyvwopévoc qv] not 
 ‘quia reprehensibilis or reprehendendus erat,” ‘‘ because he was blameworthy or 
 to be blamed ;”* for the Greek participle is never used, like the Hebrew, for 
 the verbal adjective,‘ neither in Jude 12, Rev. xxi. 8, nor in Hom. JJ, i. 
 388, xiv. 196, xvili. 427 ; and what a feeble, unnecessary reason to assign 
 would be 6rz kateyvwopuévoc 7v in this sense ! Moreover, xatayeyveokew tiva,° 
 so far as its significations are relevant here, does not mean reprehendere, ‘‘ to 
 blame,” at all, but either to accuse, which here would not go far enough, or 
 condemnare, ‘to condemn.” Hence also it is not : guia reprehensus or accusatus 
 erat, ‘‘ because he was blamed or accused,’’’ but : guia condemnatus erat, 
 ‘¢ because he was condemned,” whereby the notorious certainty of the offence oc- 
 casioned is indicated, and the stringent ground for Paul’s coming forward 
 against him is made evident. Peter, through his offensive behavior, had 
 become the object of condemnation on the part of the Christians of Antioch ; 
 the public judgment had turned against him ; and so Paul could not keep 
 silence, but was compelled to do what he certainly did with reluctance. 
 The passive participle has not a vis reciproca, ‘‘reciprocal force ;”* the condem- 
 nation of Peter was the act of the Christian publicin Antioch. The idea “‘ con- 
 victed before God” (Ewald) would have been eapressed, if it had been so 
 meant. If the condemnation is understood as having ensued through his own 
 mode of action,® the question as to the persons from whom the condemnation 
 proceeds is left unanswered. [See Note XXXVII., p. 97.] 
 
 Ver. 12 ff. Paul now relates the particulars of the occurrence. —aré 
 "Tax&Bov| sent by James. It belongs to éadeiv.° Why they—and, to judge from 
 
 1Comp. «ar ofdadpovs, Herod. i. 120; Apol. adv. Rufin. iii. 1. See Mohler, gesam- 
 
 Xen. Hievo, 1, 14: Gal. iii. 1; and car’ oupa, 
 Eur. 2hes. 421, Bacch. 469. Not coram omni- 
 bus, ‘before all’? (Erasmus, Beza, Vata- 
 blus), which is not expressed until ver. 14. 
 2 A contest arose on this point between 
 Jerome and Augustine. The former char- 
 acterized the reprehensio in our passage as 
 dispensatoria, so contrived by Peter and 
 Paul, in order to convince the Jewish Chris- 
 tians of the invalidity of the law, when they 
 should see that Peter had the worst of it 
 against Paul. Augustine, on the contrary, 
 asserted the correct sense, and maintained 
 that the interpretation of Jerome intro- 
 duced untruth into the Scriptures. See 
 Jerome, Hp. 86-97; Augustine, Hp. 8-19. 
 Subsequently Jerome gaye up his view 
 and adopted the right one. ¢. Pelag. i. 83 
 
 melte Schriften, I. p. 1 ff. 
 
 3 Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Corne- 
 lius X Lapide, Elsner, Wolf, and others ; 
 also Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Matthies. 
 
 4 Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 791 ; Ewald, p. 588. 
 
 5 Not to be confounded with xaray. tevos 
 qt, aS is done by Matthias. 
 
 6 Comp. 1 John iii. 20, 21; Ecclus. xiv. 2, 
 > ab. i) 
 
 7 Ambrose, Luther, Estius, and others ; 
 also Winer, Schott, de Wette. 
 
 8 Bengel, comp. Riickert, ‘‘ because he 
 had an evil conscience.” 
 
 9 Bengel, Lechler, p. 423 ; comp. Windisch- 
 mann and Hofmann. 
 
 10 Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 309 B, am’ éxetvov 
 épxouar: Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark y. 35 ; 1 Thess. 
 iii. 6. 
 
CHAPS 14 ,~ 12% care 
 
 the impression made upon Peter, they were certainly men of importance, 
 strict in their Jewish-Christian observances—were sent to Antioch by James, 
 we know not, any more than why Peter journeyed thither.’ But the con- 
 jecture that they belonged to the wevdadeAgo of ver. 4 (Winer, Schott), con- 
 flicts directly with the fact, that they were sent by James: for at the 
 apostolic conference the latter had nowise made common cause with the 
 wevdddergoe ; and therefore in sending any ef them to Antioch he would have 
 acted very unwisely, or would, with reactionary intent, * have simply supplied 
 new fuel to the scarcely settled controversy. Others,’ connecting the 
 words with rivdc, understand adherents ef James,‘ or, as Winer (comp. Wolf) 
 says, ‘‘ qui Jacobi auctoritate sive jure seu secus utebantur,” ‘‘ who availed 
 themselves of the authority of James either justly or otherwise ;” but this 
 brings upon James the designation of a party-chief (some Jacobites !), which 
 would be neither necessarily nor wisely introduced here, even supposing 
 Winer’s modification to be mentally supplied. Lastly, the explanation of 
 Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius (following Chrysostom), that 
 ard "laxo3ov means nothing more than from Jerusalem, because James was 
 the president of the church there,* is an unauthorized setting aside of the 
 person, who is named expressly and not without due reason. — pera tov 
 évav cuvfobiev| he joined in meals with the Gentile Christians.’ Notice the 
 imperfect. 
 ical defilement (Acts xi. 3) ; but Peter, who previously by special revelation 
 (Acts x. f.), had been instructed as to the invalidity of this separation in 
 Christianity, had in the apostolic conference defended Christian freedom 
 (Acts xv. 7 ff.), and taken part in passing the decrce that, as regards food, 
 the Gentile brethren should only have to abstain from meat offered to idols, 
 things strangled, and blood (Acts xv. 29). This decree was received and 
 
 The Jew might not eat with Gentiles without incurring Levit- 
 
 1 The book of Acts is silent both on this 
 point and also as to the whole scene be- 
 tween Peter and Paul,—a silence indeed, 
 which, according to Baur and Zeller, is 
 supposed to be maintained intentionally, 
 and in consistency with the false represen- 
 tation of the transactions in Jerusalem. 
 According to Ritschl (alikath. Kirche, p. 
 145), they were deputed by James to bring 
 the relation between the Jewish and Gen- 
 tile Christians back to the rule of the apos- 
 tolic decree, as James understood it, that 
 is, according to Ritschl, in the sense of a 
 retractation of the Jewish-Christian defec- 
 tion from the law, and on behalf of restor- 
 ing the separation between the two parties 
 as respected their customs of eating. This 
 assumed task of the tvés is neither in any 
 way intimated in the text, nor is therea 
 trace of it in Acts (comp., on the contrary, 
 xy. 30 ff.). Just as little can it be proved 
 that, as Ewald thinks, a decree had been 
 passed in the church at Jerusalem that the 
 Jewish Christian should refrain from eat- 
 
 ingin company with Gentile Christians (be- 
 cause he did not know whether blood or 
 something strangled might be among their 
 food), and that those t.vés had come to 
 Antioch to make known this new decree. 
 Hilgenfeld also assumes that those sent by 
 James had some charge relating to with- 
 drawal from the Gentile Christians. Comp. 
 Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 357, in 
 whose opinion they were sent after Peter, 
 because his intercourse with the Gentiles 
 had been notified at Jerusalem. 
 
 2So de Wette, whereby, however, the 
 character of James is placed in a very 
 awkward position, which is not to be sup- 
 ported by Acts xxi. 18. 
 
 3As Studer, Usteri, Zeller. So also 
 Voémel, Br. a. d. Gal. mit deutsch. Uebers. u. 
 krit. Anm., Frankf. 1865, p. 29. 
 
 4Comp. oi ard UAdtwvos and the like ; 
 Schaefer, Melet. p. 26 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 222. 
 
 6 Comp. Koppe. 
 
 6 Comp. on cvvecOierv in this sense, Plat. 
 Legg. ix. p. 881 D; Luke xy. 2; 1 Cor. v. 11. 
 
 ‘ 
 
78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 accepted with joy by the church at Antioch (Acts xv. 30 f.). It would 
 therefore have becn all-the easier for Peterin Antioch to follow his divinely 
 attained conviction,’ and to take part without hesitation in the more fa- 
 miliar intercourse of meals with the Gentile Christians there—free from any 
 scruple that he should defile himself by Gentile food, which no legal enact- 
 ments restricted except as to those three points. But to this free and cor- 
 rect standpoint the stricter Jewish Christians, who were still entangled in 
 the observances of the Levitical precepts as to purity (comp. Acts xxi. 
 20), had not been able to rise ; and to this class belonged the ruvéc¢ (ver. 12). 
 When, therefore, these men arrived from Jerusalem and from James, Peter 
 unhappily no longer continued his previous liberal-minded conduct in 
 Antioch, but drew back and separated himself from intercourse at meals 
 with the Gentile Christians, whereby he gave a practical denial to his better 
 conviction. How similar to his conduct in his former denial of the Lord ! 
 Calovius, however, justly, in conformity with the temperament of Peter, 
 remarks, ‘‘ wna haec fuit Petri actio non habitus,” ‘‘ this was a single action 
 of Peter and not a habit.” — doBoiuevog rove éx tepi7. |] By this are meant the 
 Jewish Christians generally, as a class, so far as they were represented hy 
 those rivéc, who belonged to the stricter school. Peter feared the Jewish- 
 Christians’ strictness, displeasure, disapprobation, etc. The explanatory 
 gloss of Chrysostom’ favors Peter, quite against the literal sense of the 
 words (Matt. x. 26, xiv. 5-; Mark ix. 18; Luke xii. 5; Acts v. 26; Rom. 
 xiii. 8). — Observe also, on the one hand, the graphic force of the imperfects 
 bréor. and agop., and, on the other hand, the expression of his own bad prec- 
 edent, éavrév, which belongs not merely to adép., but also to iréor. (Polyb. 
 vii. 17. 1, xi. 15. 2, i. 16. 10) ; he withdrew Aimself, etc., and thereby 
 induced his Jewish-Christian associates also to enter on a like course (ver. 
 13). It is not, according to the context, correct that these imperfects express 
 an enduring separation (Wieseler); the behavior begins when the riwvéc azo 
 "Taxi. have come ; it excites the unfavorable judgment of the church, and 
 Paul immediately places himself in decided opposition to Peter. The im- 
 perfects are therefore the usual adumbrativa, ‘‘ adumbrative ;” they place the . 
 withdrawal and separation of Peter, as it were, before the eyes of the readers. 
 On the other hand, the cvvurexpi@. which follows is the wider action which 
 took place and served further to challenge Paul ; hence the aorist. 
 
 Ver. 13. And the rest of the Jewish Christians also played the hypocrite 
 jointly with him—those, namely, living in Antioch, who previously, in har- 
 mony with the liberal standpoint which they had already attained to, had 
 held fellowship at meals with the Gentile Christians of the place, but now, 
 misled by the influential example of Peter, had likewise drawn back. This 
 
 1That the Christian fellowship in meals 
 included also the joint observance of the 
 _ agapae (which Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, and 
 others take to be meant), is obvious. It is 
 not, however, expressly denoted by cuvyc- 
 Over. , 
 
 2 ob rodTo PoBovmevos mH KivduvEevon, aAd’ iva 
 
 BH arootacw, ‘not apprehending that he 
 was incurring danger, but that they might 
 apostatize,” comp. Theophylact, “) cxavde- 
 AOEvTES AmoTKIpTHTwoL THs mlaTews, “lest 
 being offended they might depart from the 
 faith,’ which is followed by Piscator, Gro- 
 tius, Estius, and others. 
 
CHAPS Ths: , 79 
 
 was hypocrisy on their part and on Peter's, because, although at the bottom 
 of their hearts convinced of Christian freedom, they, from fear of men (ver. 
 12), concealed the more liberal conviction of which they were conscious, 
 and behaved just as if they entertained the opposite view. It is true that 
 the apostolic council had not decided anything as to the conduct of the 
 Jewish Christians among Gentile Christians ; but the immorality consisted 
 in the inwardly untrue duplicity of their behavior, which was more than a 
 mere inconsistency (Baur) of reformed Judaism, conceived by Paul as being 
 hypocrisy (Hilgenfeld).*— kai BapvaZ.] even Barnabas, who was my associate 
 withal in the apostleship to the Gentiles (ver. 9), and should consequently 
 least of all have ventured insincerely to deny the principle of Christian 
 freedom, to the disparagement of the Gentile Christians !_ So injurious was 
 the effect of Peter’s example !— cvvariyn| was jointly led away (led astray), 
 namely, from his own standpoint.* ore with a finite verb, in the secondary 
 sentence (comp. John iii. 16), denotes the consequence simply as a fact 
 which has occurred.* The infinitive would make the representation subjective 
 (the seduction being conceived as a necessary result). —airov| that is, adrov 
 Kal Tov Aowrov"Iovd. Itis emphatically prefixed. The dative is instrumental : 
 by their hypocrisy, not to their hypocrisy (Luther and others). No one can, 
 without wronging Paul in respect to the choice of his strongly inculpating 
 expression,‘ either call in question the fact that the conduct of Peter is here 
 expressly designated as hypocrisy,? or reduce it to a mere sapposition ; 
 although Ritschl, p. 145, is of opinion that the reproach thus used does not 
 quite evince a clear and thorough conviction of the rightness of the non- 
 Jewish practice. The purposely chosen expression in our passage shows, on 
 the contrary, that Peter's conviction, which was well known to Paul, agreed 
 with the conviction of Paul himself, although it was hypocritically denied 
 by the former. Peter’s ixdxpioic, according to the text, consisted in the 
 ‘Tovdaitew, to which he had drawn back after his intercourse with the Gen- 
 tile Christians, not in his previous fellowship with them, which is alleged 
 to have been ‘‘a momentary unfaithfulness to his real conviction.”° And 
 the censure which Paul—certainly unwillingly, and with a complete real- 
 izing and appreciating of the moral situation to which it has reference— 
 has directed against Peter expressly on the ground of hypocrisy,” exhibits 
 
 1The view of Holsten, z. Hv. des Paul. u. 
 Petr. p. 357 ff., is similar. — On cvvvuzexpié., 
 comp. Polyb. iii. 92. 5, v. 49. 7; Plut. Mar. 
 14.17; Joseph. Bell. xy. 7. 5. 
 
 2Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17, Rom. xii. 16, and 
 Wetstein in loc. 
 
 3 See Tittmann, Synon. II. p. 70; Ellendt, 
 Lex. Soph. WI. p. 1012 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 772. 
 
 4 This expression is all the more strictly 
 to be understood as it stands, since Paul 
 has not anywhere else in his epistles or 
 speeches used either the word vroxpivec@at, 
 or Uroxpitys, or (with the exception of 1 Tim. 
 iv. 2) umoxpiots. He would be the less 
 likely to have omitted to weigh the gravity 
 
 of the reproach conveyed in this very word 
 otherwise strange to him, especially seeing 
 that it was used after so dong a time and 
 was directed against Peter. This remark 
 also applies in opposition to Schneckenbur- 
 ger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 554 f., and 
 to Moller on de Wette. 
 
 5 Schwegler, I. p. 129. 
 
 6 Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 476 ; 
 Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld. 
 
 7Not merely (comp. de Wette) on ac- 
 count of an easily excusable want of firm- 
 ness and clearness in conviction (Bisping), 
 or of amomentary throwing of the same 
 into the background under pressure of cir- 
 cumstances (Reithmayr). Even Erasmus ex- 
 
 2 
 
80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 plainly the agreement in principle of the personal convictions of the two 
 apostles.” 
 
 Ver. 14. "Ore ovK dpborodovar] opAorodeiv,? not preserved elsewhere in Bib- 
 lical language, undoubtedly means to be straight-footed, that is, to walk 
 with straight feet.* Were used in a figurative sense—as words expressive of 
 walking are favorites with Paul in representing ethical ideas*—equivalent 
 to acting rightly (with straightness), conducting oneself properly.° It is the 
 moral épétne mpazewc,® the opposite of the moral cxodiév," otpeBadv,® yoadr.® 
 According to the leaning of Greek authors towards the direct mode of ex- 
 pression, the present is quite regular.’ — rpoc tHv aAgé. tov ebayyéA.] mpédc is 
 understood as secundum, ‘‘ according to,” by most expositors ;” by others in 
 the sense of direction towards the mark,** which would mean, ‘‘ so as to main- 
 tain and promete the truth of the gospel.” The former interpretation is to be 
 preferred, because it is the more simple and the first to suggest itself, and 
 it yields a very suitable sense. Hence : corresponding to the truth, which is 
 the contents of the gospel (ver. 5). Certainly Paul never in verbs of walk- 
 ing expresses the rule prepositionally by zpéc, but by cara ;* but in this 
 passage mpoc x.7.4. isthe epexegesis of dpfac, according to its ethical idea. — 
 éurpoobey ravtwv| consequently, not merely between themselves, but im the 
 sight of the whole church, although not assembled expressly for this purpose ;° 
 Tove auaptavovtac EvOTLOVY TaVTwY E~Eheyye, iva Kal ol Aowrol GbBov Eywor, 
 1 Tim. v. 20. ‘‘ Non enim utile erat errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto 
 emendare,” ‘‘it was not advantageous to correct in secret an error which 
 injured openly,” Augustine. — ei od 'Iovdaiog imdpyuv x.t.A.] that is, ‘Tf 
 thou, although a born Jew, orderest thy mode of living in conformity with 
 that of the born Gentiles, ywpi¢ Iovdarkie tapatnphoewc, ‘different from the 
 Jewish observance’ (Chrysostom), and not with that of the born Jews—a 
 course of conduct, which thou hast just practically exemplified by eating in 
 company with Gentile Christians—how comes it to pass that thou (by the ex- 
 ample of the wholly opposite conduct which thou hast now adopted since 
 the arrival of those rvvéc) urgest the born Gentiles to adopt the custom of 
 the born Jews 2?” What a contradiction of conduct is it, thus in one breath 
 to live é@v:xo¢ and to urge the é@vy to the ’Iovdaitey |! The present Cie denotes 
 
 dpOoarateivy. The dp0orod@y is not lame 
 (xwaAever), but makes tpoxtds opbas Tots moatv, 
 Heb. xii. 13. 
 
 erts himself to come at length to the result, 
 that ‘“‘ Pauli objurgatio nihil aliud fuit quam 
 confirmatio parum adhuc sibi constantium,” 
 
 ‘*Paul’s reproof was nothing but an asser- 
 tion of the inconsistencies.” 
 
 1 Comp. Wiesinger, de consensu locor. Gal. 
 li. ef Act. xv. p. 86; Lechler, p. 426. 
 
 2 Comp. opOoBatetv, Anthol. ix. 11. 4. 
 
 3 Comp. op@dmovs, Soph. Ant. 985; Nicand. 
 Alexiph. 419, op@d7o0Ses Batvortes. 
 
 4 Comp. mepuratety, otorxyetv K.T.A. 
 
 5 bpOompayeiv, Aristot. Pol. i. 5. 8. Vul- 
 gate, ‘‘recte ambularent.” Hofmann, “to 
 stand with straight foot.” But comp. oéumo- 
 Setv, dkumodecv, to be swift-footed, that. is, 
 swift in running. The standing would prob- 
 ably have been expressed, as perhaps by 
 
 6 Plat. Men. p. 97 B. 
 
 7 Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A. 
 
 8 Eeclus. xxxvi. 25. 
 
 ® Heb. xii. 13. 
 
 10 See Kiihner, § 846. 
 
 112 Cor. y. 10; Luke xii. 47; Bernhardy, 
 p. 265. 
 
 12 Including Winer, Riickert, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Wieseler. 
 
 13 Flacius, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Morus, 
 Hofmann. 
 
 14 Rom. viii. 4, xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 3, e¢ al. 
 
 16 Thiersch. 
 
CHAP. 1. : 1 81 
 
 that which was constant, accordant with principle, in Peter’s case.! This is 
 laid down by Paul, with the argumentative «i, as certain and settled, and 
 that not merely by inference from his recent experience of Peter having eat- 
 en in company with Gentiles, but also on the ground of his knowledge 
 otherwise of this apostle and of his practical principles on this point, with 
 which the é@vxae¢ (jv just before actually carried out by Peter was in accord- 
 ance. Groundlessly and erroneously Riickert labors? to extract an en- 
 tirely different meaning, understanding “Iovdaixae ye in an ideal sense (Rom. 
 li. 28 f.; John i. 48), and é@vxd¢ Ce as its Opposite : ‘‘ By thy present con- 
 duct thou showest thyself truly not as a genuine Jew, but as a Gentile 
 (sinner) ; how art thou at liberty to ask that the Gentiles should adopt 
 Jewish customs, which by thy behavior thou thyself dost not honor ?” 
 But, in fact, the reader could only take the explanation of the é@wkéd¢ Cae 
 from pera tov évdv ovvgctiev (ver. 12), and of the Iovaixéc Cyc from iré- 
 oredde . . . mepitoume (ver. 12). No one could light upon the alleged ideal 
 view (reverting, in the apodosis, to the empirical !), the more especially as 
 the breaking off from eating with the Gentiles would have to be regarded as 
 a Gentile habit (in an ethical sense) ! The {7 is not the moral living accord- 
 ing to the Gentile or the Jewish fashion, but the shaping of the life with 
 reference to the category of external social observances within the Christian com- 
 munion, such as, in the individual case in question, the following (Iovdaixéc) 
 or non-following (é#v:xéc) of the Jewish restrictions as to eating. — rac] 
 qui fit, ut, “how does it happen that” (Rom. iii. 6, vi. 2, x. 14, and fre- 
 quently), indicating the incomprehensibleness of this morally contradictory 
 behavior. — 74 267 avayxaerc “Tovdaifev| indirect compulsion. For the Gen- 
 tile Christians in Antioch must very naturally have felt themselves con- 
 strained by the imposing example of the highly-esteemed Peter to look upon 
 the Jewish habit of living—the observance of the special peculiarities of 
 the outward legal Judaism *—as something belonging to Christianity, and 
 necessary for partaking in Christian fellowship and for attaining the Mes- 
 sianic salvation ; and they would shape their conduct in practice in accord- 
 ance with this view.’ De Wette® assumes, that the emissaries of James 
 preached the principle of the necessity of observing the law, and that Peter 
 gave his support, at least tacitly, to this preaching. This is not at all inti- 
 mated in the text, and is not rendered necessary by the literal sense of 
 avaykagerv, which is sufficiently explained by the moral constraint of the in- 
 ducement of so influential an example, as it is often used in classical au- 
 thors, ‘‘de varia necessitate quam praesens rerum conditio efficit,” ‘‘of 
 the various necessity which the present condition of affairs effects.”° The 
 
 
 
 1 Contrary to the view of Hilgenfeld and Ignat. ad Magnes. 10, acomov éotty Xprotov 
 
 others. *Inooby Aadery Kai “lovdaigery, ‘It is absurd 
 2 Since it does not run: ézerdy . . . e¢naas. to profess Christ Jesus and yet to Juda- 
 3 The “Iovéaigeey: comp. Esth. viii. 17; ize.” 
 
 Plut. Cic.7. Where a freedmanis spoken of, 4 Comp. Usteri, p. 66 f, 
 
 Who was évoxos 7 lovdwigerv, ‘‘ chargeable 5 Comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198 f., 
 
 with Judaizing,” and in reference to whom Komment. p. 168. 
 
 Cicero says: ti’ Iovdatw mpos xotpov, “ What 6 Sturz, Lew. Xen. I. 18. 6. 
 
 has a Jew to do with swine ;’’ comp. also 
 
 6 
 
82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 view which understands the word here not at all of indirect constraint, but 
 of definite demands,’ by which Peter sought to turn them back into the 
 path of Jewish Christianity, is opposed to the divine instruction imparted 
 to this apostle, to his utterances at the council, and to our context, accord- 
 ing to which the avayxafeww can have consisted in nothing more than the oi« 
 épHorodetv as it is represented in ver. 12 f., and consequently must have been 
 merely a practical, indirect compulsion, not conveyed in any express de- 
 mands. Wieseler obscures the intelligibility of the whole passage by un- 
 derstanding the Iovdaifecv of the observance of the restrictions as to food en- 
 acted by the apostolic council. In decisive opposition to this view it may be 
 urged, that in the whole context this council is left entirely unmentioned ; 
 further, that these restrictions as to food had nothing to do with the Jew- 
 ish proselytes (on whose account, possibly, their observance might have 
 been called an Iovdaiterv) ; lastly, that the compliance with the same on the 
 part of the church at Antioch, especially so soon after the council (see on 
 ver. 11), cannot, according to Acts xv. 30, at all be a matter of doubt. 
 Moreover, Paul, who had himself together with Peter so essentially co-op- 
 erated towards this decree of the council, have—in the presence of Peter, 
 of the Christians of Antioch, and even of those who were sent by James— 
 characterized the obedience given to the restrictions in question by the in- 
 applicable and ill-sounding name ’Iovdaifew ? It would have shown at least 
 great want of tact. 
 
 Ver. 15. A continuation of the address to Peter down to ver, 21.* Others 
 have looked upon vv. 15-21 as addressed to the Galatians ;° but to this view 
 it may be objected, that Paul himself does not indicate the return to his 
 readers until iii. 1, and that the bare, brief reproach in ver. 14 would 
 neither correspond to the historical character of so important an event, 
 nor stand in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it (see 
 on ver. 11) ; as indeed he himself has in vv. 11 and 14 so earnestly pre- 
 pared the way for, and announced, his opposition, that the reader could 
 not but expect something more than that mere question—so hurriedly thrown 
 ‘out—of indignant surprise.* And how could he have written to his (for the 
 
 1 Ritschl, p. 146. 
 
 2So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, 
 Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Tittmann, 
 (Opuse. p. 865), Knapp (Ser. var. arg. IL. 
 p. 452 f.), Flatt, Winer, Riickert, Schott, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette and Moller, 
 Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten. 
 
 3 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, 
 
 Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, 
 Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler, 
 Reithmayr. 
 
 4Indeed the practical renwnciation (not 
 mere denial) of the principle of Christian 
 freedom required a renewed apology for, 
 and vindication of, the latter ; especially as 
 Paul had called Peter to account before the 
 assembled church, whereby the act assumed 
 a solemnity to which the brief question in 
 
 ver. 14 alone could in no way seem ade- 
 quate, and least of all could it suffice to 
 procure a duly proportionate satisfaction 
 for the offence given to the church (ver. 11). 
 He does not, however, ‘‘demonstrate’’ his 
 explanation to Peter (Wieseler’s difficulty), 
 but presents it in the most vivid and strik- 
 ing dialectic, compressing everything which 
 would have afforded matter for a very co- 
 pious demonstration sharply and sternly, 
 towards the defeat of the great opponent 
 who had been unfaithful to himself. Hof- 
 mann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul 
 after the concession é@vikas ¢7js K. ovK “Iov- 
 Saikws had thus explained himself in a-de- 
 tailed statement to Peter, he would have 
 acted absurdly. It would have been absurd, 
 if Paul, in order to say the two or-three 
 
CHAP. II., 15. 83 
 
 most part) Gentile-Christian readers ijueic¢ gbcec ’Tovdaior k.7.2., without telling 
 them whom he meant thereby ? Just as little can we assume that Paul again 
 turns to the Galatians with kai jueic in ver. 16,’ or in ver. 17,” or in ver. 18 ;3 
 or that he* has been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical 
 statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs to the speech 
 at Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse (vv. 15-21)—thoroughly un- 
 folding the truth from principles, and yet so vivid, and in fact annihilating 
 his opponent—harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step 
 against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in view in relat- 
 ing this occurrence to the Galatians especially, among whom indeed these 
 very principles, against which Peter offended, were in great danger, that, up 
 to its tragic conclusion dpa Xprorb¢ dwpedv axévavev (ver. 21), it must be re- 
 garded as a unity—as the effusion directed against Peter at Antioch ; but, 
 at the same time, it cannot be maintained that Paul spoke the words quite 
 literally thus, as he here, after so long a lapse of time, quotes from lively 
 recollection of the scene which he could not forget. — jjueic gicer Tovdaior, cai 
 ovk && é9vav auapr.] Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to the 
 reproach expressed in ver. 14 with a concession : ‘‘ We are Jews by birth (in 
 this Paul feels the whole advantage of belonging to the ancient holy people 
 of God, Rom. iii. 1 f., ix. 1 ff.), and not sinners of the Gentiles” (by Gentile 
 descent). Gentiles as such, because they are dvowoe and dve_eo. (Rom. ii. 12 ; 
 1 Cor. ix. 21; Eph. ii. 12), are to the Israelite consciousness duaptw2oi and 
 adixoc (1 Sam. xv. 18; Tob. xiii. 6; Wisd. x. 20: comp. Luke xviii. 32, 
 xxiv. 7; 1 Cor. vi. 1); and from ¢his—the theocratical—point of view Paul 
 says é é3vév duaptwdoi, born Gentiles, and as such sinners, as all Gentiles are. 
 Not as if he would look upon the ’Iovdaiove as not sinners ; according to the 
 sequel, indeed, they needed justification equally with the Gentiles (see Rom. 
 il. 3, 22 f., v.12; Eph. ii. 2f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews—as 
 the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient theocratic viod- 
 ecia ‘‘ adoption,” and the promises (Rom. ix. 4), and as belonging to the holy 
 azapyxh, ‘first fruits,” and root-stock of the theocracy (Rom. xi. 16)—possessed 
 as their own a religious consecration of life, whereby they stood on a cer- 
 tain stage of righteousness in virtue of which, although it was not that of 
 the true dixacoctvy, they were nevertheless exalted far above the Gentiles in 
 their natural state of sinfulness (Eph. ii. 12 ; Tit. iii. 5). Luther well says: 
 ‘**Nos natura Judaei in /egali justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui pecca- 
 tores sunt, sinobis conferantur, ut qui nec legum nec opera ejus habent ; verum 
 non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, evterna est illa justitia nostra,” ‘‘ We who 
 are by nature Jews in legal righteousness exceed the Gentiles, who are sin- 
 ners, if they be compared with us, as they have neither the law nor its 
 works ; but in this we are not righteous before God ; such righteousness of 
 ours is external.” If duaprwAot had not been unduly understood according to 
 the purely ethical idea (the opposite of sinlessness), the discourse wouid not 
 
 
 
 words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had 2 Luther, Calvin. 
 brought the whole act of the cara mpoowrov 3 Cajetanus, Neander. 
 avte avréatyy before the assembled church. 4 Erasmus and Estius by way of sugges- 
 
 1 Calovius, Paulus. tion, Usteri. 
 
84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 have been so broken up as by Elsner, Er. Schmidt, and others : ‘‘ Nos na- 
 tura Judaci, licet non ex gentibus, peccatores,” ‘‘ We, by nature Jews, although 
 not of the Gentiles, are sinners;” comp. Paulus. Hofmann’s view is also simi- 
 lar : ‘‘that the apostle excluded from himself that sinfulness only, which 
 was implied in Gentile descent—characteristic of those not belonging natu- 
 rally to the Jewish nationality.” ’ Paul wishes, not to affirm the different 
 nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles respectively, but 
 to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews over the sinners of Gentile 
 descent ; in spite of which advantage, however, etc. (ver. 16). The con- 
 trast lies in the idea of a theocratic sanctitas, ‘‘ holiness,” peculiar to the born 
 Jew, onthe one hand ;? and on the other, of a profane vitiositas, ‘‘ viciousness, ” 
 wherewith the Gentile descent is burdened. [See Note XXXYIIL., p. 97. ]— 
 has the emphasis: We on our part (I and thou). yév is not to be supplied jjueic] 
 here (Riickert, Schott); but the concession in ver. 15 stands by itself, and the 
 contrast is added without preparation in ver. 16.° The contrast thus strikes 
 one more vividly, and hence the absence of the uév can afford no ground for 
 calling in question (with Hofmann) the sense of a concession.* On the dif- 
 ference between ’Iovdaio: (theocratic bond of union) and ‘ESpaio. (national- 
 ity), see Wieseler.° 
 
 Ver. 16 is usually construed so that eidére¢ . . . Xprorod is a parenthesis ; 
 and either the sentence is made to begin with jueic in ver. 15, and this jueic 
 is again taken up by the subsequent kai jucic,® or swmus is supplied after 
 duaprwdot, a new sentence is commenced by eidérec, and kai jueic x.7.A. 1s taken 
 as apodosis.7. Both forms of construction would give eidére¢ . . . 
 as the motive for the éxiorevoapmer. 
 
 Xptorov 
 But in this way the statement, how Paul 
 and Peter (for these are the subject ; see on ver. 15) attained to faith, would 
 not tally with history, for the conversion of these two apostles did not at 
 all take place by means of logical process in the argumentative way of «dé- 
 rec. . . éxcoretoauev. Both of them were in fact miraeulously and suddenly 
 laid hold of by Christ ; and thereby, on their becoming believers, the light 
 of the statement of purpose in the sequel dawned upon them. We must 
 therefore consider gs correct the punctuation of Lachmann, * who is followed 
 by Wieseler : a comma only before eidérec, and a period after Xpioroi, ‘* We 
 are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however” (eidérec still 
 belonging to the écvév, which has to be supplied), that is, since we never- 
 theless know, that a man is not justified, ete.; so that what thou, Peter, 
 
 1 Comp. his Schriftbew. I.-p. 564, 610, ‘‘ Our 
 sinfulness does not bear the characteristic 
 Gentile shape.” 
 
 2 Calvin appropriately says : “* Quia autem 
 promissis haereditariam benedictionem fa- 
 ciebat, ideo naturale voeatur hoe bonum,”’ 
 ‘* But since the promise made the blessing 
 hereditary, this advantage is on this ac- 
 count called natural.” 
 
 3 Comp. Fritzsche, a@ Rom. II. p. 423; 
 
 3remi, ad Isocr. Paneg. 105, ‘‘ quando altera 
 pars per é¢ sit evehenda,” ‘‘since the other 
 part is to be inferred by means of the ée.”” 
 
 4 Comp. also Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 
 15: 
 5 Ueber d. Hebrderbrief, 1861, II. p. 28. 
 ® So Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, 
 Reithmayr. 
 
 7 Beza and others; also Riickert, Usteri, 
 Schott, Fritzsche, d. conform. N. T. Lachm. 
 p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Mat- 
 thias, Moller. 
 
 8 In the small edition ; in the larger one 
 the usual punctuation is followed. 
 
‘ 
 
 CHAP. I, 11/6: 85 
 
 doest (ver. 15), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have not- 
 withstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence. [See Note XXXIX., p. 97.]—oi 
 dixavodrat dv poroc] The emphatically prefixed dccaioira: is negatived : a man 
 is not justified. As to the idea of dicacovota, see on Rom. i. 17. Here also 
 it appears clearly as an actus forensis, and as incompatible with the perversion 
 of the idea by the Catholics and the followers of Osiander.1_ From works of the 
 law, which would be the determining ground of God’s acquittal ; by means of 
 faith, which is imputed by God as righteousness (Rom. v. 5, 24 f.),—these 
 are the contrasted points, while the idea of dixavovadac is the same.* — i= Epyov 
 vouov| vduov is not subjective (works, which the law by its precepts call forth), 
 but objective: works, which relate to the law, that is, works by which the pre- 
 cepts of the law are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the duaprjuara vouov, 
 Wisd. ii. 12.° Our passage testifies also in favor of this view by the contrast 
 of rictewe "Iycov Xpicrov, inasmuch as the one relation (épywy) to the one ob- 
 ject (véuov) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation (x/écrewe) 
 to the other object (Ijcot Xpicrov). Schott, following the older expositors,* 
 quite erroneously limits véuo¢g to the ceremonial law,—a limitation which 
 never occurs in the N. T.° and, especially where justification is the matter 
 in question, would be quite unsuitable ; for the impossibility of justification 
 by the law has reference to the whole law, viewed in its requirements jointly 
 and severally, which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man 
 can fulfil. ° — édv x4] not a compromise between justification by works and jus- 
 tification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness,’ but a transition to 
 another mode of conception : A man is not justified by the works of the 
 law ; he is not justified, except by, etc.* Consequently we have here neither 
 justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the Catholic 
 view), nor Ohrist’s fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended by faith.” 
 The former is not Pauline,” and the latter has only its indirect truth (for the 
 N. T. nowhere teaches the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law), in 
 so far as the atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the 
 specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily presupposes 
 His active, sinless obedience (2 Cor. v. 21), of which, however, nothing is 
 here said. [See Note XL., p. 97.] But here in av uf we have the ‘‘ sola fide” 
 of Luther and his Church."! It is only the man justified solely by faith, who 
 thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the requirements of the law.’” This 
 
 1 See especially Wieseler in loc. 
 
 2 Comp. on Rom. iii. 25 f. 
 
 3 See on Rom. ii. 15. 
 
 « Including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus. 
 
 5 Although, according to the context, at 
 one time the ethical, and at another the 
 ritual, aspect of the law preponderates. 
 Comp. on Rom. iii. 20, and Schmid, didi. 
 Theol. Tl. p. 336. 
 
 ® Comp. iii. 10; Weiss, bib/. Theol. p. 259. 
 
 7 Holsten, in spite of the apodosis. 
 
 ® Comp. Hymn. Cer. V7 f., ov8€é tus GAAos 
 aittos aOavdtwv, ci py veheAnyepéta Zev's, 
 “nor is there any other cause of immortals 
 except (e¢ »7) the cloud-gatherer Zeus.” 
 
 ®So also Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 18 f. 
 
 10 See the constantly repeated attacks on 
 the part of the Catholics against the evan- 
 gelical doctrine of justification by faith, in 
 Mohler, Symbol. p. 182, ed. 4; Reithmayr, 
 p. 179 ff. More unprejudiced is Dollinger, 
 Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and else- 
 where. On the other hand, Romang (in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made too much 
 concession to the Catholic justification by 
 works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erro- 
 neously assumed a gradual progress of 
 justification. 
 
 11 Comp. on Rom. iii. 28. 
 
 12 See on Rom. viii. 4. 
 
86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption. — Inaov 
 Xporov] object : on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mark xi. 22.'—é& and 64 denote 
 the same idea (of causality) under two forms (that of origin and that of me- 
 diate agency), as Paul in general is fond of varying his prepositions.? In 
 dua * faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justification—the pres- 
 ence of which is the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the 
 man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately into the state of justi +a- 
 tion ; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing 
 to do with this relation, any more than é& postpones the being righteous, as 
 the result of action, until the very end of life, whereas it may be conceived 
 at any moment of life, asa result for the time being. — «ai jueic] begins a 
 new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a 
 point on which both were convinced,—érz ov dixacovtar dvi pwrog && épywv 
 vouov, éav wy dia wior. "I. X.,—he now confirms by reminding him of the 
 righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become believers 
 (éxcotetoapuev); So that kat ijueic, even we both, supplies the special applica- 
 tior of the foregoing general dvSpwroc. The order Xpratdv ’Iycovr lays 
 a greater stress on the Messianic character of the historical person who is the 
 obj ct of faith, than is the case in the usual order.*— érv é& épywv véuov ob 
 Sixaolioerar aoa cdpé]® These words, é& épywv véuov, take up again what 
 had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory 67, 
 since indeed. Tlaca odpé conveys the idea of ‘‘ all men” (comp. above, évdpu- 
 roc), with the accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which 
 is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility by means of 
 works in the sight of the justifying God.* Looking at the difference in the 
 terms used and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to be 
 assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof (from Ps. exliii. 
 2), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language 
 may have occurred, while the idea was more precisely defined. The negation 
 is here also not to be separated from the verb ; for it is not taca odpf which 
 is negatived, but dicawSfoera in reference to raca caps. Fritzsche" aptly 
 says : ‘‘non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis,” 
 ‘¢ whatever is of the flesh will not be approved by means of the obedience 
 rendered the law.” Lastly, the futwre denotes that which never will occur. 
 The reference to the judgment (Rom. v. 19), which is discovered here by 
 Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place.® 
 
 Ver. 17. The 6é dialectically carries on the refutation of Peter ; but the 
 protasis beginning with ei cannot have its apodosis in ebpédjyev k. a. dy. 3° On 
 
 1 See on Rom. iii. 22, and Lipsius, Recht- ® Hofmann, who explains it, as if Paul 
 Jertigungsl. p. 112. had written et 5é é¢n7ovmer (if we, When we 
 2 See on Rom. iii. 80; 2 Cor. ili. 11; Eph. i. 7. became believers, sought, etc.) dueamOjvar 
 3 Comp. iii. 26. év XpioTe, evpéOnuev x.7.A. (Wwe thereby ex- 
 4 Comp. ver. 4, ili. 26. hibit ourselves at the same time as sinners). 
 5 Comp. Rom. Iii. 20. According to Hofmann, the evpé6ymev is in- 
 ® Comp. on Acts ii. 17. tended to apply to both members of the 
 7 Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 26. sentence,—a forced, artificial view for 
 ® Comp. ver. 21. It is otherwise, v. 5; which the context affords neither right nor 
 
 2 Tim. ly. 8 reason. 
 
CHAPS Tiny Ais 87 
 
 the contrary, it runs on as far as dywaptwioi, which is then followed by the 
 interrogatory apodosis. Consequently : But if we (in order to show thee, 
 from what has been just said, how opposed to Christ thy conduct was), 
 although we sought to be justified in Christ, were found even on our part sinners. 
 This protasis supposes that which must have been the case, if Peter’s Juda- 
 izing conduct had been in the right ; namely, that the result would then 
 have been that faith does not lead to, or does not suffice for, justification, 
 Lut that it isrequisite to combine with it the observance of the Jewish law. 
 Tf faith does not render the ’Iovdaifecv superfluous, as was naturally to be 
 concluded from the course of conduct pursued by Peter, then this seeking 
 after justification in Christ has shown itself so ineffectual, that the believer 
 just stands on an equality with the Gentiles, because he has ceased to be a 
 Jew and yet has not attained to righteousness in Christ : he is therefore 
 now nothing else than an ayaptwidc, just as the Gentile is.. But if this be 
 the case, the apodosis now asks, Is Christ, therefore, min‘ster of sin (and not 
 of righteousness) ?—seeing that our faith in Him, which seeks for right- 
 eousness by Him, has the sad result that we have been found like the Gen- 
 tiles in a state of sin. The answer to this question is, Far be it! Tt isa 
 result to be abhorred, that Christ, instead of bringing about the righteous- 
 ness sought in Him, should be the promoter of sin. Conseqnently tl?’ state 
 of things supposed in the protasis is an anti-Christian al/surdity. — The 
 subject of Cyrovvrec and eipédyuev is, as before, Peter and Paul. — Cyrovvrec] 
 emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding sentence of purpose, iva 
 StkatwSGuev x.7.A. 3 So that this Cyreiv dixaew. is not in reality different 
 from the zvoretew ei¢ Xpiot., but denotes the same thing as respects its ten- 
 dency. To the ¢yrovvtec then corresponds the etpéSyuev, which introduces 
 an entirely different result: if we have been found, if it has turned out as a 
 matter of fact, that, etc.1 As to elpédnuev we must, however, notice that— 
 as in the apodosis dpa Xpiorde x.7.2. We cannot without proceeding arbitra- 
 rily supply anything but the simple éory, and not av qv (iii. 21)—the aorist 
 requires the explanation : inventi sumus, ‘‘ have been found,” ? and therefore 
 neither reperimur, ‘‘ are found,”® nor inventi essemus, ‘‘ would be found,’ nor 
 should be found, ° nor were to be found.® Observe, moreover, that in eipé3., in con- 
 trast to Cyroivre¢ x.7.A., the accessory idea of something unexpected suggests 
 
 DRom- vil. 10/5) 1 Cor: iv.'2, xv. 153 2 Cor. 
 Za IPE 
 
 2 Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, and many others. 
 So correctly also Lipsius in Hilgenfeld’s 
 Zeitschr. 1861, p. 73 ff. He, however, im- 
 proving on Holsten’s similar interpretation, 
 thus explains the whole passage: ‘If we, 
 being born Jews, have, by our seeking 
 after the salvation in Christ, confessed our 
 sinfulness (and consequently, at the same 
 time, the impotence of the law to make us 
 righteous), does it thence follow that Christ, 
 by inviting also us Jews to seek righteous- 
 ness in Him and not in the law, has led us 
 astray to a life in Gentile impurity?” But 
 
 this inference does not stand in logical con- 
 sistency with the protasis, and could not 
 even suggest itself asa false conclusion ; 
 for auaptias is assumed to be taken ina 
 different sense from auaptwAoi,—the latter 
 in the sense of defectus justitiae, the former 
 as vitiositas ethnica. Holsten also under- 
 stands auaptias as the unfettering of sin in 
 the moral life (comp. v. 13; Rom. i. 6 f., e¢ 
 al.),—an idea which is here foreign to the 
 context. 
 
 3 Erasmus, Castalio. 
 
 4 de Wette and many others. 
 
 5 Luther. 
 
 6 Schott. 
 
88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 itself.!— év Xpior@] nothing else than what was previously put as é« riorewe 
 Xpiorov, but expressed according to the notion that in Christ, whose person 
 and work form the object of faith, justification has its causal basis.* Its op- 
 posite : év véum, iii. 11, and the id/a diucacocbvy, Rom. x. 3. — kad abroi] et ipsi, 
 also on our part, includes Peter and Paul in the class of duaprwioi previously 
 referred to in ver. 15. — dpa X. ayapr. diax.] is, at any rate, a question (Vul- 
 gate, numguid), for with Paul 7 yévorro is always preceded by a question.® 
 With this, however, either mode of writing, apa (Lachmann) or dpa (Tisch- 
 endorf), may stand. Both express igitur, rebus sic se habentibus, ‘‘therefore, 
 as matters stand,” but dpa (Luke xvill. 8; Acts viii. 30), although Paul 
 does not elsewhere use it (but just as little does he use an interrogative apa’), 
 is the livelier and stronger.° To take apa for dp’ oi, nonne (Olshausen, 
 Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to apprehend the sub- 
 tlety of the passage, the question in which (not dpa in itself, as held by 
 Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical suspicion of doubtfulness.® Besides, 
 apa is never really used for dp’ od, although it sometimes seems so.” Riickert 
 has mistaken the sense of the whole passage: ‘‘If we, although we seek 
 grace with God through Christ, nevertheless continue to sin, etc., do ye 
 think that Christ will then take pleasure in us, greater pleasure than in the 
 Gentiles, and thus strengthen and further us in our sin?” Against this it 
 may be urged, that Paul has not written elpicxéueda ; that the comparison 
 with the Gentiles implied in «at aitoi would be unsuitable, for the sin here 
 reproved would be hypocritical Judaizing ; and that ver. 18 would not, as is 
 most arbitrarily assumed, give the reason for the yu yévoiro, but, passing over 
 the yw yévoiro and the apodosis, would carry us back to the protasis and 
 prove this latter. The nearest to this erroneous interpretation is that of 
 Beza and Wieseler, who (so also essentially Reithmayr) find expressed here 
 the necessity of the union of sanctification with justification.* But the right 
 sense of the passage, as given above, is found in substance, although with 
 several modifications, and in some cases with an incorrect apprehension of 
 the aorist ebpéIyuev (see above), in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 
 Peter. 
 
 1 Comp. on Matt. i. 20. 
 
 22 Cor. v. 21; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24. 
 
 3 Rom. iii. 4, vi. 2; Gal. iii. 21, e¢ al. 
 
 4 Which is assumed by Wieseler, Butt- 
 mann, Hofmann. 
 
 5 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 180; Baeumlein, 
 Partik. p. 39 f. 
 
 ® Comp. Buttmann, ad Plat. Charmid. 14, 
 ed. Heind. 
 
 7 Herm. ad Viger. p. 823; Heind. ad Plat. 
 Theaet. p. 476; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 216. 
 See Kiihner, ad@ Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 1. 
 
 8 They take the essential sense to be: ‘‘If 
 the man whois justified in Christ has sinned, 
 Christ is not to blame for this; for (ver. 18) 
 the man himself is to blame for the trans- 
 gression, because he builds again the do- 
 minion of sin which He had destroyed.”’ So 
 Wieseler. This interpretation is utterly 
 unsuitable, if ver. 15 ff. is still addressed to 
 
 It may be urged also against it, 
 that Paul, by using evpé@yuev (instead of 
 evpioxoneba), Would have written in a way 
 both obscure and misleading ; further, that 
 the relapse of the justified man into sin 
 did not at all suggest or presume as prob- 
 able the conclusion that Christ was to 
 blame for it ; moreover, that the expression 
 apaptias Suakovos must assert something of 
 a far stronger and more positive character 
 (namely, sin-producer) ; lastly, that ver. 18, 
 taken in Wieseler’s sense, would, notwith- 
 standing its carefully-chosen expressions, 
 contain nothing more than an almost 
 meaningless and self-evident thought, in 
 which, moreover, the destruction of the 
 dominion of sin, which has been accom- 
 plished by Christ or by the justifying grace 
 of God (Rom. viii. 8), would be attributed 
 to man (katédvoa), 
 
CHAP..11,, 18% 89 
 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Wolf, 
 Wetstein, and others ; also Semler, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, 
 Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
 Matthias ; several of whom, however, such as the Greek Fathers, Luther, 
 Calovius, Koppe, Usteri, Lachmann, taking the accentuation dpa, do not 
 assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, but does not 
 correspond with the su yévorro which follows ; while Hilgenfeld unnecessa- 
 rily supposes a breviloguence: ‘‘ then I ask, Is then Christ,” etc. ? — Xpiordc] 
 “‘in whom, yet, we seek to be justified,” Bengel. — dyuapr. didx.] ayapr. 
 emphatically prefixed, in contrast to the ducawSjva : one, through whom sin 
 receives service rendered, sin is upheld and promoted.! The opposite, dca- 
 Kovot dukacoobvyc, 2 Cor. xi. 15. 
 
 Ver. 18. Ground assigned for the yy yévorto : No ! Christ is not a minister 
 of sin ; for—and such is the result, Peter, of the course of conduct cen- 
 sured in thee —if [again build up that which Ihave pulled down, I show myself 
 as transgressor ; so that Christ thus by no means appears, according to the 
 state of the case supposed in ver. 17, as the promoter of sin, but the reproach 
 —and that a reproach of transgression — falls upon myself alone, as I exhibit 
 myself by my own action. Remark the emphasis, energetically exposing 
 the great personal guilt, which is laid jirst on rapadryv (in contrast to 
 duaptiac didKovoc),then on éuavrév (in contrast to Xpordc), and jointly on the 
 juztaposition of the two words. In the building up of that which had been pulled 
 down Paul depicts the behavior of Peter, in so far as the latter previously, 
 and even still in Antioch (ver. 12), had pronounced the Mosaic law not to 
 be obligatory in respect of justification on the Christian who has his right- 
 eousness in Christ and not in the law, and had thus pulled it down as a 
 building thenceforth useless, but subsequently by his Judaizing behavior 
 again represented the law as obligatory for righteousness, and thus, as it 
 were, built up anew the house which had been pulled down.” Paul is fond 
 of the figure of building and pulling down.? The jirst person veils that, 
 which had happened with Peter in concreto, ‘‘in the concrete,” under the 
 milder form of a general proposition, the subject of which (= one, any one) 
 is individualized by J.4—ravra] with emphasis : this, not anything else or more 
 complete in its place. —rapafdrnv] not sinner generally, as Wieseler, according 
 to his interpretation of the whole passage, is forced to explain it (see on ver. 
 17), but transgressor of the law (Rom. iv. 15, ii. 25) ; so that, in conformity 
 with the significance of the figure used, véuov is obviously supplied from the 
 context (vv. 16, 19),—and that as the Mosaic law, not as the vouoc tio ricTewe, 
 
 1Luther’s gloss: ‘‘ Whoever desires to 
 become godly by means of works, acts just 
 as if Christ by His ministry, office, preach- 
 ing, and sufferings, made us first of all sin- 
 ners who must become godly through the 
 law ; thus is Christ denied, crucified again, 
 slandered, and sin is built up again, 
 which had previously been done away by 
 the preaching of faith.” 
 
 2 Comp. Holsten, 2. Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
 
 p. 283. 
 
 3See Rom. xy. 20; 1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23; 
 Eph. ii. 20 f. ; Rom. xiv. 20; 2 Cor. v. 1, e¢ al. 
 Comp. Talmud, Berach. 63. 1, in Wetstein: 
 “‘jam aedificasti, an destruis? jam sepem 
 fecisti, an perrumpes?”’ ‘‘ Art thou de- 
 stroying who hast been building? wilt thou 
 break through who hast made the hedge ?” 
 
 4 Comp. Rom, Vii. 7. 
 
90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 the gospel.’ But how far does he, who reasserts the validity of that law 
 which he had previously as respects justification declared invalid, present 
 himself as a transgressor of the same? Notin so far as he proves that he had 
 wrongly declared it invalid and abandoned it,? or as he has in the pulling down 
 sinned against that which is to him right, as Hofmann interprets it,? but, as 
 ver. 19 shows, because the law itself has brought about the freedom of the 
 Christian from the law, in order that he may live to God ; consequently he 
 that builds it up again acts in opposition to the law, and thus stands forth 
 as transgressor, namely, of the law in its real sense, which cannot desire, but 
 on the contrary rejects, the re-exchanging of the new righteousness for the 
 old.4 The word is purposely chosen, and stands in a climactic relation to 
 duaprodoi (ver. 17),—the category which includes also the Gentiles without 
 law. —ovvotavw| J show. See Wetstein and Fritzsche, ad Rom. iii. 5; 
 Munthe, Obdss. p. 358 ; Loesner, p. 248. But Schott explains it as eommendo, 
 laudo, ‘‘T commend, I praise,” making it convey an ironical reference to the 
 Judaists, who had boasted of their Judaizing behavior. This idea is not in 
 any way indicated ;° and the ironical reference must have rather pointed at 
 Peter, who, however, had not made a boast of his Judaizing, but had con- 
 sented to it in a timid and conniving fashion. Hence Bengel’s explanation 
 is more subtle; ‘‘ Petrus voluit commendare se ver. 12 fin.; ejus commen- 
 dationis tristem Paulus fructum hic mimesi ostendit,” ‘‘Peter wished to 
 commend himself, ver. 12, at the end ; Paul here by a mimesis shows the 
 sad fruit of this commendation.” But according to the connection, as exbib- 
 ited above, between ver. 18 and ver. 17, the idea of commendation is so en- 
 tirely foreign to the passage, that, in fact, éuavrdv cvvordvw expresses essen- 
 tially nothing more than the idea of eipédnuev in ver. 17; bringing into 
 prominence, however, the se/f-presentation, the self-proof, which the person 
 concerned practically furnishes in his own case : he establishes himself as a 
 transgressor. 
 
 Ver. 19 f., containing the ‘‘ summa ac medulla Christianismi,” ‘‘sum and 
 marrow of Christianity” (Bengel), furnishes the confirmation of ver. 18 ; for 
 
 1 Koppe, Matthies. 
 
 2 Ambrosius, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vor- 
 stius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Rosenmiil- 
 ler, Borger, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, 
 Ewald. 
 
 %The application to be made of the 
 general proposition is said to be this: 
 “Whosoever desires and seeks to be- 
 come righteous in Christ would not do 
 so, unless he recognized the matter in 
 which he sinned as a breach of the law 
 which he has again to make good, and that 
 which he does to make it good is self- 
 confession as a transgressor.’”” This forced 
 perversion should have been precluded by 
 the very consideration that «atadvew in 
 reference to the law cannot be understood 
 in the sense of breaking it, like Avew 7d 
 oaBBarov, John y. 18 (comp. vii. 26), but 
 only in the sense of Matt. y. 17, according 
 
 to which, of course, the building up again 
 isno making good again. Comp. On katadAverv 
 Tovs vouous, Polyb. iii. 8. 2. 
 
 4 Comp. Rom. iii. 31. See the fuller state- 
 ment at ver. 19. Comp. Chrysostom and 
 Theophylact (avros yap .. . 0 vomos... mE 
 adynynoce mpos THY mioTLW Kal EmELoey adetvar 
 avrov, “for the law itself led me to faith 
 and persuaded me to break it’). Bengel, 
 moreover, well says: ‘“‘ Vocabulum horri- 
 bile, legis studiosioribus,”’ “a horrible term 
 to those more eager for the law.” 
 
 5/2 Cor} dil) 1) ve es, Seles 
 
 6 Schott should not have appealed to the 
 form ovvictavw, Both forms have the same 
 signification. Hesychius: cvvecravew, émac- 
 veiv, pavepovv, BeBarovv, mapatiOevac. Only 
 the form cvrvicravw is less frequent and later, 
 Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 17. 6, xxxii. 15. 8; 2 
 Corsiiilave des 
 
GrAr 1., 19) 91 
 
 which purpose Paul makes use of his own experience’ with sublime self-as- 
 surance and in a way sufficient to shame Peter : For I for my own part, to 
 give utterance here to the consciousness of my own experience, apart from 
 the experience of others, am through the law dead to the law, in order to live to 
 God. In this view the contrast to Xporé¢ is not expressed already by this 
 éy6 (Hofmann); but only by the éyé of ver. 20. The point confirmatory of 
 ver. 18 lies in dca véuov ; for he, who through the law has passed out of the 
 relation to the law which regulated his life, in order to stand in a higher re- 
 lation, and yet reverts to his legally-framed life, acts against the law, xapa- 
 Barnv éavrdv cvviotdver. The vduocg in both cases must be the Mosaic law, 
 because otherwise the probative force and the whole point of the passage 
 would be lost ; and because, if Paul had intended véyov to refer to the gos- 
 pel,* he must have added some distinguishing definition.* The immediate 
 context, that is, the Xpioré cvvectaipwoua x.t.A. which closely follows (and 
 not ver. 16), supplies precise information how Paul intended the dia véuov 
 vouw arédavov to be understood. By the crucifixion the curse of the law was 
 fulfilled in Christ (iii. 18); and so far Christ died through the law, which 
 demanded, and in Christ’s death received, the accomplishment of its curse. 
 In one, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, the curse of the law is like- 
 wise fulfilled, so that in virtue of his ethical fellowship in the death of 
 Jesus he knows himself to be dead dia véuov,* and consequently at the same 
 time dead to the law (comp. Rom. vii. 4); because, now that the law has 
 accomplished in his case its rights, the bond of union which joined him to 
 the law is broken ; for catypy#Snuev ard Tov vowov, axotavéevtec év  KaTeLxoueda, 
 ‘‘we have been delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we 
 were held,” Rom. vii. 6. So, in all essential points, Chrysostom® and 
 others, Zachariae, Usteri (Schott wavers in his view, Riickert still more so).° 
 This is the only interpretation which keeps closely to the context, and is 
 therefore to be preferred to the views of others, who understand 6:a véuov to 
 refer to the Messianic contents of the law and the prophets, by which Paul 
 had been induced to abandon the law,’ and of others still, who find the z- 
 sufficiency of the law for salvation expressed.* Neither is there suggested in» 
 
 1 Not—as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius hold, contrary to the context—desig- 
 nating himself as representative of believers 
 generally. 
 
 2 Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus, Luther, 
 Vatablus, Zeger, Vorstius, Bengel, Michael- 
 is, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmiller, Borger, 
 Vater. 
 
 3 Rom. iii. 27, viii. 2, ix. 81; comp. 1 Cor. 
 ix. 2h. 
 
 4 Not, therefore, as Hermann interprets, 
 6ca vouov ov KkatéAvoa,” through the law re- 
 jected by myself.” 
 
 5 He indeed also specifies the interpreta- 
 tion, by which vouov is understood of the 
 gospel, as wellas the view, which takes vonov 
 of the Mosaic law, but elucidates the rela- 
 tion of dca by Deut. xviii. 18. He neverthe- 
 
 less evidently gives the preference to the 
 interpretation given above. 
 
 6 Comp. Lipsius, U.c. p. 81 f.; Weiss. bid. 
 Theol. p. 363; Moller on de Wette, p. 50. 
 
 7 Theodoret, Corn. & Lapide, Hammond, 
 Grotius, and others ; also Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius. 
 
 8 As Winer, ‘‘ lex legem sustulit ; ipsa lex, 
 cum non posset mihisalutem impertire, mei 
 me juris fecit atque a suo imperio libera- 
 vit,” ‘the law removed the law; the law 
 itself, since it could not impart salvation to 
 me, made me my own master, and freed 
 me from its dominion.’’ Olshausen, Mat- 
 thias, and likewise Hofmann, who under- 
 stand it to refer to the knowledge acquir- 
 ed through the law, that it was impossible 
 to attain righteousness in the way of the 
 
92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 the context the reference to the pedagogic functions of the law, iii. 24, which 
 is found by Beza,' Calvin, Wolf, and others ; also by Matthies, who, how- 
 ever, understands dia as quite through. De Wette thus explains the peda- 
 gogic thought which he supposes to be intended: ‘‘ By my having thorough- 
 ly lived in the law and experienced its character in my own case, I have 
 become conscious of the need of a higher moral life, the life in the Spirit ; 
 and through the regeneration of my inner man I have made my way from the 
 former to the latter.” So, also, in all essential points, Wieseler, although the 
 usus paedagogicus, ‘* pedagogical use,” of the law does not produce regener- 
 ation and thereby moral liberation from its yoke (which, however, dvd vduov 
 must affirm), but only awakens the longing after it (Rom. vii. 21. ff.), and 
 _ prepares the ground for justification and sanctification. The inner deliver- 
 ance from the the yoke of the law takes place dvd rvetuartoc (v. 18 ; Rom. 
 viii. 2). A clear commentary on our passage is Rom. vii. 4-6. — iva 826 Chow] 
 that I might liveto God, that my life (brought about by that axédavov) might 
 be dedicated to God, and should not therefore again serve the véuoc,*—which 
 is the case with him who 4 karédvoe ravta radww oixodouet (ver. 18).4 — Xpior@ 
 cuvectaipoat| Situation in which he finds himself through that dé véyov 
 vouw aréGavov, and accompanying information how this event took place in 
 him. Corresponding with this, afterwards in ver. 20, (6 . . . Xpuord¢ con- 
 tains information as to the way in which iva Ge Cyow was realized in him, 
 With Christ I am crucified, thus expressing the consciousness of moral fel- 
 lowship, brought about by faith, in the atoning death of Christ,—a subjec- 
 tive fellowship, in which the believer knows that the curse of the law is 
 accomplished on himself because it is accomplished on Christ,° and at the 
 same time that his pre-Christian ethical state of life, which was subject to 
 the law, is put an end to (vou6 axédavov).° Observe also how in this very 
 passage it is evident from the whole context, that civ in ovvecraip. and in 
 the corresponding expressions” denotes not the mere typical character of 
 Christ or the resemblance to Him (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the actual fe- 
 lowship, which, as accomplished and existing in the consciousness of faith, 
 is matter of real experience. On the perfect, which expresses the blessed 
 feeling of the continuance of what had taken place, comp. vi. 14. Here it 
 is the continuance of the liberation of the moral personal life from the law, 
 which was begun by the crucifixion with Christ. 
 
 Ver. 20. Za dé ovkére éyo, CH dé év euol Xpiotéc] The comma which is 
 
 law,—which righteousness, therefore, could 
 only be attained by means of faith ; comp. 
 Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, also Ewald, whose 
 interpretation would seem to call for é&a 
 Tov VoMoV. 
 
 1 “* Lex enim terrens conscientiam ad Chris- 
 tum adducit, qui unus vere efficit, ut moria- 
 mur legi, quoniam nos justificando tollit 
 conscientiae terrores,” ‘‘for the law by ter- 
 rifying the conscience leads to Christ, who 
 only effects it that we die to the law, since 
 by justifying us He removes the terrors of 
 conscience.” 
 
 2‘*Having passed quite through the law, 
 I have it behind me, and am no longer 
 bound to it.’’ 
 
 3 iva Oca Sjow is therefore not (with Chry- 
 sostom, Cajetanus, Calvin, and others) to 
 be joined to Xptor@ ovvectavpwma; for it 
 essentially belongs to the completeness of 
 the thought introduced by yap. 
 
 4 Comp., moreover, Rom. vi. 11. 
 
 5 Comp. iii. 13 (6ca vouov amePavor). 
 
 6 Comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 4, and on Col. ii. 
 20. 
 
 7 Rom. vi. 8; Col. ii. 12, 20, e al. 
 
CHAP. II., 20. 93 
 
 usually placed after ¢6 dis correctly expunged by Lachmann, Riickert, 
 Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Hofmann ; for, if f... 
 éyé were not to be conjoined, aaad must have stood before oixér:. The 
 second 0é is our but indeed after a negative,’ and ¢@ and ¢7 are on both occa- 
 sions emphatically prefixed : alive however no longer am I, but alive indeed is 
 Christ in me ; whereby the new relation of life is forcibly contrasted to the 
 previously expressed relation of death (Xpior@ cuvect.). After the crucifixion 
 of Christ followed His new life ; he, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, 
 thenceforth dives also with Him ; his whole pre-Christian moral personality is, 
 in virtue of that fellowship of death, no longer in life (6 ratad¢ aitov avd pwroe 
 ovvecravpodn, Rom. vi. 6), and Christ is the principle of life in him. This 
 change is brought about by faith (see the sequel), inasmuch as in the 
 believer, according to the representation here given of Paul’s own experi- 
 ence, it is no longer the individual personality that is the agent of life,? but 
 Christ, who is present in him (through the Spirit, Rom. viii. 9 f.; Eph. iii. 
 16 f.), and works, determines, and rules everything in him, (6 dé ovkére é6, 
 CH d& év éwol Xprordg : The mind of Christ is in him (1 Cor. ii. 16), the heart 
 of Christ beats in him (Phil. i. 8), and Christ’s power is effectual in him. 
 [See Note XLI., p. 98.] Thereby is the proof of the words iva OG Chow 
 rightly given.* — 4 dé viv (6 év capxi x.t.4.] Explanation of what has just 
 been said, (@.. . Xproréce : but that which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith 
 on, etc. This explanation is placed by dé in formal contradistinction to the 
 preceding apparent paradox. The emphasis, however, lies on viv, now, 
 namely, since the beginning of my Christian condition of life, so that a glance 
 is thrown back to the time before the Xpioré cvvectatpouar, and viv corre- 
 sponds with ovxére. Ny is often understood * in contrast not with the pre- 
 Christian life, but with the future life after death.° A reference of this 
 kind is, however, entirely foreign to the context, does not harmonize with 
 the emphasis which is laid on viv by its position, and is by no means re- 
 quired by év capxi ; for this addition to (4 is made by Paul simply with a 
 view to indicate that after his conversion the material form of his life re- 
 mained the same, although its ethical nature had become something entirely 
 different. — év capxi] denotes life in the natural human phenomenal form of 
 the body consisting of flesh. The context does not convey any reference to 
 the ethical character of the capé (as sedes peccati, ‘‘the seat of sin”).°— é 
 mioter] not per jidem, ‘‘by faith,” but, corresponding to év capki, in faith ; 
 so that faith—and indeed (comp. i. 16) the faith in the great sum and sub- 
 stance of the revelation received, in the Son of God * — is the specific element 
 in which my life moves and acts and is developed. It is prefixed emphat- 
 ically, in contrast to the entirely different pre-Christian sphere of life, which 
 
 
 
 1 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171. 
 
 2“*Mortuus est Saulus,” “Saul is dead,” 
 Erasmus. 
 
 3 See on Rom. vi. 10. 
 
 4 As by Erasmus, Grotius (adhuc), Riickert, 
 Usteri, Schott, following Augustine and 
 Theodoret. 
 
 5 Rather: after the rapovoia, “‘or ap- 
 pearing of Christ.” 
 
 6 Comp. Phil. i. 22; 2 Cor. x. 3. 
 
 7 Chrysostom, Beza, and others. 
 
 8 Notice the anarthrous miore, and then 
 the article affixed to the more precise defini- 
 tion, 
 
94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 was the vdu0c. — rot ayarhoavréc pe x.7.2.] points out the special historical 
 fact of salvation, which is the subject-matter of the faith in the Son of God, 
 giving impulse to this new life.’ Kai is explanatory, adding the practical 
 wroof of the love. Observe also the wé and irép éuod (see on i. 4) as expres- 
 sive of the conscious and assured jiducia in the jides.°—Lastly, the construc- 
 tion is such, that 6 is the accusative of the object to (4, and the whole runs 
 on in connection : the life which I live, I live, etc.* The interpretation : 
 quod vero attinet, quod, ‘‘ which, indeed, is of importance that,” etc. (Winer), 
 is indeed grammatically admissible,‘ in so far as 6 is likewise retained as the 
 accusative of the object ; but it needlessly injures the flow of the discourse. 
 
 Ver. 21. Negative side, opposed to an antagonistic Judaism, of the 
 life which Paul (from ver. 19) has described as his own. By this negative, 
 with the grave reason assigned for it, ei yap x.7.4., the perverse conduct of 
 Peter is completely condemned. — Ido not annul (as is done by again assert- 
 ing the validity of the law) the grace ef God (which has manifested itself 
 through the atoning death of Christ). —av’eré] as in iii. 15, Luke vii. 30, 
 1 Cor. i. 19, 1 Tim. v. 12, Heb. x. 28: make of none effect ; see. the sequel. 
 It is here the annulling, practically involved in the Judaistic courses, of the 
 grace of God in Christ, which is in fact rendered inoperative and cannot 
 make righteous, if righteousness is furnished by the law. The rejection of 
 grace (Vulgate and others, abjicto) which is involved in this, is a practical 
 rejection.* As to avereiv generally, which does not occur until after Poly- 
 bius, see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 12.—ei yap x«.7.2.] justifies what has 
 just been said, ov« adeTté. — dia véuov] through the law, namely, as the insti- 
 tute which brings about justification by virtue of the works done in harmony 
 with it.° This is emphatically prefixed, so that Xpioréc corresponds in the 
 apodosis. — dwpedv] not: without result (Erasmus, Paraphr., Piscator), a 
 meaning which it never has either in classical authors (in whom it occurs in 
 the sense of gratis only) or in the LXX., but: without reason, without cause." 
 Chrysostom justly says : repitréc 6 Tov Xpiorov Yavaroc, ‘‘ the death of Christ 
 would be superfluous,” which was the very act of the grace which desired to 
 justify men. This death would have taken place unnecessarily ; it would have 
 ~ been, as it were, an act of superfluity,*® if that which it was intended to 
 effect were attainable by way of the law. Erasmus aptly remarks, ‘‘ est 
 autem ratiocinatio ab impossibili,” ‘it is, however, arguing from what is im- 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. viii. 37; Eph. v. 2. 
 2 Luther well says, ‘‘Hae voces: dilexit 
 me, plenissimae sunt fidei, et qui hoe breve 
 
 love and Christian life. 
 3 See Bernhardy, p. 106; Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. I. p. 393 f.; Dissen, a@ Dem. de cor. 
 
 pronomen me illa fide dicere et sibi appli- 
 care posset, qua Paulus, etiam futurus esset 
 optimus disputator una cum Paulo contra 
 legem,’”’ ‘‘These words, ‘Loved me,’ are 
 most full of security, and he who could ut- 
 ter and apply to himself this short pronoun 
 me in the faith wherein Paul did, would be 
 the best disputant with Paul against the 
 law.” But this faith is not the fides formata 
 (Catholics, including Bisping and Reith- 
 mayr), although it is the source of Christian 
 
 p. 302. 
 
 4 See on Rom. vi. 10. 
 
 5 So that 7 xdpis ovKére yiverar xapts, Rom. 
 XING; 
 
 6 Comp. on iii. 11. 
 
 7 As 1 Sam. xix. 5, Ps. xxxiy. 8 (not Jobi. 
 9): comp. John xv. 25; Ecclus. xx. 21, Xxix. 
 6 f.; Ignat. Trall. 10, Swpeav oty amo0Ovickw, 
 “T do not die in vain.” 
 
 8 Comp. Holsten. 
 
NOTES. 95 
 
 possible.” Observe the exclusive expression of the clause assigning the rea- 
 son of ov« av_erd, which allows of no half-and-half division of justification 
 between law and grace. 
 
 Note.—Paul is discreet enough to say nothing as to the impression which his 
 speech made on Peter. Its candor, resolution, and striking force of argument 
 would, however, be the less likely to miss their aim in the case of Peter, seeing 
 that the latter was himself convinced of Christian freedom (Acts xv. 7 ff.), and 
 had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by connivance from fear of men (ver. 13). 
 But as, according to this view, an opposition of principle between the two 
 apostles cannot be conceded (contrary to the view of Baur and his followers), 
 we must abstain from assuming that this occurrence at Antioch had any lasting 
 and far-reaching consequences ; for it simply had reference to a moral false step 
 taken in opposition to Peter’s own better judgment, and the scandal arising 
 therefrom. It was therefore so essentially of a personal nature, that, if known 
 at all by Luke, it might well have rentained unmentioned in Acts—considering 
 the more comprehensive historical destination of that work—without suggest- 
 ing any suspicion that the absence of mention arose from any inlentional con- 
 cealment (comp. on Acts xv.). Such a concealment is but one of the numberless 
 dishonest artifices of which the author of Acts has been accused, ever since 
 certain persons have thought that they recognized in our epistle ‘‘the mutely 
 eloquent accuser of the Book of Acts” (Schwegler), which is alleged to throw 
 «a veil of concealment’’ over the occurrences at Jerusalem and Antioch (Baur, 
 Paulus, I. p. 148, ed. 2). 
 
 Norres py AMERICAN Epritor. 
 
 XXX. Ver. 1. raAw avéGnv. 
 
 Sieffert, while agreeing with Meyer as to the identification of this visit with 
 that in Acts xv., shows that Meyer’s argument as to any discrepancy between 
 this epistle and the account in Acts is based on the assumption that Paul is 
 still occupied with the proof that he had not learned his gospel from the other 
 apostles—a proof which was finished in ver. 24 of the preceding chapter. Here 
 he cites two other incidents in his life, showing his equal standing as an apos- 
 tle. Hence there was no need for any allusion to a second visit. Baur espe- 
 cially uses this seeming discrepancy to assail the historical accuracy of the Book 
 of Acts. Sanday well remarks: ‘‘ Discrepancies greater than any that appear 
 here may be observed in the accounts of events separated from their record by 
 but a small interval of time and attested by numerous witnesses . . . So 
 shallow and slight is that house of cards which forms one of the most imposing 
 structures of modern negative criticism.” The full investigation of the sub- 
 ject belongs to the exposition of Acts. 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 1. xa? Titov. 
 
 There should be no difficulty in regarding Titus as beionging to the ‘ cer- 
 tain others” of Acts xv. He is mentioned here to the exclusion of the rest, in 
 view of what follows in ver. 3. 
 
96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 2. kaz7’ idiav dé totic dokovaw. 
 
 Sieffert considers Meyer’s inference that the account requires the general dis- 
 cussion to be first, incorrect. So also Lightfoot. 
 
 XXXII, Ver. 5. pevdddeAgor. 
 
 Sieffert substitutes along note beginning: ‘ The continuous agreement between 
 Gal. ii. 3-5 and Acts xv. 1 sqq., which has been cited already at ver. 1 for the 
 general identity of the journey of Paul to Jerusalem mentioned in both places, 
 decides at once against the assumption of Meyer, that as the accountsin Gal. ii. 
 and Acts xv. relate to different occurrences respecting the same journey of Paul, 
 so the two passages, Gal. ii. 2 (dveféunv avroic) 3-5 and Acts xv. 4, 12 report two 
 distinct matters, both of which, nevertheless, could have occurred at the same 
 visit of the apostle to Jerusalem. But there is just as little foundation for re- 
 garding the account of Acts excluded by that of Paul, unless they are both, es- 
 pecially that of Paul, misunderstood, and the distinction between their purpose 
 ignored ; that of Paul being directed to the proof of his personal dignity, and that 
 of Acts to the historical exhibition of the general ecclesiastical development. On 
 the contrary, it is manifest that the account in Acts is in every respect adapted 
 to complete the brief declarations of Paul. Thus while these declarations contain 
 no indication as to whether Paul had only one or several conferences with the 
 church, the account of the latter is furnished by Acts.” 
 
 XXXIV. Ver. 8. ‘O yap évepynoac. 
 
 «‘By this is not meant the call to the apostolate (Fritzsche), or the mere 
 equipment and making fit (Schott, Meyer, Wieseler), but the entire efficacious 
 operation of God for the successful execution of the apostolic calling (cf. 
 Winer, Usteri, de Wette, Hofmann), but it is not to be limited to the gift of 
 the results (Baur).’’ Sieffert. 
 
 XXXV. Ver. 10. trav rrwyov. 
 
 The ‘‘ poor’ are Christianized Jews, mainly in Palestine (cf. Rom. xv. 26, 27 ; 
 1 Cor. xvi. 3), but not necessarily confined thereto. In going to the Gentiles, 
 such Jewish converts from the diaspora as would be found destitute were to be 
 eared for. Cf. Hadie. 
 
 XXXVI. Ver. 10. Entire Verse. 
 
 «The private conference of Paul with the pillars of the church here re- 
 ported is not mentioned in Acts. It may be readily inferred that with this ac- 
 count the words, Acts xv. 6, ovry7yOnoav de of aréoToAot Kai oi TpeoBdrepos ietv 
 mepi TOU Adyov TobTov are to be combined, as, e.g., Hbrard and Pfleiderer do in 
 different ways. By including in the doxotvrec the elders present with Paul 
 (Ebrard), or believing that they are not directly excluded by the wording 
 (Pfleiderer), they find an account indicated of a private conference with the 
 apostles and elders entirely corresponding to that in Acts. Ebrard, however, 
 regards this as only a preliminary conference, and not until after the contro- 
 versy had increased (ver. 7) does Peter enter the assembly, in which, according 
 to ver. 12, tav r6 rAFOoc, and, according to ver. 22, 647 7 éxxAnoia is present ; while 
 Pfleiderer believes that the transactions according to Acts took place in only 
 
NOTES. 9% 
 
 anarrow circle, and only the result was erroneously represented as a formal 
 resolution of the church. But the latter view is excluded by the fact that 
 already in ver. 12 the church (dv 70 7A790c) is regarded as present. Even the 
 former view can scarcely be supported, as the silence of the entire body that 
 follows the address of Peter is manifestly in opposition to the idea of the oc- 
 currence of much controversy after the coming together of the apostles and 
 elders, as in them the entire body is present and participates. All, therefore, 
 that is related in Acts xv. 6-29 refers to the only congregational meeting con- 
 ducted by apostles and elders, while that which is referred to Gal. ii. 3-5 
 belongs to the public transactions. After this there remains in the report 
 given in Acts no room for a private conference ; this must be referred to the 
 time of the informal preliminary conference, Acts xy. 4, since, according to the 
 representation of Paul, its temporal priority isnot only possible, but even prob- 
 able (cf. v. 2). Accordingly, if the private conference, Gal. ii. 6-10, is entirely 
 passed by in Acts as outside of its historical purpose, then what is reported in 
 Acts xv._cannot be excluded by the former ; for otherwise the chief antago- 
 nisms between the two accounts would have respect to the relation and position 
 of the apostolic pillars. But such is not the case. For not only the recogni- 
 tion of Paul’s commission to the heathen by the original apostles, but also 
 their essential doctrinal agreement with Paul in respect to various interests 
 and offices are indicated by the public addresses and resolutions of Acts xv.” 
 (Sieffert). 
 XXXVII. Ver. 11. cata tpdowrov aitw avréotny k.T.A. 
 
 Meyer’s objection to Bengel’s interpretation does not seem valid. What if 
 the question be left unanswered as to the persons from whom the condemnation 
 proceeded? The act carried with it its own condemnation. So Alford, 
 Lightfoot, Sanday, Sieffert. Meyer is supported by Ellicott, Eadie, and Riddle 
 in the American Lange. The argument that the condemnation must have been 
 public, or a public rebuke would not have been given, does not meet the case, 
 since the public offence required a public protest on the part of Paul. 
 
 XXXVIII. Ver. 15. duaptwdoi. 
 
 duaptwiot is used in preference to ‘vn, not without a shade of irony, as better 
 enforcing St. Paul’s argument (Lightfoot), 
 
 XXXIX. Ver. 16. cidoreg dé bt1 K.7.A. 
 
 ‘According to Sieffert, ver. 16 forms a new sentence, and the é:ddrec is a parti- 
 eipial foundation to the cai 7yeic. The knowledge, too, is not merely discur- 
 sive, but that which is rooted in the sense of guilt and the consciousness of 
 communion with Christ. 
 
 XL. Ver. 16. ’Edv p7 k.7.A. 
 
 The obedientia activa must not be excluded from the meritorious cause of 
 justification, as the remark of Meyer would imply. ‘‘ By his active obedience 
 Christ most exactly fulfilled the divine law in our stead, in order that penitent 
 sinners, applying to themselves, by true faith, this vicarious fulfilment of the 
 law, might be accounted righteous before God the judge, Gal. iv. 4,5; Matt. 
 v.17; Rom. x, 4” (Hollaz). 
 
 7 
 
98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 XLI. Ver. 20. 76 dé obkéte eyo. 
 
 ‘«« Wondrous words! I am so identified with Him, that His death is my death. 
 When He was crucified, I was crucified with Him. Jam so much one with Him 
 under law, and in suffering and death, that when He died to the law I died to 
 the law’’ (Eadie). The application of this to the argument against Peter is 
 well presented by Brenz: ‘‘ He who believes in Christ is incorporated with 
 Christ by faith, and becomes His member. But to him who is a member of 
 Christ’s body belong also all the blessings of Christ which He Himself has 
 acquired by the cross and death. What then has he acquired? First, Christ, 
 by His cross, broke down and removed the partition between Jews and Gentiles, 
 and made of the two one people, i.e., by His own blood He so blotted out the 
 law of Moses that there is in Christ no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. 
 When, therefore, by faith I am incorporated with Christ, I am participant of 
 this blessing, so that even though I do not live according to the political law 
 of Moses, nevertheless I have been accepted by God for Christ’s sake. Secondly, 
 Christ by His death and blood removed the handwriting which was against us, 
 Col. 2. This handwriting is the conscience of sin, which is written in our 
 heart by the law, manifesting sins and condemning us. When, then, I am 
 incorporated with Christ by faith, I become participant of this blessing, that the 
 handwriting of my conscience does not pertain at all to me, because it has 
 been blotted out by the blood of Christ, nor has it any longer any authority or 
 strength, because its seals have been removed by Christ’s cross, and its letters 
 have been blotted out by Christ’s blood. This is verily to be crucified with 
 Christ.”’ 
 
CHAP, III. 99 
 
 CHA PTER~ IL. 
 
 Ver. 1. After éGdacxave Elz. (and Matth.) has rq aAnbeia uh reiBeohar, against 
 decisive evidence. An explanatory addition from v. 7. — év iuiv] is wanting 
 in A BC 8, min., and several vss. and Fathers, and is omitted by Lachm. But 
 not being required, and not understood, how easily might it be passed over ! 
 There was no reason in the text for attaching it as a gloss, least of all to xa7’ 
 dpGaAnove xpoeyp. (as conjectured by Schott), for these words were in fact perfectly 
 clear by themselves. Justly defended also by Reiche.—Ver. 8. évevAeynfycovtar] 
 Elz. gives evAoy., against decisive testimony [8 A BC D E]. In Acts iii. 25 also, 
 évevdoy. is exchanged in several authorities for the usual simple form. — Ver, 10. 
 According to decisive evidence [NA BC DEF Gl, orc is to be adopted (with 
 Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, and Tisch.) before éz«utupatac. — Ver. 12. After avra 
 Elz, has av@pwroc, against decisive testimony. Addition from the LXX., 
 Lev. xvili. 5; Rom. x. 5.— Ver. 13. Instead of yéyp. ydp, read, on pre- 
 ponderating testimony, with Lachm. and ‘Tisch., 670 yéypantac approved 
 by Griesb. The former arose from ver. 10.— Ver. 17. After Ocov, Elz., 
 Scholz, Reiche, have ei¢ Xpio7dv, in opposition to A B © &, min., several 
 vss. and Fathers. Added as a gloss, in order, after ver. 16, to make it 
 evident from ver. 24 what covenant is intended, although this is obvious 
 from the context, and the addition was therefore by no means necessary (as 
 maintained by Ewald and Wieseler). In the sequel, ér7 is (with Griesb., 
 Lachm., Scholz, Tisch.) to be placed after the number} according to decisive 
 evidence [SN ABC DEF G]. — Ver. 19. rpoceré6n] Griesb. and Scholz (follow- 
 ing Mill and Bengel) read é7é67. Not sufficiently attested by D* F G and afew 
 min., vss., and Fathers ; and the compound verb appeared to conflict with ver. 
 15. — Instead of © éx7jyyeArar, only Land many min., along with some Fathers, 
 read 6 érymyy. A reading arising from the fact that @ was not understood. — 
 Ver. 21. tov Ocov] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. (bracketed by 
 Lachm.), and is therefore so decisively attested that it cannot be regarded as 
 an explanatory addition. The self-evident meaning and the previous reference 
 without tov Oeov (see ver. 16 ff,) led to the omission. — Ver. 21. dv ék vouov Hv] 
 Many variations. F G have merely éx vémov ;! D*, Damase, éx vopov iv ; A BC, 
 Cyr., &k vouov (B, év véuw) dv 7v. In default of internal evidence, the latter is, 
 with Lachm., Tisch., Schott, to be preferred as the best attested (comp. N, éx 
 vouov nv av). The omission of dy arose from the 7 following, just as easily as 
 the omission of 7 from the following 7. The Receptais to be considered as the 
 restoration of the original dv in a wrong place. — Ver. 23. ovyxexAeiopévor] A B 
 D* F G 8&, 31, Clem. (once) Cyr. Damase. read cvykAsiouévor. Recommended 
 by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Scholz, Schott [Tisch., 1872]. The Recepta, spe- 
 cially defended by Reiche, is an ancient emendation of the not-understood pres- 
 
 1 Which Buttmann in the Stud. w. Krit. 1858, p. 488, considers as probably the original 
 reading. 
 
100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ent participle. — Ver. 28. eic¢ éore €v Xpiotd "Inoov] A has éore Xprorov ’Inoov ; and 
 &, gore €v Xpiotd "I, But ei¢ was very easily suppressed by the preceding tveic, 
 and then év Xpioto “Ijcov was altered in accordance with the beginning of ver. 
 29. 'The reading év instead of ei¢ in F G and several vss., also Vulgate, It., 
 and Fathers, is an interpretation. — Ver. 29. xa‘] is wanting in ABC DE 8, 
 89**, and a few vss. and many Fathers, and is expunged by Lachmann, Tisch., 
 and Schott ; justly, because it was inserted for the purpose of connection. 
 
 ConTENTS.—Paul now begins to unfold to his readers that righteousness 
 comes not from the law, but from faith. With this view, after having ex- 
 pressed censure and surprise, he refers in the first place to their own expe- 
 rience, namely, te their reception of the Holy Spirit (vv. 1-5). He then 
 passes on to Abraham, who had been justified by faith, and of whom beliey- 
 ers were the sons who, in conformity with Scripture, were to enjoy with 
 Abraham the blessing announced to him (vv. 6-9). For those that trust in 
 works of the law are cursed, and by tbe law can no man be justified (vv: 
 10-12). It is Christ who by His atoning death has freed us from the curse 
 of the law, in order that this blessing should reach the Gentiles through 
 Christ, and the promised Holy Spirit should be received through faith (vy. 
 13, 14). But the covenant of promise concluded with Abraham, which 
 moreover applied not merely to Abraham, but also to Christ, cannot be ab- 
 rogated by the law which arose long after (vv. 15-18). This leads the apos- 
 tle to the question as to the destination of the law, which he briefly answers 
 in ver. 19 positively, and then in vv. 20-23 negatively, to the effect that the 
 law is not opposed to the promises. Before the period of faith, the law had 
 the office of a za:daywyé¢ in reference to Christ ; but after the appearance of 
 faith this relation came to an end, for faith brought believers to the sonship 
 of God, because by baptism fellowship with Christ was established, and there- 
 upon all distinctions apart from Christ vanished away (vv. 238-28). And 
 this fellowship with Christ includes the being children of Abraham and 
 heirs of the promises. 
 
 Ver. 1. O irrational Galatians! With this address of severe censure Paul 
 turns again to his readers, after the account of his meeting with Peter ; for 
 his reprimand to the latter (ii. 15-21) had indeed so pithily and forcibly 
 presented the intermixture of Judaism with faith as absurd, that the excited 
 apostle, in re-addressing readers who had allowed themselves to be carried 
 away to that same incongruous intermingling, could not have seized on 
 any predicate more suitable or more naturally suggested. The more in- 
 appropriate, therefore, is the idea of Jerome,’ who discovered in. this 
 expression a natural weakness of understanding peculiar to the nation. 
 But the testimony borne on the other hand by Themist.? to the Galatian 
 readiness to learn, and acuteness of understanding—the consciousness of 
 which would make the reproach all the more keenly felt—is also*® to be set 
 aside as irrelevant.* — ric iwac éBacKxave] tic conveys his astonishment at the 
 
 1Comp. also Erasmus, and Spanheim ad 3 Notwithstanding Hofmann. 
 Callim. H. in Del. 184, p. 439. 4Comp. Luke xxiy. 25; Tit. ili. 3. 
 2 Or, 23, in Wetstein, oni. 6. 
 
CHAP) TET. «ls 101 
 great ascendency which the perversion had succeeded in attaining, and by 
 way of emphatic contrast the words ric iuac are placed together : Who hath 
 bewitched you, before whose eyes, etc. ?*— Bacxaivw (from Bala, to speak) 
 means here to cast aspell upon (mala lingua nocere, Virg. Eel. vii. 28), to bewitch 
 by words, to enchant?*—a strong mode of describing the perversion, quite in keep- 
 ing with the indignant feeling which could hardly conceive it possible. * 
 Hence the word is not to be explained, with Chrysostom and his followers: eho 
 has envied you, that is, your previous happy condition ?—although this signifi- 
 cation is of very frequent occurrence, usually indeed with the dative,* but also 
 with the accusative.* — oi¢ kav’ dd0-aApwovc Ino. Xp. rpoeypagy év buiv éecravpopévoc | 
 This fact, which ought to have guarded the Galatians from being led away 
 to a Judaism opposed to the doctrine of atonement, and which makes their 
 apostasy the more culpable, justifies the question of surprise, of which the 
 words themselves form part ; hence the mark of interrogation is to be placed 
 after éoravp. — kar’ o¢dadAnoic] before the eyes. See examples in Wetstein.*— 
 xpoeypagn| is explained by most expositors, either as antea, ‘‘ previously,” 
 depictus est, ‘‘ portrayed,” ” or palam, depictus est, ‘‘ openly portrayed,” * with 
 which Hofmann compares the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and Caspari° 
 even mixes up a stigmatization with the marks of Christ’s wounds, which 
 Paul, according to vi. 17, is supposed to have borne on his own body. But 
 these interpretations are opposed not only by the words év iviv (see below), 
 but also by the wswsloquendi. For, however frequent may be the occurrence 
 of ypagev in the sense of to paint, this signification can by no means be 
 proved as to xpoypddev."” The Greek expression for showing how to paint, 
 tracing out, in the sense of a picture given to copy, is iroypagew. Following 
 Elsner and others, Morus, Flatt, and Schott understand it as palam scriptus 
 est, ‘‘ was openly described :”"! ‘ita Christus vobis est ob oculos palam de- 
 scriptus, gwasi in tabula vobis praescriptus,” ‘‘ Christ was so openly described to 
 you, as though set before you on a panel,” Morus, Thisis inconsistent with év huir, 
 for these words cannot be joined with écravpwuévoe (see below) ; and Schott’s 
 interpretation : in animis vestris, ‘‘in your minds’”—so that what was said 
 figuratively by oic . . . spoeyp. is now more exactly defined sermone proprio, 
 ‘Cin the strict sense,” by év tuiv —makes the év iviv appear simply as some- 
 thing quite foreign and unsuitable in the connection, by which the figure is 
 
 1 Comp. v. 7. 
 
 2 Bos, Luercitatt. p. 173 f., and Wetstein. 
 
 3 Comp. Backavia, fascinatio, sorcery, 
 Plat. Phaed. p. 95 B; Backavos, Plut. Symp. 
 v.73 aBaokavtos, unenchanted. 
 
 4 Kiihner, If. p. 247; Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 462; Piers. ad Herodian. p. 470 f. 
 
 5In Ecclus. xiv. 6, Herodian. ii. 4. 11. 
 
 § Comp. cat’ odumata, Soph. Ant. 756, and 
 on ii. 11. 
 
 7 Chrysostom, Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, 
 Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others ; also 
 Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr. 
 
 ® Most modern expositors, following Cal- 
 vin; including Winer, Paulus, Riickert, 
 Usteri, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
 
 Crusius, de Wette, Reiche, Ewald, Wieseler, 
 Hofmann, Holsten. 
 
 * In the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 211 f. 
 
 10 Not even in Arist. Av. 450. See Rettig 
 in Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 97. 
 
 1 Macesx. 86; Lucian, 2im. 51.7 Plut: 
 Mor. p. 408 D, Demetr. 46, Camill. 11 e¢ al. 
 On this meaning is based the interpretation 
 of Ambrose, Augustine, and Lyra, **He 
 was proscribed, that is, condemned,”’ which 
 is indeed admissible so far as usage goes 
 (Roly ba xexxdis) 210) 12) sexexexdi 5 22) elles 
 Brut. 27), but quite unsuitable to the 
 context. Comp. Vulgate: proscriptus est, 
 instead of which, however, Lachmann has 
 praescriptus est. 
 
102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 marred. [See Note XLII., p. 159.] Inthe two other passages where Paul uses 
 tpoypddey (Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3) it means to write beforehand, so that xpd 
 has a temporal and not a local signification ;' nor is the meaning different in 
 Jude 4 (see Huther). And so it is to be taken here.* Paul represents his 
 previous preaching of Christ as crucified to the Galatians figuratively as a 
 writing, which he had previously written (xpoeypadn) in their hearts (év ipiv).§ 
 In this view kar’ d¢8aAuoic is that trait of the figure, by which the personal 
 oral instruction is characterized : Paul formerly wrote Christ before their eyes 
 in their hearts, when he stood before them and preached the word of the cross, 
 which through his preaching impressed itself on their hearts. By his vivid illus- 
 tration he recalls the fact to his readers, who had just been so misled by a 
 preaching altogether different (i. 6). With no greater boldness than in 
 2 Cor. iii. 2 f., he has moulded the figure according to the circumstances of the 
 case, as he is wont to do in figurative language ;* but this does not warrant a 
 pressing uf the figure to prove traits physically imcompatible.*° Jerome and 
 others® have indeed correctly kept to the meaning olim scribere, ‘‘of writing 
 formerly,” ’ but have quite inappropriately referred it to the prophecies of the 
 O. T. : ‘*quibus ante oculos praedictio fuit Christi in crucem sublati,” ‘‘ be- 
 fore whose eyes there has been a prediction of Christ raised upon the cross,” 
 Hermann. Apart from the circumstance that the precise mode of death by 
 crucifixion is not mentioned in the prophetical utterances, this would consti- 
 tute a ground for surprise on the part of the apostle of a nature much too 
 general, not founded on the personal relation of Paul to his readers, and 
 therefore by no means adequate as a motive ; and, in fact, vv. 2-4 carry 
 back their memory to the time, when Paul was at work among them. — év buiv] 
 is not, with Grotius, Usteri, and others, to be set aside as a Hebrew pleonasm 
 (DD3 WS), but is to be understood as in animis vestris, ‘‘in your minds,” ® 
 and belongs to zpoeypady ; in which case, however, the latter cannot mean 
 either palam pictus, ‘‘ openly portrayed,” or palam scriptus est, ‘* openly 
 written,” because then éy juiv would involve a contradictio in adjecto, ‘‘ con- 
 tradiction in what is added,” and would not be a fitting epexegesis of oic,® 
 for the depicting and the placarding cannot take place otherwise than on some- 
 thing external. To take év iyiv as among you and connect it with rpocyp., would 
 yield not a strengthening of oic (as de Wette holds), but an empty addition, 
 from which Reiche and Wieseler also obtain nothing more than a purport 
 obvious of itself.” On the other hand, Hofmann hits upon the expedient of 
 
 1 Comp. Ptol. viii. 25. 15, and see Hermann 7 Rettig. however, remarking undecid- 
 
 on our passage. 
 
 2So taken correctly also by Matthias, 
 who, however, explains the expression 
 from the idea of an a@mudet used against the 
 enchantment. But this idea would presup- 
 pose some secret writing, the very opposite 
 of which is conveyed by the expression. 
 
 3 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 2f. 
 
 4 Comp. iv. 19. 
 
 5 An objection urged by Reiche. 
 
 6 Also Hermann, Bretschneider, and Ret- 
 tig, /.c. p. 98 ff. 
 
 edly, that it may also mean palam scribere, 
 ‘*to write openly.” 
 
 8 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 2; Soph. Phil. 1309 : 
 ypahov dpevav cow; Aesch. Prom. 791, Suppl. 
 991, Choeph. 450. 
 
 ® Winer, comp. Schott. 
 
 10 Reiche, ‘‘id factum esse a se, gentium 
 apostolo, inter eos praesente,” ‘* that it was 
 done by himself, the apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles, while present with them” (not, it 
 might be, alio loco or per homines sublestae 
 Jidei, not clanculum, but cunctis, publico 
 
CHAPS Ti, 2 103 
 
 dividing the words cic . . . éaravp. into two independent sentences : (1) Before 
 whose eyes is Jesus Christ ; (2) as the Crucified One, He has been freely and pub- 
 
 liely delineated among you. But, apart from the linguistically incorrect view 
 of rpoeypadn, this dismemberment would give to the language of the passage 
 a violently abrupt form, which is the more intolerable, as Paul does not 
 dwell further on the asyndetically introduced zpoeyp. év dbyuiv éotavp. or 
 subjoin to it any more particular statement, but, on the contrary, in ver. 2 
 brings forward asyndetically a new thought. Instead of introducing it ab- 
 ruptly in a way so liable to misapprehension, he would have subjoined 
 mpoeypaon —if it was not intended to belong to oi¢ —in some simple form 
 by yap or or or o¢ or écye. Without any impropriety, he might, on the other 
 hand, figuratively represent that he who preaches Christ to others writes 
 (not placards or depicts) Christ before their eyes in their hearts. Most ex- 
 positors connect év buiv with éoravp., and explain either as propter vos (Koppe), 
 
 contrary to the use of év with persons (see oni. 24) ; or, unsuitably to the figu- 
 rative idea kar’ d63aApoi¢ K.7.2., in animis vestris, ‘‘ your minds ;”! or (as 
 usually) inter vos, ‘‘among you :” ‘‘so clearly, so evidently. . . just as if 
 crucified among you,” Riickert. But the latter must have been expressed 
 by Ge év buiv éotavp., and would also presuppose that the apostle’s preaching 
 of the cross had embodied a vivid and detailed description of the crucifixion 
 It was not this, however, but the fact itself (as the iAaorfpiov), which formed 
 the sum and substance of the preaching of the cross ; as is certain from the 
 
 apostle’s letters. Lastly, Luther’s peculiar interpretation, justly rejected by 
 Calovius, but nevertheless again adopted in substance by Matthias,—that 
 év byiv goravp. is asevere censure, ‘‘ quod Christus, ‘ that Christ’ (namely, after 
 the rejection of grace) non vivit, sed mortuus in eis est, ‘does not live, but has 
 died in them’ (Heb. vi. 6),” which Paul had laid before them argumentis 
 praedictis, ‘‘in the arguments before mentioned”—is as far-fetched, as alien 
 from the usual Pauline mode of expression, and as unsuitable to the con- 
 
 text as the view of Cajetanus, that, according to the idea ‘‘ Christ suffers 
 in His members” (Col. i. 24), év iu. éoravp. is equivalent to for the sake of 
 whom ye have suffered so much. —éoravp.]| as the Crucified One, is with great 
 emphasis moved on to the end.? 
 
 Ver. 2. The foolishness of their error is now disclosed to them, by remind- 
 ing them of their reception of the Holy Spirit. ‘‘See how effectually he 
 treats the topic from experience,” Luther, 1519. — rovro pévov VéAw padeiv ag’ 
 
 eorum conventu, ete., ‘in another place,” 
 or, “by men of trifling faith,’ not ‘se- 
 eretly;” but ‘‘ before all, in their public 
 assembly,’ etc. Wieseler: ‘‘not merely 
 From @ distance by means of an epistle.” 
 
 1 To this category belongs Bengel’s mys- 
 tical interpretation, ‘‘ forma crucis ejus in 
 corde vestro per fidem expressa, ut jam 
 vos etiam cum illo crucefigeremini,”’ ‘‘ the 
 form of his cross is by faith impressed upon 
 your heart, that now you might also be cru- 
 cified with Him.’’ Thus the expression would 
 signify the killing of the old man which had 
 
 taken place through ethical fellowship in the 
 death of Christ, to which év vp. éoraup. is re- 
 ferred by Storralso. A similar viewis taken 
 by Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 24: that év vuivis 
 proleptic, ‘““so that He, as the atoning One, 
 came into and abode in you ;” comp. 
 Ewald, ‘‘to paint clearly before the eyes 
 that Christ is now really crucified in them, 
 and, since they have Him in them, He has 
 not been crucified for them in vain ;’’ also 
 Windischmann. 
 2 Comp. 1 Cor. ii, 2, i, 23. 
 
104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 iuov} This only—not to speak of other self-confessions, which I might 
 demand of you for your refutation—this only I wish to become aware of from 
 you. Bengel pertinently remarks : ‘‘ uévov, grave argumentum.” To take 
 uadety (with Luther, Bengel, Paulus) in the narrower sense to learn—the 
 apostle thus representing himself ironically as a scholar—is justified neither 
 by the tone of the context nor by the tenor of the question, which in fact 
 concerns not a doctrine, but simply a piece of information ; pavddvo is well 
 known in the sense of to come to know, cognoscere.' rovto BobAonat paveiv. 
 —a¢’ izev}] is not used instead of rap’ iuov (Riickert) ; for axé also may 
 denote a direct paSeiwv.2 And this is what Paul means, for he conceives 
 himself speaking with his readers as if they were present. — é& épywv véuov 
 «.7.4.] Was it your fulfilment of works which the law prescribes,’ or was 
 it the preaching to you of faith (that is, faith in Christ), which caused your 
 reception of the Spirit? The rveiya is the Holy Spirit (the personal divine 
 principle of the whole Christian nature and life), and the Holy Spirit 
 viewed generally according to His very various modes of operation, by 
 which He makes Himself known in different individuals ; not merely in 
 relation to the miraculous gifts, 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.;* for Paul reminds the 
 whole body of his readers of their reception of the Spirit, and it is not till 
 ver. 5 that the dvvduerc are specially brought forward as a specific form of 
 the operations of the Spirit.*—The 7 which follows means : or, on the other 
 hand ; ‘‘ duo directe opposita,” Bengel. The axoy riorewc is explained either 
 as the hearing of faith,® or as that which is heard, i.e., the report, the message 
 of faith, which treats of faith. axo7 admits of either meaning.” But ricrewe 
 is decisive in favor of the latter, for it is never the ‘‘ doctrina fidei,” ‘‘ doc- 
 trine of faith” (see on i. 23), but always the subjective faith, which, how- 
 ever, as here, may be regarded objectively ; and hence also adherents of 
 the second interpretation,® are wrong in taking ziorv¢ as system of doctrine. 
 Moreover, axo#, in the sense of preaching (discourse heard), but not in 
 the sense of auditio, ‘‘hearing,” is familiar in the N. T. ;* hence Hol- 
 sten incorrectly takes ziorewe as the genitive of the subject to axo7c, so 
 that the ior is the dxotovca,—a view opposed also by Rom. x. 17%. 
 But Hofmann also is incorrect in holding that it should be construed éx 
 riorewe axopc (faith in news announced) ; against which the antithesis é& 
 épywov vouov is decisive. Through the news concerning faith, which was 
 preached to them, the readers had become believers (Rom. x. 17 ; Heb. iv. 
 2), and consequently partakers of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, Flatt and 
 
 1 See Acts xxiii. 27; Ex. ii. 4; 2 Mace. vii. 
 2; 8 Macc.i.1; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 31; Hell. ii. 
 1.1; Aesch. Agam. 615. Comp. Soph. Ged. 
 Col. 505. 
 
 2 Comp. especially Col. i. 7; see on 1 Cor. 
 xi. 23. 
 
 3 Comp. on ii. 16. 
 
 4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome. 
 
 5 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 27 f. 
 
 6 Reception of the gospel preached: Vul- 
 
 gate, Beza, Bengel, Morus, Ritickert, Usteri, 
 Schott, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others. 
 
 7¥For the former, comp. Plat. Theaet. 
 p. 112 D; Plut. Mor. p. 41 E; Soph. £7. 30; 
 LXX. 1 Sam. xv. 22: and for the latter, 
 comp. Plat. Phaed?. p. 274 C ; Dem. 1097.3; 
 LXX. Isa. liii. 1; John xii.88; 1 Thess. ii. 
 13; Rom. x. 17; Heb. iv. 2; Ecclus. xli. 23. 
 
 8 As Calvin, Grotius, Zachariae, Rosen? 
 miiller, and others. 
 
 ® So even in Rom. x. 16, John xii. 38, pas- 
 sages which Matthias seeks to explain dif- 
 ferently. 
 
CHAP. IIT, 33 105 
 Matthies, following a few ancient expositors, have quite arbitrarily and, 
 although not without linguistic precedent in the LXX. (1 Sam. xv. 22), 
 without any countenance from the N. T., understood axoj¢ as equivalent to 
 iraxoye (Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26; 1 Pet. i. 22). The acceptance of the axoy ricrews 
 which took place on the part of the readers was understood by them as a 
 matter of course, since from this axo# proceeded the reception of the Spirit. 
 They were in fact ca//ed through the gospel. 
 
 Ver. 3. Are ye to such a degree irrational ?—pointing to what follows. The 
 interrogative view (in opposition to Hofmann) is in keeping with the fervor 
 of the language, and is logically justified by the indication of the high degree 
 implied in ottw¢.’— évapZauevor rvebuare, viv capki exitedciofe ;] After ye have 
 begun by means of the Spirit, are ye now brought to completion by means of the 
 flesh? The second part of the sentence is ironical: ‘‘ After ye have made a 
 beginning in the Christian life by your receiving the Holy Spirit (ver. 2), 
 are ye now to be made perfect by your becoming persons whose life is sub- 
 ject to the government of the capé 2? Do ye lend yourselves to such comple- 
 tion as this?” In the same measure in which the readers went back to the 
 legal standpoint and departed from the life of faith, must they again be 
 emptied of the Holy Spirit which they had received, and consequently be re- 
 converted from mvevuarixoi into capxixoi (Rom. vii. 5, 14), that is, men who, 
 loosed from the influence of the Holy Spirit, are again under the dominion 
 of the cap£ which impels to sin (Rom. vii. 14 ff., viii. 7 f., e¢ al.). For the 
 law cannot overcome the capé (Rom. vill. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56). According to 
 this view, therefore, rvevua and cape? designate, not Christianity and Judaism 
 themselves, but the specific agencies of life in Christianity and Judaism (Rom. 
 vii. 5, 6), expressed, indeed, without the article in qualitative contrast as 
 Spirit and flesh, but in the obvious concrete application meaning nothing else 
 than the Holy Spirit and the unspiritual, corporeal and psychical nature of 
 man, which draws him into opposition to God and inclination to sin (see, 
 e.g., Rom. iv. 1; John iii. 6). — évapZauevoc] What it is which they have begun, 
 is obvious from rveiya éAdBere in ver. 2, namely, the state into which they 
 entered through the reception of the Spirit—-the Christian life.* This re- 
 ception is ‘‘ the indisputable sign of the existence and working of true Chris- 
 tianity,” Ewald. — éziredeicfe] is understood by most modern expositors * as 
 middle ;° although Koppe (with whom Riickert agrees) entirely obliterates 
 the literal sense by the assumption, that it is put so only for the sake of the 
 
 1 On ovtws, comp. Soph. Ant. 220, odk ear 
 ovTw wapos, “isnot so foolish: John iii. 16; 
 Gal. i. 6; Heb. xii. 21; and see Voigtliinder, 
 ad Lue. D. M. p. 220; Jacob, ad Luc. Alex. 
 p. 28. 
 
 2 Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 and many ancient expositors. Riickert, 
 Usteri, and Schott believe that capi is 
 chosen with special reference to circuamci- 
 sion (Eph. ii. 11). But the context by no 
 means treats specially of circumcision, and 
 the contrast of itself necessarily involved 
 TapKt, 
 
 3 Bos, Wolf, and others, as also Schott, 
 assume the figurative idea of a race in the 
 stadium. But this reference would require 
 to be suggested by the context (as in Vv. 7); 
 for although émcreActo Oar is used of the com- 
 pletion of a race, as of every kind of com- 
 pletion (Herodian. viii. 8. 5, iii. 8 17 f., 
 iv. 2.7), it has not this special meaning of 
 itself, but acquires it from the context. 
 
 4 Including Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wet- 
 te, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann. 
 
 5 Comp. Luther, Castalio, and Others. 
 
106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 contrast and denotes ‘‘tantum id, quod nune inter Gal. fieri solebat, contra- 
 rium pristinae eorum sapientiae,” ‘* only that which was now generally oc- 
 curring among the Galatians contrary to their former wisdom,” ete. Winer 
 explains more definitely : ‘‘carne finire, h. e. ita ad ry capxa se applicare, 
 ut in his studiis capxxoic plane acquiescas,” ‘‘ to finish in the flesh, 7.¢., so 
 to apply oneself to the flesh as to entirely acquiesce in these fleshly pursuits ;” 
 and Wieseler : ‘‘instead of your advancing onward to the goal, ye make the 
 most shameful retrogression.”! But éxiredeiv and érire/Acioba: always dencte 
 ending in the sense of completion, of accomplishing and bringing fully to 
 a conclusion (conswmmare).? If, therefore, the word is taken as middle, it 
 must be explained : ‘‘ After ye have begun (your Christian life) with the Spirit, 
 de ye now bring (that which ye have begun) to completion with the flesh ?” * 
 But the active to complete is always in the N. T. represented by éxureAeiv, not 
 by éniveAeiofac in the middle (comp., on the contrary, 1 Pet. v. 9), however 
 undoubted is the occurrence of the medial use among Greek authors.* 
 Moreover, the rocaira éxdOere eixy which follows (see on ver. 4) makes the 
 subject of éivedeicfe appear as suffering, and thereby indicates the word to 
 be passive, as, following the Vulgate (consummamini), Chrysostom, and Theo- 
 phylact, many of the older expositors have understood it,°—viz., so that the 
 Judaistic operations, which the readers had experience of and allowed to be 
 practised on themselves, are expressed by antiphrasis, and doubtless in refer- 
 ence to their own opinion and that of their teachers, as their Christian com- 
 pletion (réAevot roteiobe !).° But how cutting and putting to shame this irony 
 is, is felt at once from the contradictory juxtaposition of carne perficimini, 
 ‘‘ve are made perfect in the flesh !” Nearest to our view (without, how- 
 ever, bringing forward the zronical character of the words) comes that of 
 Beza, who says that perficimini applies to the teaching of the pseudo-apostles, 
 who ascribed ‘‘ Christo tantum initia, legi perfectionem justitiae,” ‘to Christ 
 only the beginning, and to the law the perfection of righteousness.” 7 
 The present denotes that the Galatians were just occupied in this ériredeicAa. 
 Comp. i. 6. The emphatic viv (‘‘nune, cum magis magisque deberetis 
 spirituales fieri relicta carne,” ‘‘now, when the flesh being left, ye should 
 have become more and more spiritual,’ Bengel) should have prevented it 
 from being taken as the Attic future (Studer, Usteri). 
 
 Ver. 4. After Paul, by the viv capxi érire?cicbe, has reminded his readers 
 of all that they had most foolishly submitted to at the hands of the false 
 apostles, in order to be made, according to their own and their teachers’ 
 fancy, finished Christians, he now discloses to them the uselessness of it in 
 the exclamation (not interrogation), ‘‘ So much have ye suffered without profit !” 
 What he means by rocaita éxdfere, is therefore everything with which the 
 
 1 Comp. Hofmann. 
 2 See especially Phil. i. 6, 6 evapEdmevos 
 . emuTedcoer 5 1 Sam. iii. 12, apEowar Kat 
 
 éemctedkecow : Zech. iv. 9; Luke xiii. 82 ; Rom. 
 Xv. 28; 2 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 6, 11; Heb. viii. 5, 
 ix. 6. Comp. Thucyd. iv. 90. 4, 00a jy vr0- 
 Aoura éemiteAeoar: Xen, Anabd. iy. 3. 13. 
 
 3 Comp. Holsten. 
 
 4 Plat. Phil. p. 27. C; Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 83 
 Polyb. i. 40. 16, ii. 58. 10, v. 108. 9. 
 
 5 Some of them indeed translating it pas- 
 sively, but in the interpretation (comp. 
 Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Bengel) 
 not strictly maintaining the passive sense. 
 
 ® Comp. also Matthias, VOmel, Reithmayr. 
 
 7 Comp. Semler. 
 
CHAP. III., 4. 10% 
 false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had molested and burdened the 
 Galatians,—the many exactions, in name of compliance with the law, which 
 these had necessarily to undergo at the hands of their new teachers.’ Bengel 
 refers it to the patient endurance of the apostle’s ministry, produced through 
 the Holy Spirit ; but this view is not at all suggested by the context, and 
 would not correspond to the sense of técyew (but rather of avéyeobar). All 
 the expositors before Schomer (in Wolf) and Homberg,’? understand it 
 (following Chrysostom and Augustine) of the sufferings and persecutions on 
 account of Christianity ; so that Paul asks, ‘‘ Have ye suffered so much in 
 vain ? Seeing, namely, that ye have fallen away from the faith and hence 
 cannot attain to the glory which tribulation brings in its train” (2 Cor. iv. 
 17 ; Rom. viii. 17). But, apart from the fact that no extraordinary suffer- 
 ings on the part of the Galatians are either touched upon in the epistle (iv. 
 29 is quite general in its character) or known to us otherwise, this interpre- 
 tation is completely foreign to the connection. After Schomer and Hom- 
 berg, others * explain it : ‘‘ So many benefits (by means of the Spirit) have ye ex- 
 perienced in vain ?”* Certainly tacyo, something befalls me, is a vox media, 
 “‘eolorless word” (hence Matthies even wishes to understand it of the 
 agreeable and disagreeable together), which, according to the well-known 
 Greek usage, as the passive side of the idea of roveiv, may be employed also 
 of happy experiences ;*° but, as the latter use of the word always occurs 
 with a qualitative addition either expressed (ci, yap, teprvdv, ayaba, 
 dvjoima, or the like) or indicated beyond doubt by the immediate context, °® 
 it is not to be found at all in the whole of the New Test., the LXX., 
 or the Apocrypha (not even Esth. ix. 29). Thus the interpretation, 
 even if rocavta could convey any such qualitative definition of the text, is 
 without precedent in the usage of Scripture. Paul in particular, often as 
 he speaks about the experiences of divine grace, never uses for this purpose 
 rdovew, Which with him always denotes the experience of suffering. He 
 would have written, as the correlative of the bestowal of grace, éAaBere or 
 édéEaabe (2 Cor. vi. 1). Ewald’s suggestion of powerful and vehement move- 
 ments of the Spirit is forced, and unwarranted by the text. The very word 
 tocavra points to the suffering of evil, just as roAAd, waa roAAa rabeiv, With- 
 out «axa or the like, is frequently so used in Greek authors. — ive kai eix7] 
 A hint that the case might be still worse than was expressed in eixy : if 
 indeed it is only in vain (and not even to the positive jeopardy of your Mes- 
 sianic salvation) that ye have suffered.’ Chrysostom and his followers dis- 
 cover a mitigation and encouragement to improvement in the words ei yap 
 
 Meomp. 16) f.,1v. 10) v.25 8; vis 12; i. 4): 
 2 Cor. xi. 20. 
 
 2 As also Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Sem- 
 ler, Michaelis, Morus, Riickert, Olshausen, 
 Reithmayr, and others. 
 
 SIncluding Schoettgen, Raphel, Kypke, 
 Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, 
 Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
 Hofmann, Matthias, Sieffert. . 
 
 4So also Fritzsche, Diss. I. in 2 Cor. p. 54, 
 
 and Holsten. 
 
 5 Xen. Anab. v. 5.9: ayadov pév Te macxXewv, 
 kakoy be pndev. 
 
 6 As Joseph. Anft. iii. 15.1: 00a mabovtes 
 e€& avtov kal mynAtkwy evepyecimy weTadaBorTes, 
 
 7On «cat, compare Hartung, Partikell. 1. 
 p. 136; Baeuml. Partik. p. 150. So, in sub- 
 stance, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Kypke, 
 Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Matthies, 
 Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Wieseler, Matthias, and cthers. 
 
108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 BovanOeinzé ono avavipat kai avaxtgoacba Eavtodce, obk eixy, ‘‘if you would be 
 willing to be recovered and restored, it would not be in vain,” Chrysostom, 
 as also Ambrose, Luther,’ Erasmus, Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, 
 Cornelius 4 Lapide, Estius, Zachariae, Morus, and others. In this case 
 cat must be understood as really;* but the idea of improvement, where- 
 by the supposed case of the eix7 would be cancelled, is not indicated 
 by aught in the context. Even should the words be taken as merely 
 leaving open the possibility, that matters had not actually already gone so far 
 with the readers (Hofmann), Paul himself would have rendered his very 
 earnest reproach rocaira éraé. eixy both problematical and ambiguous, and 
 would thus have taken the whole pith out of it.—eiye] assuming, namely, 
 that ye even only, etc., makes the condition more prominent, and serves to 
 Paul fears that more may take place than that which 
 was only expressed by ei«j. This, however, is conveyed by the context, and 
 is independent of the yé, instead of which zép might have been used.’ Still 
 more marked prominence would have been given to the condition by 
 eitep ye xai.4 [See Note XLIIL., p. 159.] 
 
 Ver. 5. After the logical parenthesis (vv. 3, 4), oby resumes*® what was 
 said in ver. 2, but in an altered tense (the present), in order to annex the 
 example of Abraham as a proof of justification by faith. —émvyopyyav and 
 évepyov are not to be understood as imperfect participles ;° for, if referring to 
 the reception of the Spirit for the jirst time corresponding to éAaBere in ver. 
 2, Paul must have written ériyopyyhoac and évepyfoas. No, he denotes the 
 éxcyopnyelv K.T.A. as still continuing among the Galatians; it has not yet 
 ceased, although now, of course, in consequence of the active efforts of the 
 Judaizers under which they had suffered, it could not but be less strong and 
 general than previously ;* ‘‘nondum ceciderant, sed inclinabantur, ut ca- 
 derent,” ‘‘they had not yet fallen, but were inclining towards a fall,” Au- 
 gustine. — In éxcyopnyeiv the éxi is not insuper, ‘‘ besides,” but denotes the 
 direction, as in the German ‘‘darreichen, zwkommen lassen.”* — kai évepy. | 
 and —to make mention of a particular yapicwa — which, etc. — duvduerc] may 
 be miracles (1 Cor. xii. 10) ;° or miraculous powers (1 Cor. xii. 28).’? The 
 analogy of 1 Cor. xii. 6 (comp. Phil. ii. 13 ; Eph. ii. 2) favors the latter. 
 — é épywv vouov, 4 & akong riot. | 8c. moet TowTo,'! OY éExryopnyel Luiv TO TvEdpa 
 Kk. évepyel Suvaperc év iuiv; Is this his operation upon you caused by works of 
 the law or by the knowledge of faith ? comes it in consequence of your pros- 
 ecuting those works, or of such knowledge being communicated to you? by 
 
 intensify the mere ei. 
 
 1“ Objurgat quidem, sed ita ut semper 
 oleum juxta infundat, ne eos ad desper- 
 ationem adigat.... Non omnino abjeci 
 spem de vobis,” ‘‘He chides indeed, but 
 in such way as always to pour in oil at the 
 same time, in order not to drive them to 
 despair .. . Ihave not entirely cast away 
 my hope of you.” 
 
 2 Hartung, I. p. 182. 
 
 3 See Baeuml. /.c. p. 64 f. 
 v. 3; Eph. iii. 2. 
 
 4 Plat. Treact. p. 187 D ; Herod. vi. 16. 
 
 Comp. on 2 Cor. 
 
 5 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 719. 
 
 6 Castalio, Bengel, Semler, and others. 
 
 7 yOv capkt éemTedciode, Ver. 3. 
 
 82 Cor. ix. 10; Col. ii. 19; 2 Pet. i. 5; 
 comp. also Phil. i. 19. 
 
 In which case év is among, Winer and 
 others. 
 
 10 In which case év is within you, Borger, 
 Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Wiese- 
 ler, and others. 
 
 11 Buttmann, newt. Cr. p. 326. 
 
CHAP ME 46.07. 109 
 the former way of active merit, or by the latter way of the reception of 
 divine preaching? As to ako? miorswc, here also not (with Hofmann) = 
 mioti¢ akoyc, See On ver. 2. 
 
 Ver. 6. The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question is: é 
 axojce Tiotewe ; and to this, but not directly to that question itself,’ Paul 
 subjoins—making use of the words well known to his readers, Gen. xy, 6, 
 according to the LXX.—that great religious-historic argument for the right- 
 eousness of faith, which is presented in the justification of the progenitor 
 of the theocratic people. Secing that Paul has just specified the operation 
 of the Spirit caused by the preached news of faith, as that which proves the 
 justifying power of faith, he may with just logic continue : even as Abraham 
 believed God (trusted His Messianic promise ; comp. on John viii. 56), and it 
 (this faith) was counted to him as righteousness, that is, in the judgment of the 
 gracious God was imputed to him as rectitude.? [See Note XLIV., p. 159 seq. | 
 Neither, therefore, is a colon to be placed * after’Afp., nor‘ is ver. 6 to be 
 considered as protasis and ver. 7 as apodosis, for ver. 7 is evidently inde- 
 pendent, and it would be a very arbitrary course® to take ver. 6 as an 
 anacoluthon.* For the reward of Abraham’s justifying faith according to 
 Gen. ic., see Jas. ii, 22 f. ; 1 Macc. ii. 52 ; and Mechilta.’” 
 
 Ver. 7. Know ye therefore (since Abraham’s faith was counted to him for 
 righteousness) that those who are of faith, etc. — ywooxere is taken as indica- 
 tive by Cyprian, ep. 63 ad Caccil., Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Erasmus, 
 Beza, Menochius, Piscator, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Reithmayr, and 
 others. The tone of the passage is more animated by taking it as imper- 
 ative." — oi ix rior.| designates believers, according to this their specific pe- 
 culiarity, under the point of view of origin. It is faith from which their 
 spiritual state of life proceeds.® —oiro.] has the emphasis :'° these, and no 
 others. The contrast here is usually supposed to be : not the bodily descend- 
 ants of Abraham. But how foreign to the context is a comparison between 
 the bodily and spiritual children of Abraham! The only interpretation in 
 harmony with the context is : ee 
 So also, correctly, Riickert and Wieseler. — vioi ’ASp.] children of Abraham 
 in the true sense. For the true vioi can have no nature different from the 
 essential nature of the father. 
 
 “these, and not those who are é& épywv vdpov. 
 
 1 As Hofmann holds, according to his 
 wrong interpretation of axons miotews. 
 
 2 Tt is self-evident from the words of the 
 text, how improperly the idea of sanctifica- 
 tion is here mixed up with justification by 
 the Catholics (also Bisping and Reithmayr). 
 We have here justification simply as an 
 actus forensis, a forensic act of the divine 
 judgment, and that proceeding from grace, 
 Rom. iv. 2 ff. 
 
 3 With Koppe. 
 
 4 With Beza and Hilgenfeld. 
 
 5 With Hilgenfeld. 
 
 6 See, moreover, on Rom. iv. 3; Hoele- 
 mann, de justitie ex fide ambabus in V. T. 
 sedibus, Lips. 1867, p. 8 ff. 
 
 7 Jalkut. Sim. I. f. 69.3, ‘‘hoc planum est, 
 Abrahamum neque hune mundum neque 
 futurum haereditate consequi potuisse, 
 nisi per fidem, qua credidit,‘* It is plain that 
 Abraham could have obtained by inheri- 
 tance neither this world vor the future, un- 
 less through the faith by which he be- 
 lieved,”’ q. d. Gen. xv. 6. 
 
 8 The Vulgate has in Lachmann’s text, 
 cognoscite. So also Castalio, Calvin, and 
 others, as well as most modern expositors. 
 
 ®Comp. Rom. ii. 8, iii. 26, iv. 14; John 
 XViii. 37, et al. 
 
 10 Comp. Rom. viii. 14, ix. 6. 
 
 11 See vy. 8-10. 
 
 12 Comp. John viii. 8, 89; Rom. iv. 11 f. 
 
110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. After having pointed out from the Scripture that none other 
 than believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now shows further according to 
 Scripture that none other than these have a share in Abraham’s blessing, that 
 is, are justified. 
 
 Ver. 8. Aé] marks the transition from the sonship of Abraham pertaining 
 to believers to the participation in his blessing. — rpoidovca] personification.’ 
 The Scripture foresaw and the Seripture announced beforehand, inasmuch 
 as whatever God foresaw and announced beforehand—in reference, namely, 
 to that which is at present taking place—formed an element of Scripture, 
 and was expreseed in it.*—ék« riorewc] is the main point of the participial 
 sentence : of faith, not of the works of the law as the causal condition on 
 the side of man. — d:caioi] present, for the time foreseen (rpoidovca) was the 
 Christian present. — ra ivy] the Gentiles (comp. ver. 14), so that the latter 
 have not to subject themselves to the law in order to become righteous, — 
 mpoevnyyedicato| pre-announced the glad tidings. po refers, as in xpoidovca, 
 to the future realization in Christian times. This promise was a gospel be- 
 fore the gospel. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Test., in 
 the LXX., or the Apocrypha ; but it is found in Philo.*— ére évevaoyndqo. 
 év col ravra Ta é0vy] Gen. xii. 3, quoted according to the LXX. with the rec- 
 itative 671, but so that, instead of acai ai gvdai tie yc, TavTa Ta *vy is 
 adopted from Gen. xviii. 18;* and this not accidentally, but because Paul is 
 dealing with Gentile Christians, whom it was desired to subject to the law. 
 Hence ® it is not to be explained © of all nations, both Jews and Gentiles.— 
 The emphasis in this utterance of promise is to be laid, not on zayra (Schott), 
 but on the prefixed évevAoyndjoovra. For if the Scripture had not foreseen 
 that faith would justify the Gentiles, it would not have promised blessing in 
 Abraham to all the Gentiles ; from which it follows (ver. 10) that it is be- 
 lievers who receive this blessing, and not those of the law, on whom indeed 
 the Scripture pronounces not blessing, but curse (ver. 10). The characteris- 
 tic évevdoy. can only be meant to apply to those who are of faith, and not to 
 those who are of the law. What it is that in Paul’s view is expressed by 
 évevdoyeiobar, Gen. xii. 3, in its Messianic fulfilment, is evident from the 
 preceding or: é« ristewe dixatoi Ta ESvy, namely, God’s gracious gift of justi- 
 Jication (the opposite of the kardpa, vv. 10, 11), which, because it is promised 
 as blessing, can only be shared by believers, and not by those of the law who 
 
 are under cwrse.’?’ The correctness of this view is certainly confirmed by 
 
 1 Comp. ver. 22; Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17; John 
 Vii. 38. 
 
 2 Comp. the frequent Ac€yeu » ypady ; like- 
 wise Siphra, f£.186. 2: Quid vidit (TISN)) scrip- 
 tura, ete., ‘‘ what did scripture see.” 
 
 3 De opif. m. p.7 A, de nom. nut. p. 1069 
 D; also Schol. Soph. Trach. 335. 
 
 4 Comp. also xxii. 18. 
 
 5 And see ver. 14. 
 
 6 With Winer, Matthias, Schott, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, following earlier exposi- 
 tors ; 
 
 7 De Wette, who is followed by Wieseler, 
 
 understands the dlessing to be ‘the whole 
 salvation of the kingdom of God,’—an idea 
 too comprehensive for the context. Bahr 
 (in Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 920) erroneously 
 concludes from ver. 14, that by the blessing 
 is meant the reception of the Spirit. See on 
 ver. 14. This reception, as well as the Mes- 
 sianiec salvation generally,—or, ‘‘ the good 
 which is intended for mankind,” as Hofmann 
 puts it,—ensues as a consequence of the ev- 
 Aoyia, as the Messianic awwAeca ensues as a 
 consequence of the xardpa, if the latter, as in 
 the case of those who adhere to the works 
 
_— wore is used in 
 
 CHAP: Uhr, 0, 0: 
 
 dealt 
 
 ver. 14, where to the reception of the blessing there is annexed, as a further 
 reception, that of the Holy Spirit, so that the bestowal of the Spirit is not 
 included in the idea of the eidoyia, but this idea is limited in conformity 
 with the context to the justification, with which the whole reception of sal- 
 
 vation begins. 
 
 [See Note XLY., p. 160.]— év ooiis not : per tuam posterita- 
 
 tem, t.e., Christum, ‘‘ through your posterity, ¢.e., Christ,” ? by which inter- 
 pretation the personal coi (and how much at variance with ver. 9 !) is en- 
 
 tirely set aside, as if év 76 orépuarti cov (ver. 16) were used. 
 
 But it is : in 
 
 thee ; that is, in the fact that thow art blessed (art justified) is involved (as 
 a consequence) the blessedness of all the Gentiles, in so far as all the Gen- 
 tiles are to attain justification by faith, and it is in the blessing of Abraham, 
 the father of all the faithful (Rom. iv.), that the connection between faith 
 
 and justification is opened and instituted for all future time. 
 
 licott. 
 
 Comp. EI- 
 
 On évevioyeicdat, to be blessed in the person of any one, a word which 
 
 does not occur in Greek authors, comp. Acts li. 25, Ecclus. xliv. 21. 
 
 Ver. 9. "Qo7e] The general result from vv. 7, 8. 
 
 If, namely, believers are 
 
 sons of Abraham (ver. 7), and if the Scripture, in its promise of blessing to 
 Abraham, has had in view faith as the source of divine justification for the 
 Gentiles, believers accordingly are those who are blessed with believing Abraham. 
 
 its common acceptation of the actual consequence, and is there- 
 
 fore not to be explained in the sense of oi7w¢ viv, to which Hofmann’s view 
 comes. — oi éx rictewc] has the whole emphasis, as in ver. 7. — civ 76 rioTO 
 "ABp.| Paul does not repeat év, but writes civ, because he looks from the 
 present time of eiAoyotvra into the past, in which Abraham stands forth as 
 the blessed one, with whom those who become blessed are now placed on a 
 
 like footing. 
 
 civ is not, however, equivalent to cadac, a view on behalf of 
 
 which appeal ought not to be made to Rom. viii. 32 ;? but it expresses fellow- 
 ship, for believers, inasmuch as they are blessed (justified), share with believ- 
 ing Abraham the same divine benefit which began in his person and is ex- 
 tended to believers as the vioi¢ homogeneous with him. The predicate mioré 
 is added to ’A{p., in order to denote the similarity of the ethical character, 
 which necessarily accompanies the similarity of the result. 
 
 Ver. 10. Argumentum e contrario, ‘‘argument from the contrary,” for the 
 correctness of the result exhibited in ver. 9.2 For how entirely different is the 
 
 of the law, is not cancelled (ver. 10). The 
 evAoyta, therefore, is not yet the blessing of 
 Messianic salvation itself, the «Anpovoy.a, 
 but, as Hunnius (in Calovius) aptly explains 
 it, ‘* Benedici in hac promissione est libera- 
 ri mal-dvictione legis aeternae et vicissim 
 haeredem ..ribi justitiae et bonorum coeles- 
 tium,” *‘ To be blessed, in this promise, is to 
 be freed from the curse of the eternal law, 
 and in turn to be enrolled an heir of right- 
 eousness and heavenly blessings.’’ Grotius 
 is much too indefinite : ‘‘ Summa bona adi- 
 piscentur,” “‘ They will attain the highest 
 blessings.”? Also Ewald’s paraphrase, ‘‘ the 
 blessing of the true religion,” istoo general. 
 
 Beza, Usteri, Riickert, take the right view ; 
 comp. also MOller (on de Wette) and Reith- 
 mayr. 
 
 1 Jerome, Oecumenius, Menochius, Estius, 
 Calovius, Rambach, Morus, Borger, Flatt, 
 Schott ; comp. also Bengel. 
 
 2 Koppe and others. 
 
 3 The conclusion is based upon the dilem- 
 ma: either from faith o7 from the law. 
 Tertium non datur, ‘‘ there is no third alter- 
 native.’’ This is no supposititious idea (as 
 Hofmann objects), but a necessary logical 
 assumption, such as exists in every argu- 
 ment ¢€ contrario. 
 
 
 
112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 position of those who are workers of the law! These, as a whole, according 
 to the Scripture, are under a curse ; so that it cannot be supposed that they 
 should become blessed. The extension of the argumentative force of the yap 
 to the whole series of propositions, vv. 10-14,’ so that ver. 10 would only 
 form the introduction to the argument, is the less to be approved, because 
 this ydp is followed by a second and subordinate yap, and then in ver. 11 
 an argument entirely complete in itself is introduced by dé. Moreover, 
 by the quotation of Scripture in ver. 10 that which it is intended to prove 
 (cot «.7.A.) is proved completely and strikingly.? — dco: yap é& Epywv védyov 
 eiciv] the opposite of the oi é« rictewc in ver. 7: for all who are of works of 
 the law, that is, those whose characteristic moral condition is produced and 
 regulated by observance of the law (comp. on Rom. ii. 8), the men of law, 
 ol éy6uevoe Tov vouov, Oecumenius.* — The quotation is from Deut. xxvii. 26 
 freely after the LXX. ; and the probative force of the passage in reference to 
 boot. . . bd KaTdpay eici turns on the fact that no one is adequate, either 
 quantitatively or qualitatively, to the éupuévecy év waor x.7.A. 5 Consequently 
 all who are é& épywv vduov are subjected to the curse here ordained. He alone 
 would not be so, who should really render the complete (év raov) and constant 
 (éupéver) obedience to the law, by virtue of which he as a doer of the law 
 would necessarily be pronounced righteous (Rom. ii. 13), and would have 
 a claim to salvation as dgeiAnua (Rom. iv. 4) ; but see Rom. iii. 9-20, vii. 
 7-25. —émixatdpatoc] sc. éoTt, V8, xatypayevoc, Matt. xxv. 41, that is, has 
 incurred the divine épy7.4 The word does not occur in Greek authors, 
 among whom xardparoc is frequently used. But comp. Wisd. iii. 13, xiv. 
 8; Tob. xiii. 12 ; 4 Macc. ii. 19. The a7éAea, eternal death, the opposite 
 of the (joera in ver. 11, ensues as the final destiny of the érixatdpatoc (comp. 
 Matt. xxv. 41), the consummation and effect of the xatapa. — bc ov« éupéver] 
 What is written in the book of the law is conceived as the normal range of 
 action, which man steps beyond.® More frequently used by classical authors 
 with the mere dative than with év.— ao] as well as the previous zac, is 
 found in the Samaritan text and in the LXX., but not in the Hebrew. 
 Jerome, however, groundlessly accuses the Jews of mutilating the text on 
 purpose (to mitigate the severity of the expression). — roi roujoa: aita] design 
 of the éupéver x.7.A. 
 
 Ver. 11 f. Aé] carrying on the argument. After Paul in ver. 10 has proved 
 the participation of believers in the blessing of Abraham by the argumentum 
 econtrario, that those who are of the law are under curse, it is his object now 
 —in order to complete the doctrinal explanation begun in ver. 6 on the basis 
 of Scripture—to show, on the same basis, the only way of justification, and 
 that (a) negatively: it is not by the way of the Jaw that man becomes right- 
 eous (vy. 11, 12), and (0) positively: Christ has made us free from the curse 
 of the law (ver. 13). Observe (in opposition to Wieseler’s objection) that in 
 
 1 Holsten, Hofmann. 5 Comp. Acts xiv. 22; Heb. viii. 9; 2 Tim. 
 2JIn opposition to Holsten, z. Hvang. d. iii. 14: Xen. Ages: 1. 11); ThucMive Wisse 
 Paul. u. Petr. p. 290. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 844 C; Polyb. iii. 70. 4; 
 3 Comp. 6 épyagdjuevos, Rom. iy. 4. Isocr. de Pace, p. 428 jfin.; Liban. IV. 271, 
 
 4 Comp. Rom. iy. 15. Reiske ; Joseph. Anté. viii. 10. 3, et al. 
 
CHAP. THs Ly 113 
 Stxatovtat Tapa T. Oe@, the being justified in spite of the curse, and consequently 
 the becoming free from it, is clearly and necessarily implied by the context 
 preceding (ver. 10) and following (ver. 13). — Vv. 11 and 12 contain a com- 
 plete syllogism ; 6 dixatog éx riot. Cyoerac forming the major proposition, ver. 
 12 the minor, and éy véuw obdeic Stxatoitac Tapa TO Oe the conclusion. The 
 subtle objections of Hofmann are refuted not only by the combination 6 
 dixatoc éx tictewc, but also by the necessary inner correlation of dccacoctvy and 
 fw, which are put as reciprocal.— The first 67 is declarative, and the second 
 causal ;: ‘‘but that through the law no one. . . , is evident, because,” etc. 
 Homberg and Flatt take them conversely : ‘‘ But because through the law no 
 one... , it is evident that,” etc. The circumstance that djA0v 67: must 
 mean it is evident, that (Flatt),' is not to be adduced as favoring the latter 
 view ; for in our interpretation also it has this meaning, only érz is made to 
 precede.* Against it, on the other hand, we may urge, that ver. 12 would 
 be quite superfluous and irrelevant to the argument, and also that 6 dixacog 
 é riorewe Chocrat, as a well-known aphorism of Scripture, is far more fitly 
 employed to prove than to be itself proved. Far better is the view of Ben- 
 gel, who likewise is not inclined to separate djAov ore : ‘‘Quod attinet ad 
 id ‘as to the fact’ (the former éz: thus being equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo, bru, 
 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10 ; John ii. 18, ix. 17), quod in lege nemo justificetur coram 
 Deo, id sane certum est,” ‘‘that no one is justified in the law before 
 God, it is doubtless true,” etc. The usual view is, however, more natural * 
 and more emphatic. Hofmann‘ wishes to take vv. 11, 12 as protasis to vv. 
 13, 14 ; according to his view, ér specifies the cause, and d720v (or d72o0vé6r0) 
 only introduces the illustration of this cause. But we thus get a long par- 
 enthetically involved period, differing from the whole context, in which 
 Paul expresses himself only in short sentences without periodic complica- 
 tion ; moreover, the well-known use of dyAovérs as namely *® does not occur 
 elsewhere in the N. T., although the opportunities for its use were very fre- 
 quent (1 Cor. xv. 27, 1 Tim. vi. 7, are wrongly adduced) ; further, it is @ 
 priort very improbable that the two important quotations in vv. 11, 12 
 should be destined merely for incidental illustration ;° and lastly, there would 
 result an awkward thought, as if, namely, Christ had been moved to His 
 work of redemption, in the death on the cross, by the reflection contained in 
 vv. 11, 12.7 —év vdum] not : by observance of the law, which would be é& épywv 
 vouov,* but : through the law, in so far, namely, as the law is an institution 
 which does not cancel the curse so pronounced and procure justification ; 
 for otherwise faith must have been its principle, which is not the case (see 
 the sequel). The law is consequently, in principle, not the means by the use 
 
 ay Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27. 
 
 2 See Kiihner, II. p. 626. 
 
 3 For if we take Bengel’s explanation, the 
 énAov will not suit well the following words, 
 because they form an utterance of Scripture. 
 We should expect possibly yeypamrat, so that 
 then the first 67. would have to be under. 
 stood as: iva eidqre, ot, ‘that ye may see 
 that” (Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 59 ff.; 
 
 8 
 
 Schaef. ad Dem. II. p. 71). 
 
 4 In loc. and Schriftbew. I. p. 615 f. 
 
 5 See especially Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. 
 p. 106; Bast, Palaeogr. p. 804. 
 
 6 Comp. Rom. i. 17. 
 
 7 Comp., on the contrary, iv. 3-5; Rom. 
 Willy 32) COM Varels 
 
 § Erasmus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and oth- 
 ers, 
 
114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 of which aman can attain to justification.’ Xpcoréc in ver. 18 corresponds to 
 the emphatically prefixed év véum (what by the law is not done, Christ has 
 effected) ; therefore év is not to be understood ? as : in, in the condition of 
 of Judaism, or in the sense of the rule (Wieseler), but as : through, by means 
 of. — rapa TS OG] judice Deo, opposed to the judgment of men.* — 6 dixacoc 
 éx rlotews Choera] an aphorism of Scripture well known to the readers, which 
 therefore did not need any formula of quotation. The passage is from Hab. 
 ii. 4, according to the LXX. (6 62 dixatog éx riot. ov Choerar, Or, according to 
 A. : 6 68 dix. pov ée m. gw. ¢.), Where it is said: The righteous (P'S) shall 
 through his fidelity (towards God) become partaker of (theocratic) life-blessed- 
 ness. The apostle, glancing back from the Messianic fulfilment of this 
 saying—which he had everywhere in view, and experienced most deeply in 
 his own consciousness—to the Messianic destination of it, recognizes as 
 its prophetic sense : ‘‘ He who is righteous through faith (in Christ) shall obtain 
 (Messianic) life.” Comp. on Rom. i. 17. In so doing Paul, following the 
 LXX., which very often renders 13128 by xiorec, had the more reason for 
 retaining this word, because the faithful self-surrender to God (to His prom- 
 ise and grace) is the fundamental essence of faith in Christ ; and he might 
 join éx rictewc to 6 dixatoc, because the life é« ricrews presupposes no other 
 righteousness than. that éx mictewc. Here also, asin Rom. l.c. (otherwise in 
 Heb. x. 38), the words 6 dixawoc éx ristewe are to be connected,* and not é« 
 riotewc Cyoetao :° for Paul desires to point out the cause of the righteousness, 
 and not that of the life of the righteous, although this has the same cause ; 
 and in ver. 12, 6 zoijcac ara stands in contrast not to 6 dixacog merely, but to 
 6 dixatoc éx Tiotewc.” Paul, however, did not write 6 ék miotewe dixatog OF DikaLoc 
 6 éx wiotewc, because this important saying was well known and sanctioned 
 by usage in the order of the words given by the LXX.; so that he involun- 
 tarily abstained from the freedom of dealing elsewhere manifested by him 
 in quoting from Scripture. The grammatical correctness of the junction of 
 éx riot. to dixatoc is evident from the fact that the phrase dicawvoGa é« rior. 
 is used ; comp. ver. 8. 
 
 Ver. 12. Minor proposition ; dé the syllogistic atgui. See on ver. 11. — 
 oix éotiv éx Tiotewe, is not of faith, is not an institution which has faith as 
 the principle of its nature and action. Comp. ver. 10. — a2’ 6 roijoag k.T.A.] 
 but he who shall have done them (namely, the xpoorayuzara and xpiuara, ‘‘ stat- 
 utes and judgments” of God, Lev. xviii. 5) shall live (shall have life in the 
 Messiah’s kingdom) through them, so that they form, in this way of doing, 
 
 5 Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Pareus, Bengel, 
 Baumgarten, Zachariae, Michaelis, Semler, 
 Morus, Griesbach, Knapp, Riickert, Winer, 
 
 1 On this advvatov tod voxov (Rom. viii. 3), 
 comp. Lipsius, Fechtfertigungsl. p. 68; Ne- 
 ander. II. p. 658 ff.; Weiss, bib/. Theol. 
 
 p. 286 f. 
 
 2 With Riickert, de Wette, and others. 
 
 8 Comp. Rom. ii. 13; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 
 492]. 
 
 4D* E FG, Syr. Erp. It., have yéypanrrac 
 yap before om, F G also omitting SyAov. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xy. 27; Rom. ix. 7; and besides 
 Heng. in loc. 
 
 Gramm. p. 129, Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, Hoe- 
 lemann, and others. 
 
 ® So most of the oider expositors, follow- 
 ing Jerome and Augustine; also Borger, 
 Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Wiese- 
 ler, Ewald, Holsten, Hofmann, Matthias. 
 
 7 Compare, besides, Hoelemann, /.c. p. 41 f. 
 
CHAP, IID. ; 13: slits) 
 the channel of obtaining life. Thus in the express words of the law (Lev. 
 xviii. 5), likewise presumed to be familiar to his readers, Paul introduces 
 the nature of the law as contrasted with é« mictewc. Comp. Rom. x. 5. 
 After aA’, yéypatrat is not (with Schott) to be supplied ;’ but, as the form 
 with the apostrophe indicates, Paul has connected 4/2’ immediately with 
 6 rojoac avzd, leaving it to the reader not only to explain for himself aira 
 and év airoic from his acquaintance with the O. T. context of the saying re- 
 ferred to, but also to complete for himself the connection from the first half 
 of the verse : ‘‘The law, however, has not faith as its principle ; but the 
 doer of the commandments—this is the axiom of the law—shall live by 
 them.” * 
 
 Ver. 13. Connection : ‘‘ Through the law no one becomes righteous (vv. 
 11, 12); Christ has redeemed us from the curse.” * 
 the contrast stronger.* Riickert ° reverts to ver. 10, supplying jéy in ver. 
 10, and dé in ver. 13. This is incorrect, for Xpioroc finds its appropriate 
 antithesis in the words immediately preceding ; and, as in general it is a 
 mistake thus to supply yvév and dé, it is here the more absurd, because éco. in 
 ver. 10 has expressly received in ydp its reference to what precedes it. 
 Against Hofmann’s interpretation, that ver. 13 is apodosis to vv. 11, 12, see 
 on ver. 11. —7uac] applies to the Jews ; for these were under the curse of 
 the law ° mentioned in ver. 10, and by faith in Christ made themselves par- 
 takers of the redemption from that curse accomplished by Him, as Paul had 
 himself experienced. Others have understood it as the Jews and Gentiles.” 
 But against this view it may be urged, that the Gentiles were not under the 
 curse of the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12) ; that a reference to the natural law 
 as well (Rom. ii. 14, 15) is quite foreign to the context ;° that the law, even 
 if it had not been done away by Christ, would yet never have related to the 
 Gentiles,*® because it was the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 
 li. 14 f.) ; and lastly, that afterwards in ver. 14 eic ra é9vy is placed in con- 
 trast to the yuac, and hence it must not be said, with Matthias, that it so 
 far applies to the Gentiles also, since the latter as Christians could not be 
 under obligation to the law,—which, besides, would amount to a very in- 
 
 The asyndeton renders 
 
 direct sort of ransom, entirely different from the sense in which it applied 
 to the Jews. — ényépacev] Comp. iv. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ; Bp hre79:: 
 empetaiial), Matt. xx. 28; Rev. v. 9; Diod. #ze. p. 530: 4; 1 Dim. 11, 6; 
 Polyb. ili. 42. 2. Those who are under obligation to the law as the record 
 of the direct will of God,” are subject to the divine curse expressed therein ; 
 
 1 Comp. also Matthias, who understands 
 even ove« €otiv as runs not. 
 
 2 Comp. on Rom. xy. 3; 1 Cor. i. 31. 
 
 3 See on ver. 11. 
 
 4 Comp. Col. iii. 4. 
 
 5 Comp. also Flatt, Koppe, Schott, Ols- 
 hausen. 
 
 6 Which is not to be turned into a subjec- 
 tive condition, as Bihr (Stud. u. Krit. 1849, 
 p. 922) wishes, who explains it as the state of 
 spiritual death, in consequence of his erro- 
 
 neous view of evAoyéa in ver. 8. 
 
 7 Gomarus, Pareus, Estius, Flatt, Winer, 
 Matthies. 
 
 ® Tn opposition to Flatt. 
 
 ° In opposition to Winer. 
 
 10 For in the apostle’s view everywhere, 
 and here also, the law is this, and ver. 19 is 
 not at variance with its being so (in opposi- 
 tion to Ritschl in @. Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, 
 p. 523 f.). Comp. on Col. ii. 15. 
 
116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 but from the bond of this curse, from which they could not otherwise have 
 escaped, Christ has redeemed them, and that by giving up for them His life 
 upon the cross as a Aétpov, ‘‘ ransom,” paid to God the dator et vindex legis, 
 ‘‘giver and maintainer of the law,”—having by His mors satisfactoria, 
 ‘death for satisfaction,” suffered according to God’s gracious counsel in 
 obedience to the same,' procured for them the forgiveness of sins,? so that 
 the curse of the law which was to have come upon them no longer had any 
 reference to them. This modus, ‘‘mode,” of the redemption is here ex- 
 pressed thus : ‘‘ by His having become curse for us,” namely, by His crucifix- 
 ion, in which He actually became the object of the divine dpy7. The empha- 
 sis rests on the xatapa, which is therefore placed at the end and is immedi- 
 ately to be vindicated by a quotation from Scripture. This abstract, used 
 instead of the concrete, is purposely chosen to strengthen the conception, and 
 probably indeed with reference to the DTN DMP, ‘‘aceursed of God,” 
 Deut. xxi. 23.3 But xarapa is used without the article, because the object is 
 to express that which Christ has become as regards the category of quality— 
 He became curse, entered into the position, and into the de facto relation, of 
 one visited with the divine wrath ; it being obvious from the context that it 
 was in reality the divine curse stipulated in the law, the accomplishment of 
 which He suffered in His death, as is moreover expressly attested in the - 
 passage of Scripture that follows.4 The idea of xarapa as the curse ef God 
 —obvious of itself to every reader—forbids us to explain away (with Hof- 
 mann) the ‘‘becoming a curse” as signifying, not that God accomplished 
 His curse on Christ, but that God decreed respecting Christ that He should 
 suffer that which men did to Him as fulfilment of the curse of the Jaw, which 
 was not incurred by, and did not apply to, Him. The exact real parallel, 
 2 Cor. v. 21, ought to have prevented any such evasive interpretation. And 
 if Paul had not meant the curse ef God, which Christ suffered ixép judv, — 
 as no reader, especially after the passage of Scripture which follows, could 
 understand anything else,—he would have been practising a deception. 
 Christ made sin by God, and so suffering the divine curse—that is just the 
 foolishness of the cross, which is wiser than men (1 Cor. i. 25). Comp., 
 besides, Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 81, who, however, regards the 
 contents of our passage and of 2 Cor. v. 21 under the point of view of the 
 cancelling of sin (sin being viewed as an objective power), and thus comes 
 into contact with Hofmann’s theory. — irép juov] That brép, as in all pas- 
 sages in which the atoning death is spoken of, does not mean instead of,* 
 see on Rom. v. 6. Comp. oni. 4. The satisfaction which Christ rendered, 
 was rendered for our benefit ; that it was vicarious,* is implied in the cir- 
 
 
 
 1 Rom. v. 19; Phil. ii. 8. tors; comp. also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. 
 
 2 Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Tim. 
 ii. 6; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28. 
 
 3 Comp. Thilo, ad Protev. Jac. 3, p. 181. 
 
 4 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 321, d ; Kah- 
 nis, Dogm. I. p. 518 f., IIT. p. 382; Delitzsch, 
 z. Hebr. p. 714. 
 
 5 So here, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Riick- 
 ert, Reithmayr, following earlier exposi- 
 
 p. 134 f.). 
 
 8 As is expressly stated in Matt. xx. 28, 
 1 Tim. ii. 6, by avr’. Comp. Thomasius, C17. 
 Pers. u. Werk, III. 1, p. 88 ff.; Gess, in the 
 Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. V1. 4, III. 4. The 
 less satisfactory is it, therefore, with 
 Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 425 
 ff., to find that the essential import of 
 
CHAP, Ilt., 13: 117 
 cumstances of the case itself, and not in the preposition. The divine curse 
 of the law must have been realized by all, who did not fully satisfy the law 
 to which they were bound (and this no one could do), being compelled to 
 endure the execution of the divine 6py7, ‘‘ wrath,” on themselves ; but for 
 their deliverance from the bond of this curse Christ intervened with His 
 death, inasmuch as He died asan accursed one, and thereby, as by a purchase- 
 price, dissolved that relation to the law which implied a curse.! This ef- 
 fect depends certainly on the sinlessness of Christ (2 Cor. v. 21), without 
 which His surrendered life could not have been a Airpor, ‘‘ransom” (Matt. 
 xx. 28), and He Himself, by the shedding of His blood, could not have been 
 a lAaoripiov, ‘‘ propitiation ” (Rom. ili. 25), because, with guilt of His own, 
 He would have been amenable to the curse on His own account, and not 
 through taking upon Him the guilt of others (John i. 29) ; but utterly aloof 
 from and foreign to the N. T. is the idea which Hilgenfeld here suggests, 
 that the curse of the law had lost its validity once for all, because it had 
 for once shown itself as an wnrighteous curse. The death of Christ served 
 precisely to show the righteousness of God, which has its expression in the 
 curse of the law.* — iz yéyp. . . . EbAovis not an epexegesis to yevou. iz. 
 nu. kat. (Matthias, who writes 6, tv), but is a parenthesis in which the yevd- 
 fievocg katdpa, Which had just been said of Christ, is vindicated agreeably to 
 
 Scripture, by Deut. xxi. 23, freely quoted from the LXX.3 
 
 our passage only amounts to this, that the 
 Mosaic law had been set aside on the ap- 
 pearance of Christianity, and that this set- 
 ting aside was decisively evinced by the 
 death on the cross. See, on the other hand, 
 Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1859, p. 226 
 ff., and in his newt. Theol. p. 156 f. 
 
 1 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 28 ; Col. ii. 14. 
 
 2 See on Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 3 The LXX. has cexatynpapmevos vrd Ocov mas 
 Kpewamevos emi EvAov. The vo Geo is also 
 expressed in the Hebrew. Jerome accuses 
 the Jews here also of intentional falsifica- 
 tion of the text, alleging that in an anti- 
 Christian interest they had inserted the 
 name of God into the original text. Bihr, 
 in the Séud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 928 ff., is of opin- 
 ion that Paul purposely omitted tro Geod, 
 so as not to represent Christ as cursed by 
 God (with which Hofmann agrees); that He 
 was called cursed only because, through 
 His death, He appeared as cursed before all 
 to whom the law was given. But this is 
 incorrect, because the expression is not 
 Paul’s, and because, so interpreted, the 
 whole proof adduced would amount only 
 to a semblance, and not to a reality. Christ 
 has certainly averted from men the curse 
 of God which was ordained in the law (ver. 
 10), by the fact that He, as the bearer of 
 the divine curse, died while hanging on the 
 eross. Having thus actually become em- 
 
 Accursed (vis- 
 
 katapatos, He became the propitiatory sacri- 
 fice for those who were subject to the law, 
 whom He consequently redeemed from the 
 definite divine curse of the law (ver. 10), so 
 that on the part of God the actus forensis, 
 “forensic act,” of justification now com- 
 menced: and for this reason, although the 
 crucified One was émxatapatos, Paul could 
 elsewhere represent Him as oan cvwédias 
 (Eph. vy. 2). Luther aptly remarks: ‘‘ Si vis 
 negare eum esse peccatorem et maledictum, 
 negato etiam passum, crucifixum et mortuum,” 
 “Tf you want to deny that He isa sinner 
 and cursed, deny also that He suffered, was 
 crucified, and died.’ The cause of the 
 non-adoption of vro @c0d cannot be that 
 Paul, under the influence of a subordinate 
 value assigned to the law as not directly 
 given by God, had the passage imprinted 
 on his mind without v7 @eod (Ritschl, /.c. 
 p. 526), for he did not entertain any such es- 
 timate of its inferior value. We must, in 
 fact, simply abide by the explanation that 
 he quoted the passage of Scriptur. from afree 
 recollection (as is already shown by émtkara- 
 parosand the addition of 0), and in doing 
 so, having in view only the “cursed” as the 
 point of the passage, left unnoticed the en- 
 tirely obvious v7 ®cod. In a similar way, 
 in ver. 11, in the quotation Hab. ii. 4, he 
 does not adopt the mov of the LXX. 
 
118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ited with the wrath of God) zs every one who (according to the LXX., in 
 which the article is wanting, every one, if he) is hanged on a tree. 'The orig- 
 inal historical sense of this passage applies to those malefactors who, in or- 
 der to the aggravation of their punishment, were after their execution pub- 
 licly hung up on a (probably cross-shaped) stake,’ but were not allowed to 
 remain hanging over the night, lest such accursed ones should profane the 
 holy land.?, Now, so far as Christ when put to death hung upon a stake,* 
 the predicate éxckataparoc applies also to Him ; and this furnishes the script- 
 ural proof of the preceding yevduevog Katapa. 
 
 Ver. 14. Divine purpose in Christ’s redeeming us (the Jews) from the 
 curse of the law ; inorder that the blessing promised to Abraham (justifica- 
 tion ; see on ver. 8) might be imparted in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles (not : 
 to all peoples, as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, following the earlier ex- 
 positors, take 7a éJvy, in opposition to the context). So long, namely, as 
 the curse of the law stood in force and consequently the Jews were still 
 subject to this divine curse, the Gentiles could not be partakers of that 
 blessing ; for, according to that promise made to Abraham, it was implied 
 in the preference which in the divine plan of salvation was granted to the 
 Jews (Rom. i. 17, xv. 8, 9, iii. 1, 2, ix. 1-5), that salvation should issue 
 from them and pass over to the Gentiles (comp. Rom. xv. 27 ; John iv. 22, 
 xi. 52). Hence, when Christ by His atoning death redeemed the Jews 
 from the curse of the divine law, God, in thus arranging His salvation, 
 must necessarily have had the design that the Gentiles, who are expressly 
 named in the promise made to Abraham (ver. 8), should share in the prom- 
 ised justification, and that not in some way through the Jaw, as if they 
 were to be subjected to this, but in Christ Jesus, through whom in fact the 
 Jews had been made free from the curse of the law. The opposite of this 
 liberation of the Jews could not exist in God’s purpose in regard to the 
 Gentiles. TRiickert takes a different view of the logical connection (as to 
 which most expositors are silent), in the light of Eph. ii. 14 ff.: ‘‘So long 
 as the law continued, an impenetrable wall of partition was set up between 
 the Jewish and the Gentile world; . . . and just as long it was simply 
 impossible that the blessing should pass over to the Gentiles.” But the 
 context speaks not of the law itself as having been done away, but of the 
 curse of the law, from which Jesus had redeemed the Jews ; so that the idea 
 of a partition-wall, formed by the law itself standing between Jew and Gen- 
 tile, is not presented to the reader. Usteri thus states the connection : 
 ‘“Christ by His vicarious death has redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of 
 the law, in order that (justification henceforth being to be attained through 
 faith) the Gentiles may become partakers in the blessings of Abraham, 
 since now there is required for justification a condition possible for all,—namely, 
 faith.” * But since the point of the possibility of the justification of the Gentiles 
 
 1 Analogous to ourformer custom of fast- Wolf, p. 536; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 460 f.; 
 ening criminals on the wheel, in order to Bihr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 924 f. 
 aggravate the punishment. 3 Comp. Acts v. 30, x. 39; 1 Pet. ii. 24. 
 
 2 Deut. xxi. 23; Num. xxv. 4; Josh. x. 26; 4 Comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and 
 *2Sam. iv. 12. See Lund, Jiid. Heiligth. ed. | Theophylact. 
 
CHAP. III., 14. 119 
 
 is not dealt with in the context, this latter expedient is quite as arbitrarily 
 resorted to, as is Schott’s intermingling of the natural law, against the 
 
 threatenings of which faith alone yields protection (Rom. il. 12 ff., ii. 9 ff.). 
 
 —eic ra é3vy] might reach to the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15), that is, be 
 imparted to them (Rev. xvi. 2).’ Such was to be the course of the divine 
 way of salvation, from Israel to the Gentiles. Observe, that Paul does not 
 say xal cic r. @0vy, as if the Gentiles were merely an accessory. — 1) evAoyia Tov . 
 ABp.| the blessing already spoken of, which was pre-announced to Abraham 
 (ver. 8), the opposite of the xazdpa ; not therefore life (Hofmann), the 
 opposite of which would be Sdvaroc, but justifieation—by which is meant 
 the benefit itself (Eph. i. 3 ; Rom. xv. 29), and not the mere promise of it 
 (Schott). —év Xpicr@ "Iycov] so that this reception of the blessing depends, 
 
 and is founded, on Christ (on His redeeming death). The dvd ti¢ ricrewe 
 which follows expresses the matter from the point of view of the subjective 
 medium, whilst év Xpior@ presents the objective state of the case—the two 
 elements corresponding to each other at the close of the two sentences of 
 purpose. —iva tv éxayyediav x.7.2.] cannot be subordinated to the previous 
 sentence of purpose (Riickert), for it contains no benefit specially accruing 
 to the Gentiles.? It is parallel to the first sentence of purpose by way ot 
 climax.’ After Paul had expressed the blessed aim which the redeeming 
 death of Christ had in reference to the Gentiles,—namely, that they should 
 become partakers of the eijoyia of Abraham,—he raises his glance still 
 higher, and sees the reception also of the Holy Spirit (the consequence of 
 justification) as an aim of that redeeming death ; but he cannot again ex- 
 press himself in the third person, because, after the justification of the Jews 
 had been spoken of in ver. 13 and the justification of the Gentiles in ver. 14 
 (iva eic Ta Eryn . . . "Inoov), the statement now concerns the justified 
 generally, Jews and Gentiles without distinction : hence the first person, 
 
 AdBwpnev, is used, the subject of which must be the Christians, and not the 
 Jewish Christians only.* This by no means accidental emergence of the first 
 person, after ra £317 had been previously spoken of in the third, is incom- 
 patible with our taking the reception of the Spirit as part of the evAoyia 
 
 (Wieseler), or as essentially ¢dentical with it (Hofmann). —ryv érayyediav 
 Tov Tvevuatoc| Tv éexayyeAiay AauBaverw Means to become partakers in the realiza- 
 tion of the promise (Heb. x. 36 ; Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4) ; but rod rvetiuarog 
 may be either the genitive of the subject (that which is promised by the Spirit) 
 
 or of the object (the promised Spirit). The latter interpretation (comp. Acts 
 ii. 33 ; Eph. i. 13) is the usual and correct one.® For if (with Winer) 
 
 we should explain it, ‘‘bona illa, quae a divino Spiritu promissa sunt,” the 
 
 blessings which have been promised by the Divine Spirit”) (Luke xxiv. 
 
 1 Comp. on 2 Cor. viii. 13 f. to the O. T. promise of the communication 
 
 2 Paul would have written AaBwor, which 
 Chrysostom actually read—evidently an al- 
 teration arising from misunderstanding. 
 
 3 Comp. Rom. vii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 3; Eph. 
 vi. 19 f. 
 
 4 Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others. 
 
 5 So that tv émayyedtav is to be referred 
 
 of, the Holy Spirit (Joel iii.; ‘Acts ii. 16),—a 
 promise well known to all the apostle’s 
 readers. Hilgenfeld incorrectly holds that 
 “the promise given to Abraham is directly 
 designated as an émayyeAta tov Trvevpatos (a 
 promise, the substance of which is the 
 Tvevpa).”’ 
 
120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 49 ; Actsi. 4), then, in conformity with the context, this expression must 
 refer back to ver. 8 ;' and to this the jirst person 2aBwuev would not be suit- 
 able, as Paul referred that promise given to Abraham in the Scripture (by 
 the Holy Spirit) to the Gentiles. And if ry éxayyediav tov rvebuarog Were 
 essentially the same as the evAoyia rou ’Afp., it would be entirely devoid of 
 the explanatory character of an epexegesis. — dvd 7. riot.] For faith is the 
 causa apprehendens, ‘‘ apprehending cause,’ both of justification and of the 
 reception of the Spirit ; comp. vv. 2-5, v. 5. 
 
 Vy. 15-18. What Paul has previously said concerning justification, not 
 of the law, but of faith, with reference to that promise given to Abraham 
 (vv. 8-14), could only maintain its ground as true before the worshippers of 
 the law, in the event of its being acknowledged that the covenant once 
 entered into with Abraham through that promise was not deprived of 
 validity by the subsequent institution of the law, or subjected to alteration 
 through the entrance of the law. For if this covenant had been done away 
 with or modified by the law, the whole proof previously adduced would 
 come to nothing. Paul therefore now shows that this covenant had not been 
 invalidated or altered through the Mosaic law. 
 
 Ver. 15.’ ’AdeAdoc] Expressive of loving urgency, and conciliating with 
 reference to the instruction which follows.* How entirely different was it 
 in ver. 1! Now the tone of feeling is softened. — kata dvbpwrov Aéyw] not 
 to be placed in a parenthesis,* points to what follows—to that which he is 
 just about to say in proof of the immutability of a divine dcad jn, ‘‘ covenant.” 
 The analogy to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to 
 be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view ; for the apostle 
 does not wish to adduce it from his higher standpoint as one enlightened 
 by the Spirit, according to the measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but 
 he wishes thus to accommodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of 
 adducing examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible to 
 his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin thinks).° — éyuwe] 
 yet. The logical position would be before otdeic. A diadjxn, although human, 
 no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the bue¢ (which here intimatesa 
 conclusion @ minor?) is not unfrequent in classical authors, and again occurs 
 in the case of Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7.° There is therefore all the less reason for 
 writing it duac, in like manner,’ which would be unsuitable, since that which 
 is to be illustrated by the comparison only follows (at ver. 17). Riickert® 
 takes it in antithetical reference to cata avdp. Aéyw : ‘I desire to keep only 
 to human relations ; nevertheless,” etc. This would be an illogical antith- 
 esis. Others, contrary to linguistic usage, make it mean yet even,® or guin 
 
 I rpotdovca  ypady k.T.A. mpoevnyyedioato 
 7@ "ABp. «.T.A. 
 
 2 As to vv. 15-22, see Hauck in Stud. wu. 
 Arit. 1862, p. 512 ff.; Matthias, d. Abschn. d. 
 Gal. Br. iii. 15-22, Cassel, 1866. As ts vv. 15- 
 29, see Buhl, in the Luther. Zeitzschr. 1867, 
 Din lth: 
 
 3 Comp. Rom. x. 1. 
 
 4 Erasmus, Calvin, and many others. 
 
 5 Comp. avdpwretws and avdporivws (Dem. 
 639. 24, 1122.2; Rom. vi. 19). See generally 
 on Rom. iii.5; 1 Cor. ix.8; and van Hen- 
 gel, Annot. p. 211 f. 
 
 ® See on this passage. 
 
 7 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Jatho 
 
 § So also Olshausen and Windischmann. 
 
 ® Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies. 
 
CHAP. III., 15. 121 
 
 imo,’ and the like. —xexvpwpévyr] ratified, made legally valid, Gen. xxiii. 20; 
 4 Macc. vii. 9; Dem. \485. 13; Plat. Pol. x. p. 620 E ; Polyb. v. 49. 6; 
 Andoc. de myst. § 84, p. 11 ; comp. on 2 Cor. ii. 8. — dvadjxnv] not testa- 
 ment (Heb. ix. 16 f.), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many others, 
 including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to the context ; nor, in 
 general, voluntary ordainment, arrangement (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, 
 Schott, Hofmann : ‘destination as to anything, which we apply for one’s 
 benefit,” Holsten, following earlier expositors) ; but in the solemn biblical 
 signification of M13, covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler, 
 Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reithmayr, and 
 others ; also Ewald : ‘‘ contract”), as in iv. 24 and all Pauline passages. The 
 emphatic prefixing of av3pazov points to the majus, ‘‘ greater,” the diadjxn of 
 God ; and God had entered into a covenant with Abraham, by giving him 
 the promises (ver. 17).* The singular (av3pérov) is not opposed to this view; 
 on the contrary, since avdpérov diadjxn is put as analogue of the dvadjcn of 
 God (which God has established), there could, in accordance with this 
 latter, be only one contracting party designated: a ratified covenant, 
 which a man has established. The ratification, as likewise follows from the 
 diadixn of God, is not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third 
 party ; but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal conclu- 
 sion of the parties themselves who make the agreement with one another, — 
 ovdeic ade_red 7 Exidvar. | Viz. no third party. Such an interference would indeed 
 be possible in itself, and not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as 
 Hofmann objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, in the 
 general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be left unnoticed.? That 
 ovdeic is not the same subject as avtpérov (Holsten’*), is evident both from 
 the expression in itself, and from the application in ver. 17, where the i76 
 zov Ocov corresponds to the avpérov and the (personified) véz0c, which comes 
 in as a third person, to the oideic. —¥ éxidsardooera] or adds further stipula- 
 tions thereto, which were not contained in the covenant. That the éri inthe 
 word éridvataocera (not occurring elsewhere) denotes against (Schott), is 
 inconsistent with the analogy of éridiatidyut, exidiaywookw, éxidiaxpive, and 
 so forth ;* in that case dvridvatdcoerac musthave been used. Erasmus, Winer, 
 Hauck, and others wish at least to define the nature of the additions 
 referred to as coming into conflict with the will of the author of the d:adjxy 
 or changing it ; but this is arbitrary. The words merely affirm : no one 
 prescribes any addition thereto ; this is altogether against the general rule of 
 law, let the additions be what they may.° 
 
 i Wolf. tifies the subject in ovde’s with the founder 
 
 2 Comp. Gen. xvii. 7 ; Ex. ii. 24; Ley. xxvi. 
 42; Luke i. 72; Acts iii. 25; 2 Macc. i. 2; 
 Ecclus. xliv. 20, 22. 
 
 3 On adetety Siadyjx., to do away a cove- 
 nant, irritum facere, comp. 1 Macc. xv. 27; 2 
 Mace. xiii. 25; Polyb. xv. 1. 9, iii. 29. 2, xv. 
 8. 9. 
 
 4“ Yet in the sphere of the human no one 
 eancels his voluntary disposition, which has 
 become legally valid.’ Matthies also iden- 
 
 of the dcadyjny. 
 
 5 Comp. Joseph. Bell. ii. 2. 3, aévav rhs 
 erdcadjKys Thy StadyKyy eivarKupiwtéepav, Antt, 
 Xvii. 9. 4. ; 
 
 6 Chrysostom aptly remarks: «y ToAma Tis 
 avatpépat peta TadTA CATwY i) Mpogtetvar TL, 
 ToUTO yap é€otiv: 7H emtdtatacoeTa, ‘NO one 
 coming after these things ventures to re- 
 fute or to add anything, for this is: 7, émdca- 
 TaogeTat,”’ 
 
122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Ver. 16. This verse is usually considered as minor proposition to ver. 15, 
 so that vv. 15-17 contain a complete syllogism, which is, however, inter- 
 rupted by the exegetical gloss ov Aéyec x.7.2., and is then resumed by covro 
 6 Aéyw in ver. 17.1. But against this view it may be urged, (1) that the 
 minor proposition in ver. 16 must necessarily, in a logical point of view,—as 
 corresponding to the emphatic 6u¢ avOparov in ver. 15,—bring into promi- 
 nence the divine character of the promises, and must have been expressed in 
 some such formi as Ozd¢ dé 7 ’ABp.;3 and (2) that the explanation as to «ai 76 
 orépuate avtov, so carefully and emphatically brought in (not merely ‘‘allu- 
 sive,” Hilgenfeld), would be here entirely aimless and irrelevant, because it 
 would be devoid of all reference to and influence on the argument. The 
 train of ideas is really as follows :?—After Paul has stated in ver. 15 that 
 even a man’s legally valid covenant is not invalidated or furnished with ad- 
 ditions by any one, he cannot immediately attach the conclusion intended 
 to be deduced from this, viz., that a valid covenant of God is not annulled 
 by the law coming afterwards ; but he must first adduce the circumstance 
 which, in the case in question, has ‘an essential bearing on this proof,—that 
 the promises under discussion were issued not to Abraham only, bué at the 
 same time to his descendants also, that is, to Christ. From this essential cir- 
 cumstance it is, in fact, clear that that covenant was not to be a mere tem- 
 porary contract, simply made to last wp to the time of the law. Accordingly, 
 the purport of vv. 15-17 is this : ‘‘ Even a man’s covenant legally completed 
 remains uncancelled and without addition (ver. 15). But the circumstance 
 which conditions and renders incontestable the conclusion to be thence de- 
 duced is, that the promises were spoken not merely to Abraham, but also to 
 his seed, by which, as is clear from the singular 76 orépyart, is meant Christ 
 (ver. 16). And now—to complete my conclusion drawn from what I have 
 said in vv. 15 and 16—what I mean is this : A covenant previously made 
 with legal validity by God is not rendered invalid by the law, which came 
 into existence so long afterwards” (ver. 17). —r6 68 ’ABp. éppéOyoay ai Exay- 
 yeaiar k. TE orépuare abrov] The emphasis is laid on kai 7 oréppate avror, the 
 point which is here brought into prominence as the further specific founda- 
 tion of the proof to be adduced. This clement essential to the proof lies in 
 the destination of Christ as the organ of fulfilment ; in the case of a promise 
 which had been given not merely to the ancestor himself, but also to Christ, 
 the fulfiller, it was not at all possible to conceive an abérnoic by the law.* 
 The passage of the O. T. to which Paul refers in kai 7@ oxéppare adrow, is 
 considered by most expositors, following Tertullian (de carne Christi, 22) 
 and Chrysostom, to be Gen. xxii. 18: évevAoyyOjoovra év TH oTEppmaTicon 
 xdvra ta éOvn tc ypc, ‘‘In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be bless- 
 ed.” But, from the words ob Aéyeu' Kai toig orépuacw x.7.A. Which follow, 
 it is evident that Paul was thinking of a passage in which kai 7o ov ép- 
 waticov is expressly written. Hence (with Estius and Bengel, Baumgar- 
 ten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl) the 
 
 1 See Morus, Koppe, Riickert, Schott, de 3 Comp. also Holsten, 2. Hv. @. Paul. u. 
 Wette, Hilgenfeld. Petr. p. 204. 
 
 2 Comp. also Wieseler. 
 
CHAP: 111... 16; 123 
 passages Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, are rather to be assumed as those referre 
 
 to,—a view confirmed by the expression «Aypovouia in ver. 18.1 Comp. 
 Rom. iv. 13. — éppédycav?| they were spoken, that is, given, as some min., 
 Eusebius and Theophylact, actually read édd@ycav. The datives simply 
 state to whom the promises were spoken, not: im reference to whom (so 
 Matthias),—an interpretation which was the less likely to occur to the 
 reader, well acquainted as he was with the fact that the promise was spo- 
 ken directly to Abraham, who at the same time represented his oxépya. 
 —ai éxayyehia] in the plural: for the promise in question was given on sev- 
 eral occasions and under various modifications, even as regards the contents; 
 and indeed Paul himself here refers to a place and form of promise differ- 
 ent from that mentioned above in ver. 8. 
 that Christ is meant; hence he adds the following gloss (Midrasch): ov 
 Aéyev’ Kai Toic orépuaowy x.7.4., in Which the singular form of the expression is 
 asserted by him to be significant, and the conclusion is thence drawn that 
 only one descendant (not : only one class of descendants, namely the spirit- 
 ual children of Abraham, as, following Augustine, Cameron and others, 
 Olshausen and Tholuck, d. A. 7. im neuen T. p. 65 ff. ed..6, also Jatho, 
 hold) is intended, namely Christ. That this inference is purely rabbinical,* 
 and without objective force as a proof, is evident from the fact that in the 
 original text I is written, and this, in every passage in the O. T. where it 
 
 In kai 76 orépuare aitov he finds 
 
 expresses the idea of progenies, ‘‘ progeny,” is used in the singular,* whether 
 the posterity consists of many or of one only.® Also the later Hebrew and 
 Chaldee usage of the plural form in the sense of progenies > does not depend, 
 any more than the Greek use of orépuara,’ on the circumstance that, in con- 
 tradistinction, the singular is to be understood dc 颒 évéc.8 The classical 
 
 1 The correct view is found even in Ori- 
 gen, Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. iv. 4, Opp. IV. 
 p. 532: ‘‘Ipse enim (apostolus) haee de 
 Christo dicta esse interpretatur, cum dixit : 
 *Scriptum est, tibi dabo terram hanc et sem- 
 ini tuo. Non dixit : et seminibus, tanquam 
 in multis, sed seminituo, tanquam in uno, 
 qui est Christus,’” ‘“‘ For the apostle himself 
 interprets these things as spoken of Christ, 
 when he said : it has been written : ‘ To thee 
 and to thy seed will I give this land.’ He 
 said not: ‘and to seed,’ asin many, but as 
 in one, who is Christ.’? Comp. also p. 618, 
 and Homil. 9in Genes. Opp. II. p. 85; and 
 earlier, Irenaeus, Hae. v. 32. 2; later, es- 
 pecially Jerome. 
 
 2 As to this form, which has preponder- 
 ant attestation (Lachm. Tisch.), comp. on 
 Rom. ix. 12; Kiihner, I. p. 810, ed. 2. 
 
 3 Surenhusius, catadAa. p. 84f. ; Schoettgen, 
 Hor. p. 736; Dopke, Hermeneut. I. p. 176 ff. 
 
 4 In 1 Sam. viii. 15, DI yi are segetes ves- 
 trae, ‘‘ your crops.” : E 
 
 S'Gen. iv. 253; 1 Sam. i. 11; Targ: Ps. xviii. 
 26, where Isaac is called Abraham’s 3/7}. 
 In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen. 
 
 iii. 15, the LXX. translators have referred 
 orépmua, “ seed,’’ to an individual (to a son) ; 
 for they translate, ards cov typyoer Kedadny. 
 But it does not thence follow that this sub- 
 ject was the Messiah, to whom the "J51w, 
 correctly understood by the laXexes but 
 wrongly by the Vulgate (conteret, ‘‘ bruise’), 
 isnot suitable. The Messianic reference of 
 the passage lies in the enmity against the ser- 
 pent here established as the expression of a 
 moral idea, the final victorious issue of 
 which was the subject-matter of the Mes- 
 sianic hope, and was brought about through 
 the work of the Messiah. Comp. Hengsten- 
 berg, Christol. [. p. 26 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. IL. 
 p. 160f.; also Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 466 f. 
 
 6 See Geiger in the Zeitschr. d. morgeni. 
 Geselisch. 1858, p. 307 ff. 
 
 7 Soph. O. C. 606. 1277; O. R. 1246; Aesch. 
 Eum. 909. 
 
 8 Comp. 4 Mace. xviii. 1: & ray “ABpapyatwy 
 oTEephatwy amoyovo. aides Iopandttar, met- 
 derte TH vow ToVTe, ‘ children of Israel, de- 
 scendants of the seeds of Abraham, obey 
 this law.” 
 
124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 use of aivara is analogous (comp. on John i. 13). Moreover, the original 
 sense of these promises, and also the 7@ orépyare of the LXX., undoubtedly 
 apply to the posterity of Abraham generally: hence it is only in so far as 
 Christ is the theocratic culmination, the goal and crown of this series of 
 descendants, that the promises were spoken to Him ; but to discover this 
 reference in the singular cat t@ orépuati cov Was a mere feat of the rabbini- 
 cal subtlety, which was still retained by the apostle from his youthful cult- 
 ure as a characteristic element of his national training, without detriment 
 to the Holy Spirit which he had, and to the revelations which had been 
 vouchsafed to him. Every attempt to show that Paul has not here allowed 
 himself any rabbinical interpretation of this sort’ is incompatible with the 
 language itself, and conflicts with the express 6¢ éotv Xpxoréc ; which clear- 
 ly shows that we are not to understand ozepudtwr with émi rodA@v, nor orép- 
 patog With ég’ évé¢ (Hofmann, Buhl), but that the contrast between many 
 persons and one person is the point expressed. But the truth itself, which 
 the gloss of the apostle is intended to serve, is entirely independent of this 
 gloss, and rests upon the Messianic tenor of the promises in question, not on 
 the singular 6 orépyatt. — ob Aéyer| se. [See Note XLVI., p. 160.] Oedc, which 
 is derived from the historical reference of the previous é)pé@ycav, so well 
 known to the reader.? — dc éxi roaddv] as referring to many individuals, in 
 such a manner that He intends and desires to express a plurality of persons. 
 On éri, upon, that is, in reference to, with the genitive along with verbs of 
 speaking, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, p. 248 ; Ast. 
 Lex. Plat. I. p. 767. — b¢ éort Xpictéc] which orépua, denoting a single indi- 
 vidual, is Christ. The feebly attested reading 6 is a mistaken grammatical 
 alteration ; for how often does the gender of the relative correspond by at- 
 traction to the predicative substantive.® Xpworéc is the personal Christ Jesus, 
 not, as some, following Irenaeus * and Augustine,® have explained it: Christ 
 and His church,® or the church alone.” Such a mystical sense of Xpicté¢ must 
 necessarily have been suggested by the context (as in 1 Cor. xii. 12); here, 
 however, the very contrast between zo/A0v and évéc is decidedly against it.® 
 Ver. 29 also is against, and not in favor of, this explanation ; because the 
 inference of this verse depends on the very fact that Christ Himself is the 
 orépua Tov ’ABp. (see on ver. 29). The whole explanation is a very superflu- 
 ous device, the mistaken ingenuity of which (especially in the case of Tho- 
 luck and Hofmann) appears in striking contrast to the clear literal tenor of 
 the passage.’ It is not, however, Christ in his pre-human existence, in so 
 
 1See among recent expositors, particu- 
 larly Philippi in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1855, 
 p. 519 ff. : comp. also Hengstenberg, Christo. 
 I. p. 50 f.; Tholuck, /.c., and Hofmann. 
 
 2 Comp. Eph. iv. 8, v. 14. 
 
 3 See Kiihner, IT. p. 505. 
 
 4 Haer. v. 82. 2. 
 
 5 Ad iii. 29, Opp. TV. p. 384. 
 
 8 Beza, Gomarus, Crell, Drusius, Ham- 
 mond, Locke, and others; also Tholuck, 
 Olshausen, Philippi, 7.c., Hofmann. 
 
 7 Calvin, Clericus, Bengel, Ernesti, Diéder- 
 
 lein, Nésselt, and others. 
 
 8 See also vv. 19, 22, 24, 27, 28. 
 
 * Tholuck holds that in ver. 16 Paul de- 
 sired to show that the promises could not 
 possibly extend to ‘‘ the posterity of Abra- 
 ham in every sense,” and that consequently 
 the natural posterity was not included ; 
 that the singular points rather to a definite 
 posterity, namely the believing. The latter 
 are taken along with Christ as an unity, 
 and, partly as the spiritual successors of 
 the patriarch, partly in their oneness with 
 
OHA Ps LUIS, 17: 125 
 far as He according to the Spirit already bore sway in the patriarchs (1 Cor. 
 x. 1 ff.), who is here referred to, because it is only as the Adyoc évoapkoc, ‘* the 
 incarnate word,” that He can be the descendant of Abraham (Matt. i. 1; 
 Rom. i. 3). Comp. ver. 19. 
 
 Ver. 17. Result of vv. 15 and 16, emphatically introduced by roiro dé Aéya, 
 but this which follows (see on 1 Cor. i. 12), L say as the conclusion drawn from 
 what is adduced in vv. 15 and 16: A covenant which has been previously made 
 valid (ratified) by God, the law . . . does not annul. What covenant is here 
 intended, is well known from the connection, namely, the covenant made 
 by God with Abraham, through His giving to him, and to his orépua in- 
 cluded along with him, the promises in Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18 (ver. 8), xiii. 
 15, xvii. 8 (ver. 16). The kipwore (Comp. on ver. 15) is not any separate 
 act following the institution of the covenant, but was implied in the very 
 promises given : through them the covenant became valid. The zpo in 
 mpoxexvp. 18 correlative with the subsequent wera, and therefore signifies : 
 previously, ere the law existed. — 6 wera retTpaxdora k.7.A.] cannot be intended 
 to denote a comparatively short time (Koppe), which is not suggested by 
 the context ; but its purport is: The law, which came into existence 
 so long a time after, cannot render invalid a covenant, which had been 
 validly instituted so long previously by God and consequently had already 
 subsisted so long. ‘‘Magnitudo intervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem,” 
 “The greatness of the interval increases the authority of the promise,” 
 Bengel. According to Hofmann, the statement of this length of time is in- 
 tended to imply that the law was something new and different, which could 
 not be held as an element forming part of the promise. But this was obvious 
 of itself from the contrast between promise and law occupying the whole 
 context, and, moreover, would not be dependent on a longer or shorter in- 
 terval. With regard to the number 430, Paul gets it from Ex. xii. 40 (in 
 Gen. xv. 13 and Acts vii. 6 the round number 400 is used) ; but in adopting 
 it he does not take into account that this number specifies merely the dura- 
 tion of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Consequently the number here, 
 taken by itself, contains a chronological inaccuracy ; but Paul follows the 
 statement of the LXX., which differs from the original text—the text of the 
 LXX. being well known to and current among his readers—without entering 
 
 the great Scion proceeding from his family, 
 they constitute the descendants of Abra- 
 ham. But in this case Paul, instead of ws 
 émt toAAwy, must at least have written ws 
 émi mavtTwv; instead of as éf’ évds, ws emt 
 Tov evos; and instead of 6s éore Xproros, he 
 must have written 6 éorw 7 éxxAncia ovv 
 Xpiorw. — According to Hofmann, in Joc. 
 (mot quite the same in his Schriftbew. II. 1, 
 p. 107 f.), Paul, following the analogy of 
 Gen. iy. 25 and thinking in tots oméppacu of 
 several posterities by the side of each other, 
 lays stress on the oneness of Abraham’s pos- 
 terity expressed in the singular, the expres- 
 sion in the singular serving him only as the 
 shortest means (?) for asserting a fact testi- 
 
 fied to by Scripture generally ; but, on the 
 other hand, he has, by means of estimating 
 this nnit of posterity in the light of the his- 
 tory of redemption, been able, and indeed 
 obliged, to interpret 7@ omépyati gov as re- 
 ferring to Christ, the promised Saviour, with- 
 out thereby maintaining that this expression 
 in the singular could signify only an individ- 
 ual, and not a race of many members. But in 
 this way everything which we are expected 
 to read in the plain words is imported into 
 them, and artificially imposed upon them, 
 by the expositor. Besides, in Gen. iv. 25 
 o7mépua erepov Means nothing more than an- 
 other son, 
 
126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 further into this point of chronology, which was foreign to his aim. In Ex, 
 xii. 40 the LXX. has 7 6é katoixnowe Tov vidv “lop. hv Kat@Knoav ev yh Aly. Kat 
 év yy Xavadv, ‘‘ Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in 
 the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan was” (the words x. é y. X. 
 are wanting in the Hebrew), éry retpaxdéova tpiaxovra, ‘‘four hundred and 
 thirty years.” This text of the LXX. was based upon a different reckon- 
 ing of the time—a reckoning which is found in the Samaritan text and in 
 Joseph. Antt. ii. 15. 3.1. The interval between God’s promise to Abraham 
 and the migration of Jacob to Egypt—an interval omitted in the 430 years 
 cannot indeed be exactly determined, but may be reckoned at about 200 
 years ; so that, if Paul had wished to give on his own part a definition of 
 the time, he would not have exceeded bounds with 600 years instead of 430. 
 The attempts to bring the 430 years in our passage into agreement with the 
 430 years in Ex. xii. 40 are frustrated by the unequivocal tenor of both pas- 
 sages.? — yeyovec] is not said ad postponendam legem, ‘‘ for postponing the 
 law” (see, on the contrary, John i. 17), as Bengel thinks (‘‘ non dicit data, 
 quasi lex fuisset, antequam data sit,” ‘‘he does not say given, as though it had 
 been law before it was given”) ; for every law only comes into existence as law 
 with the act of legislation.—On dxvpoi, invalidates, overthrows, comp. Matt. 
 xv. 6; Mark vii. 13 ; 3 Esr. vi. 82 ; Diod. Sic. xvi. 24; Dion. H. vi. 78; 
 and dxvpov roveiv, in more frequent use among Greek authors. — ei¢ 70 karapy. 
 zy éxayy.| Aim of the dxvpoi : in order to do away the promise (by which the 
 d.abfxn Was completed), to render it ineffective and devoid of result. 
 Comp. Rom. iv. 14. ‘‘Redditur autem inanis, si vis conferendae haereditatis 
 ab ea ad legem transfertur,” ‘‘ But it is rendered ineffectual, if the power of 
 conferring the inheritance be transferred from it to the law,” Bengel. 
 Observe once more the personification of the law. 
 
 Ver. 18. ‘‘I am right in denying, that through the law the dcafjxy passes 
 out of force and the promise is to cease.” The proof depends on the anti- 
 thetical relation between law and promise, whereby the working of the one 
 excludes the like working of the other. For if the possession of the Messianic 
 salvation proceeds from the law, which must have been the case if God’s cove- 
 nant with Abraham had lost its validity by means of the law, then this pos- 
 session comes no longer from promise,—a case which, although necessary on that 
 supposition, cannot occur, as is evident from the precedent. of Abraham, to 
 whom salvation was given by God through promise. The mode of conclu- 
 sion adopted in Rom. iv. 14 is similar. — éx véjov] so that the law is the in- 
 stitution which causes this result (in the way of following its command- 
 ments). Comp. on év véum, ver. 11.— 7 KAnpovouia] the possession, m9, re- 
 fers in the theocratic-historical sense of the O. T. to the land of Canaan and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 162: The terminus a quo is the birth of 
 Jacob. Comp. Olshausen: Paul reckons 
 
 1 See Tychsen, Hac. X. p. 148. 
 2 #.g., Grotius: The time in Ex. xii. 40 is 
 
 reckoned from Abraham’s journey to Egypt. 
 Perizonius, Orig. Aeg. 20; and Schoettgen, 
 Hor. p. 736. The 430 years do not begin 
 until after the period of the promises, that 
 is, after the time of the patriarchs, and of 
 Jacob in particular. Bengel, Ordo temp. 
 
 from Jacob and his journey into Egypt. In 
 like manner Hofmann: The terminus @ quo 
 is the time “‘at which the promise given to 
 Abraham was at all repeated ;” also Hauck : 
 “From Jacob, as far as the pure, genuine 
 onépya ABp, reached.” 
 
CHAP TED. 19: 127 
 
 its several portions (Deut. iv. 21; Josh. xiii. 23) ; but in its N. T. sense, 
 the conception of the «Aypovouia is elevated to the idea of its Messianic fulfil- 
 ment (Matt. v. 5), so that the kingdom of the Messiah and the whole of its 
 fulness of salvation and glory are understood thereby (1 Cor. vi. 9 ; Gal. v. 
 21; Eph. v. 5 ; Acts xx. 82, et al.).1 So also here ; and Paul uses this 
 word (not 7 cwrnpia, % Cw, or the like) because he has previously (see on 
 ver. 16) referred to passages in which the xAypovouia (that is, according to 
 this Christian idealizing of the O. T. historical sense : the kingdom of the 
 Messiah) is promised. —oixét.] The one relation, if it exists, cancels the 
 other. Itis (in opposition to Koppe) the logical (not historical) no longer. 
 Comp. Rom. vii. 17, xi. 6. —dv érayyehiac] by means of promise, so that in 
 his case the possession of the Messianic salvation is the fulfilment (by way 
 of grace) of a promise, and not the possible result (by way of reward) of 
 rendering prescribed services, and the like, which fall under the idea of the 
 vouoc. — Keyxaptorat| sc. tiv KAnpovouiay donavit (Vulgate), bestowed by way of 
 gift (the contrast to dgei2nua, Rom. iv. 4, 16), namely, as a future possession 
 to be realized at the time of the wapovoia (Matt. vili. 11). On yapitecba twi 71, 
 cCompeamom. vill. 32: 1 Cor. ii. 125; Phil..i. 29, it: 9; Acts xxvii. 24; 
 Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6. 22 ; Polyb. xvi. 24. 9. Without supplying anything, 
 Schott and Matthias render : To Abraham God has, through promise, been 
 gracious. Comp. Holsten : He has bestowed a favor on him. But the sup- 
 plying of 77 KAnpovouiay harmonizes best with the immediate context and 
 the logical relation of the two divisions of the verse, the second of which 
 forms the propositio minor, and therefore, like the major, must speak of the 
 kAnpovouia.? Caspari,* following classical usage, but not that of the N. T., 
 has wrongly taken xeydpiora: in a passive sense, so that God is conceived as 
 the inheritance. This is in opposition to the context, and also against the 
 view of the N. T. generally, according to which the «/npovouia proceeds from 
 God (Rom. viii. 17), and is not God Himself, but eternal life (ver. 21 ; Tit. 
 ili. 7 ; Matt. xix. 29, e¢ al.), the kingdom of the Messiah (v. 21 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 
 xv. 50 ; Jas. ii. 5), and its salvation (Rom. i. 16) and dominion (Rom. iv. 
 tome Matt: v. 5 3:2 Tim. ii: 12). 
 
 Ver. 19.4 After Paul has shown in vv. 15-18 that the law does not abol- 
 ish the far earlier covenant of promise, he might very naturally be met by 
 the inquiry, ‘‘ According to this view, then, what sort of end is left to 
 be served by the law in connection with the history of salvation ?” Hence 
 he himself raises this question and answers it. — ri odv 6 voyoc] se. éote : how 
 does it stand therefore (if it is the case that the law does not abolish the cov- 
 enant of promise) with the law? A general question, in which, to judge 
 from the answer that follows, the apostle had in view the purpose for which 
 God gave the law. On the neuter ri, with a nominative following, comp. 1 
 Cor. iii. 5 (in the correct reading) : ti oby éotw ’AroA2c, ‘* What then is Apol- 
 los ?” and see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 501 E; Bernhardy, p. 336 f. Follow- 
 
 1 Comp. on Rom. iy. 13; Eph. i. 11. self-obvious, is not expressed. 
 2 Ver. 18 is a syllogismus conditionalis, 3 In d. Strassh. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff. 
 “conditional syllogism,” of the nature\of a 4On ver. 19, see Stdlting, Bettrdge z. 
 
 dilemma, the conclusion of which, because Euegese d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 50 ff. 
 
128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ing J. Cappellus, Schott (also Matthies, though undecidedly, Jatho and 
 Wieseler) takes 7/ for dia ri ; very unnecessarily, however, and in opposition 
 to the constant use of the ri odv so frequently recurring in Paul’s writings 
 (Rom. iii. 1, iv., e¢ al.; comp. Gal. iv. 15). — tv xapaBdcewv yapw rpoceréby | 
 for the sake of transgressions it was added ; that is, in order that the trans- 
 gressions of the law might be brought out as real, it was, after the covenant 
 of promise was already in existence, superadded to the latter (mapevo7Afev, 
 Rom. v. 20). The law namely, because it gives occasion to the potency of 
 sin in man to bring about in him all evil desire (Rom. vii. 5, 8), and never- 
 theless is too weak as a counter-power to oppose this sinful development 
 (Rom. viii. 3), is the divaycc rH¢ duaptiac (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; and see Rom. vii. 
 7 ff.); but sin—which, although existing since Adam (Rom. v. 13), is yet 
 increased by that provocation of the law—has only come to assume the defi- 
 nite character of zapd(uore in virtue of the existence of the law and its rela- 
 tion thereto (Rom. iv. 15). The same purpose of the law is expressed in 
 Rom. v. 20, but without the stricter definition of sin as rapéBaciwe. Accord- 
 ingly, tov tapaB. xapw is not (with Wetstein) to be rationalized to this 
 effect : ‘‘Lex sine dubio eo consilio lata est, ut servaretur, iraxoye yapey ; 
 vitio tamen hominum evenit, ut peccata multiplicarentur,” ‘‘ Without doubt 
 the law was given to be kept, viz., for obedience ; by man’s fault, however, 
 the result was that sins were multiplied.” This is in itself correct (comp. 
 Rom. vii. 12), but is irrelevant here, where the point in question is the posi- 
 tion of the law in connection with the divine plan of salvation, the final 
 aim of which is redemption. The real idea of the apostle is, that the emer- 
 gence of sins—namely, in the penal, wrath-deserving (Rom. iv. 15), moral 
 form of transgressions—which the law brought about, was designed by God 
 (who must indeed have foreseen this effect) when He gave the law, and de- 
 signed in fact as a mediate end in reference to the future redemption ; for 
 the evil was to become truly great, that it might nevertheless be outdone by 
 grace (Rom. y. 20). The result, which the law, according to experience, 
 has on the whole effected, and by which it has proved itself the divayec tHe 
 duaptiac (comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6), could not be otherwise than the aim of 
 God.! Luther (1519) strikingly remarks: ‘‘Ut remissio propter salutem, 
 ita praevaricatio propter remissionem, ita lex propter transgressionem,” ‘‘as 
 forgiveness on account of salvation, so violation of duty on account of for- 
 giveness, and the law on account of forgiveness.” Observe, further, the 
 article before rapaZ., which summarily comprehends, as having really that 
 character, the transgressions arising and existing since the giving of the 
 law.?. Others? consider that by rév rapa. yxdpiv the recognition of sins is ex- 
 pressed as the aim of the law.* But (1) this idea could not have been ex- 
 
 1Comp. Ritschl, p. 74 f.; Baur, neutest. p. 297. 
 
 Theol. p. 140 f.; Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hol- 
 sten, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Matthias (who, 
 however, assumes the intentional appear- 
 ance of an ambiguity), Stdlting, and others ; 
 also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 75; Lech- 
 ler, apost. Zeit. p. 110. 
 
 2 Comp. Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
 
 3 Some unexegetically combine ‘he two ex- 
 planations, as Bengel: ““ut agnoscerentur 
 et invalerescerent,” ‘‘ that they might be 
 acknowledged and gain strength.” 
 
 4So Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, 
 Caloyius, Wolf, Schoettgen, Michaelis, 
 Windischmann, and others; also Winer 
 
CHAP. I1r., 19. 129 
 pressed by the mere rév rapaf. ydpw ; for although yapw is not always 
 exclusively used in its original sense, jor the sake of, in favor of, but may 
 also be taken simply as on account of,’ still, in order to be intelligible, Paul 
 must have written rijc¢ éxvyvdcews tov rapaBdceov yaprv as signifying : in 
 order to bring sins to recognition as transgressions. And (2) the point of 
 the recognition of sin was entirely foreign to this passage ; for in tov rapa. 
 avapw Paul desires to call attention to the fact that the law, according to the 
 divine plan, was intended to produce exactly the objective, actual (not 
 merely the subjective) opposite of the dicavooiyy (comp. vv. 21, 22). On ac- 
 count of this connection also the interpretation of many expositors, ‘‘ for re- 
 pressing transgressions,” is wholly to be rejected, because opposed to the con- 
 text.? This view is decidedly disposed of by the expression rapaBdcewr, since 
 mapafaocecc aS such could only come into existence with the law (Rom. iv. 
 15); previously there were sins, but no transgressions,—a view with which 
 Rom. v. 14 does not conflict, because the matter in question there is the 
 transgression of a quite definite, positive command of God. The two last 
 interpretations are combined by Flatt and Schott, as also by Reiche, follow- 
 ing older expositors,* 
 in general, and here in fact involving an amalgamation of two erroneous views. 
 [See Note XLVIL., p. 160. ] — xpoceré@y] it was added, is not inconsistent with 
 what was said in ver. 15, oideic . . . éxidvatdocera, because in the latter gen- 
 eral proposition under oide/c third persons are thought of. The law, more- 
 over, was not given as é7dvafjxn (see on ver. 15), but as another institution, 
 which, far from being a novella to the diafjxn, was only to be a temporary 
 intermediate measure in the divine plan of salvation, to minister to the final 
 fulfilment of the promise. See the sequel, and comp. Rom. v. 20, x. 4. — 
 aypic ob £A0n 70 orépua «.7.2.| terminus ad quem, ‘‘ goal,” of the merely provis- 
 ional duration of this added institute. But these words are neither to be 
 connected, in disregard of their position, with d:arayeic,* nor to be placed in 
 a parenthesis ; for the construction is not interrupted. As to aypic ov 226n, 
 usque dum venerit, ‘‘until it should come,” comp. on Rom. xi. 25. Accord- 
 ing to the general usage of the N. T.,° the subjunctive, and not the optative,® 
 is used. Paul has not put av, because there was no idea in his mind of any 
 circumstances which could have hindered the event.’ — 76 orépua © éxiyy. | 
 
 
 
 
 
 a course inconsistent with hermeneutical principles 
 
 (‘ut manifestam redderet atque ita argue- 
 ret illam, quam Judaei peccando sibi con- 
 trahebant, culpam,” ‘‘to render manifest 
 and so to convict of that guilt which the 
 Jews by sinning had contracted ”’). 
 
 1 Ellendt, Lea. Soph. IL. p. 947, appropriate- 
 ly remarks: ‘‘xaprv cum genitivo dictum: 
 in gratiam alicuius, inde alicuius aut hom- 
 inis aut rez causa significans, quamquam 
 minime semper gratia adsignificatur, quae 
 Ammonii doctrina est, p. 53.’ Comp. 
 1 John iii. 12. 
 
 2So Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Zachariae, 
 Semler, Morus, Koppe,Rosenmiiller, Paulus, 
 
 9 
 
 Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Ewald (‘‘in order 
 to punish them more striclly’’) ; also Messner, 
 Lehre ad. Ap. p. 222, and Hauck, comp. 
 Buhl; several, such as Grotius and Riick- 
 ert, think that the inclination to Egyptian 
 idolatry is chiefly referred to. 
 
 3 Comp. also Matthies. 
 
 4 Hofmann. 
 
 5 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 198. 
 
 ® Matthiae, p. 1158. 
 
 7 See Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 62 C; Her- 
 mann, de part. av, p. 110 ff.: Hartung, Parti- 
 kell. II. p. 291 ff. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 26. 
 
130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 that is, Christ, whose advent, according to ver. 16, necessarily brought with 
 it the fulfilment of the promise. The dative, however, does not stand for 
 eic bv,’ but just as, in ver. 16 : to whom the promise was made. — éxhyyedrat| 
 not promiserat, ‘‘had promised,” * comp. Rom. iv. 21, Heb. xii. 26; but pro- 
 missio facta est, ‘‘the promise was made” (2 Macc. iv. 27), because thus it is 
 not requisite to supply Oedc, and the expression corresponds very naturally 
 with éppéOjoav ai érayyediat in ver, 16. Hence also it is superfluous to supply 
 7 KAnpovouia (Ewald). — diatayeic dv ayyédwv év y. weo.| the mode in which 6 
 vouoc mpoceréOy, or the form of this act : having been ordained through angels, 
 etc. On diatdooew vouov, comp. Hesiod, épy. 274. The simple rdaocew véuov 
 is more frequently used, as in Plat. Legg. p. 863 D. It means to ordain a 
 Jaw, that is, to issue it for obedience, not to arrange it for publication (Stélt- 
 ing), so that the angels would be described here as the diaskeuastai, 
 ‘‘revisers,” of the law,—an idea which has no support anywhere, and would 
 run counter to the view of the directly divine origin of the law (Ex. xxxi. 
 18, xxxii. 16 ; Deut. ix. 10). As to the use of the aorist participle in the 
 language of narration, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774 ; Bernhardy, p. 383. 
 The tradition that the divine promulgation of the law took place amidst the 
 ministry of angels, is first found in the LXX., Deut. xxxiii. 2 (not in the 
 original text) [See Note XLVIII., p. 160] ; then in Heb. ii. 2, Acts vii. 38, 
 538, Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3, and in the Rabbins, and also in the Samaritan 
 theology.’ Because the tradition itself and its antiquity are thus beyond 
 doubt, and there is no warrant for supposing that Paul did not know it or 
 was not likely to adopt it (as, indeed, he adopted other traditional teach- 
 ings, 1 Cor. x. 4, 2 Cor. xii. 2), it is a mere mistaken evasion to explain 6.4 
 as inter, ‘‘among,” or coram, ‘‘in presence of,” 4 which would have ultimately 
 to be referred to the idea ‘‘ by the mediation of” (as 2 Tim. ii. 2). The same 
 remark applies to the view which looks upon the ayyéAwv even as men, like 
 Moses and Aaron ;° Chrysostom left it optional to understand it either 
 of priests or of angels. As to the monstrous amplifications which this 
 tradition of the agency of the angels underwent at the hands of the 
 later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. I. p. 309 f. Paul 
 does not look upon the angels as authors of the law,*—as is certain 
 from the whole view taken in biblical history of the law generally 
 as divine,” and here especially is all the more decidedly indicated by 
 the use of the da (and not id), for every reader in fact conceived 
 of the angels as ministering spirits of God,* who accompanied the Lord 
 appearing in majesty ; and consequently no one could attach any other 
 sense to dia than ‘‘ministerio angelorum,” ‘‘ by the ministry of angels,’ 
 which is clear as the meaning in Heb, ii. 2 from dia rot xvpiov in ver. 
 
 
 
 1 Winer, Usteri. 
 
 2 Vulgate, Bengel, Flatt. Hofmann. 
 
 3 Comp. on Acts vii. 53; Delitzsch, on 
 Hebr. ii. 2. 
 
 4 Calovius, Loesner, Morus. 
 
 5 Zeger, and revived by Cassel, d. Mittler 
 e. exeg. Versuch, 1855. 
 
 6 As held by Schulthess, Voigtlander in 
 
 Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal. IV. p. 1389 ff., 
 and Huth, Commentat. Altenb. 1854. 
 
 7 See the apostle’s own designation of the 
 law as vounos cov, Rom. vii. 22, 25, and as 
 ypahy, vers. 10, 13, iv. 21 f., ef al. 
 
 8 Comp. LXX. Deut. xxxiii. 2: 逫 de&ay 
 avrov ayyedot met avtov, ‘‘ from his right hand 
 the angels with him.” 
 
CHAP. TT.) J9) 131 
 
 3.—év yerpi peciror' | 
 
 For Moses received the tables of the law from God, 
 and carried them down to the people. Thus in the legislation he was the 
 middle person between the Giver of the law and its recipients ; with the tables 
 in his hand, he was God’s cnvoy to Israel, acting between the two parties. 
 On account of this historical circumstance (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15), év yecpi 
 is to be understood not merely as a vivid mode of designating the mediation 
 (3), but quite literally. In the N. T. the designation of Moses as peoirne 
 forms the basis of the expression in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24 ; and on the 
 subject itself, comp. Acts vii. 38. This designation does not occur in the 
 O. T. or in the Apocrypha ; but by the Rabbins Moses is called mediator 
 NOD, "PSS, also 5w.* The better known and the more celebrated Moses 
 was as mediator of the law,* the more decidedly must we reject every in- 
 terpretation in which the veoir7¢—not more precisely defined by Paul, but 
 presumed to have its historical reference universally familiar —is not refer- 
 red to Moses. This applies not only to the view of most of the Fathers,° 
 who, following 1 Tim. ii. 5, Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, take the Mediator 
 to be Christ,° but also to Schmieder’s view,’ that an angel is intended—the 
 angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special duty of 
 teaching Moses the law, Certainly the Rabbins speak of an angel of the 
 law ;° but this part of their teaching cannot be shown to have existed in 
 the time of the apostles, nor can it find a biblical basis in the passages quoted 
 by Schmieder (Ex. xix. 19 f., xx. 18, xxxiii. 11; Num. xii. 5-8; Deut. v. 
 4 f.; also Ex. xxxili. 18-23, xl. 35 ; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. xviii. 18 ; Acts 
 vil. 53 ; Mal. ili. 1). See also, in opposition to Schmieder,’ especially Liicke 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. p. 97 {. — The object for which Paul has added Siarayete 
 . pecizov, is not to convey the impression of an inferior, subordinate position 
 held by the law in comparison with that of the gospel or that of the promise, 
 inasmuch as the former was ordained not directly by God, but through 
 angels and a mediator.”” [See Note XLIX. , p. 161.] (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, 
 
 lneoitys is a word that belongs to the 
 later Greek (Polyb., Lucian, ¢ a/.). Comp. 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 121. It occurs in the 
 LXX. only in Job ix. 33. 
 
 2 Comp. Ex. xxxii. 15; Lev. xxvi. 46. 
 
 8 See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 738 f.; Wet- 
 stein, p. 224. Comp. Philo, de vita Mos. II. 
 p. 678 f. A; and on the matter itself, Deut. 
 vy. 5; also Joseph. Avd/é. iii. 5. 3. 
 
 4 Comp. Aboth R. Nath. i. 1, ‘‘ Legem, 
 quam Deus Israelitis dedit, non nisi per 
 manus Mosis dedit,” ‘‘ the land which God 
 gave to the Israelites only by the hands of 
 Moses.” 
 
 6 Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, 
 Augustine, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact ; so also Beza, Lyra, Erasmus, Cal- 
 vin, Pareus, Calovius, and others. 
 
 ®So also very recently Culmann, zw 
 Verstdindn. der Worte Gal. iii. 20, Strassb. 
 1864. 
 
 7 Nova interpr. 
 
 Gal. iii. 19, 20, Numburg. 
 
 1826. 
 
 5 He was called Jefifia; see Jalkut Rubeni, 
 fal Over3 
 
 * With whom Schneckenburger agrees. 
 See on ver. 20. 
 
 10 Luther, 1538: ‘“‘ Lex est servorwm vox, 
 connate Domini,” ‘“The law is the 
 word of servants; the gospel, that of the 
 Lord.”” Hofmann: Paul gives his readers 
 to understand that the event of the giving of 
 the law was no fulfilment of the promise (see, 
 however, on ver. 20). Bengel: God com- 
 mitted the law to angels, ‘‘ quasi alienius 
 quiddam et severius,” *‘as though more re- 
 mote and severe.’’ Buhl confines himself to 
 saying that Paul wished to represent the 
 difference between the mode of revelation 
 in the case of the law and that of the cove- 
 nant of promise. But the question regard- 
 ing the purpose of this representation as 
 bearing on the apostle’s argument thus 
 remains unanswered. According to Hilgen- 
 
132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Estius, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Tychsen, Flatt, Riickert, Usteri, de Wette, 
 Baur, Ewald, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Hauck, and others ; comp. also Olshau- 
 sen, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77 ; Vogel in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1865, 
 p- 530), but its object is to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in 
 the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination.’ It may be decisively 
 urged in favor of the latter view, (1) that, if the mention of the angels was in- 
 tended to suggest a lower relation in comparison with a higher, this higher re- 
 lation must have been distinctly expressed (as in Heb. ii. 2), or at least must 
 have been quite definitely discoverable from the immediate context (by the 
 addition of a uévov perhaps, or the like), Regarded in themselves, the ap- 
 pearance of angels and the agency of angels (comp. also i. 8) are always 
 conceived as something majestic and glorifying,* even in respect to Christ,* 
 and especially in respect to the law,* the bestowal of which was one of the 
 high divine distinctions of Israel.* Just as little can it be said (2) that év yezp? 
 pecirov is a depreciatory statement, for in fact the gospel also is given év yerpi 
 uecitov ; to which argument the objection cannot be made, that the Media- 
 tor of the gospel, as the Son of God, is far more exalted. than the mediator 
 of the law : for év yecpi wecirov does not state at all what kind of mediator it 
 was who intervened in the promulgation of the law, but leaves the dignity 
 or lowliness of his person entirely out of view, and asserts only that a medi- 
 ator was employed in the giving of the law ; so that in respect of this rela- 
 tion regarded by itself there was no qualitative difference between the law 
 and the gospel : both were mediated, given through the hand of a mediator. 
 By way of comparison and contrast with the gospel, éy yepi avfpoxov or some 
 such expression must have been used, whereby the mediation of the law 
 would be characterized as inferior to that of the gospel. Lastly, (8) it by no 
 means formed a part of the plan and object of the apostle to depreciate the 
 law as a less divine institution, —a course which, besides being inconsistent 
 with his recognition of the law elsewhefe,® would have been even unwise in 
 dealing with zealots for the law ; whereas it was in the highest degree ap- 
 propriate to acknowledge the high dignity of the law as evinced in the maj- 
 esty and solemn formality of its promulgation, and then to show that it had 
 by nomeans cancelled the promises. Thus the glory of the law glorified the 
 covenant of promise, while the apostle’s opponents could not find any antag- 
 onism to that law. In opposition to these arguments, the appeal to 6 Oed¢, 
 ver. 20,7 has the less weight, because in zpoceré0y and diarayeic (ver. 19) God 
 in fact is obviously the acting subject, and the promise also was expressed 
 passively by éxhyyeAra: (without Océc). According to Helsten, 2. Hvang. d. 
 Paul. u. Petr, p. 299 ff., Paul intends to express ‘‘the pneumatic truth,” 
 
 
 
 feld, Paul’s intention was to detach as far 
 as possible the origin of the law from the 
 supreme God; and in this respect also he 
 ‘was the precursor of Gnosticism. 
 
 1 So Calvin and others, including Winer, 
 Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Mat- 
 thias ; comp. Weiss, id. Theol. p. 284. 
 
 2Hence we must not say with Schmid, 
 bibl. Theol. II. p. 280, that the intention was 
 
 to intimate that the giving of the law was 
 not ‘‘ the absolute normal act” of the divine 
 economy. 
 
 3 Matt. xxiv. 31, xxv. 31; Johni. 52; 1 Tim. 
 iii. 16, ef al. 
 
 4LXX. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Acts vii. 38, 53. 
 
 5 Rom. ix. 4. 
 
 6 Rom. vii. 12-25. 
 
 7 Usteri, Schneckenburger, de Wette. 
 
CHAP ELE. 20; 21. 133 
 
 that, in the purpose of God, the significance of the law in the economy of 
 salvation was to be that of amediator, viz., between promise and fulfilment. 
 But if this were so, how wonderfully would Paul have concealed his 
 thoughts ! He must have said that this mediatorial position of the law er- 
 hibited itself in the form of its bestowal ; for this in itself, and apart from 
 any other intimation, could in no way be known to the reader, to whom 
 angelic and mediatorial agency presented themselves only as historically 
 familiar attributes of the majesty and divinity of the law. The law idtse/f 
 would not be placed by these attributes in the category of the peoitnc. Nor 
 is Stdlting’s view more worthy of acceptance, who, in dratay. dv ayyéhwr, de- 
 tects the idea: ‘‘ in order that the Jews might obtain the blessing of Abraham” 
 (Heb. i. 14), and explains éy yevpi pecirov to mean that the law served as an 
 instrument to the mediator for reconciling discordant parties with one another 
 (and these parties are alleged to have been the Jews and Gentiles). These 
 two ideas, which are only ina very indirect way compatible with the scope 
 of the Pauline teaching as to the relation of the law to the gospel, or with 
 history itself, could not have been found out by the readers, especially after 
 ver. 18, and after rév tapaBac. yapev, and would have needed a more precise 
 explanation in what reference they were to be taken. In unison with the 
 history of the giving of the law, which was familar to every reader, the two 
 points could only be understood as reminiscences of the historical circum- 
 stances in question ; and peciry¢ in particular could not be conceived as a 
 reconciling mediator, but only in the sense conveyed in Acts vil. 38. 
 
 Ver. 20 down to py yévorro, ver. 21. “ But from the fact that the law was ° 
 ordained through a mediator, it must not at all be concluded that it is opposed to 
 the promises of God.” The expression just used, éy yerpi ecitov, might pos- 
 sibly be turned to the advantage of the law and to the prejudice of the 
 promises, in this way, that it might be said : ‘‘ Since the idea of a mediator 
 supposes not one subject, to whom his business relates, but more than one, 
 who have to be mutually dealt with, and yet God (who gave the law through 
 a mediator) is one, so that there could not be one God who gave the law and 
 another who gave the promises (for there are not more Gods than one); it 
 might possibly be concluded that, because the law was ordained by God in 
 a different way from the promises,—namely, by the calling in of a mediator 
 acting between the two parties,—the earlier divine mode of justification 
 (that of faith) opened up in the promises was abolished by the law, and in- 
 stead of it, another and opposite mode of justification (that of the works of 
 the law) was opened up by God.” Paul conceives the possibility of this 
 inference, and therefore brings it forward, not, however, as an objection on 
 the part of opponents, but as his own reflection ; 
 
 ; hence he expresses the 
 concluding inference, 6 obv véjoc K.7.A 
 
 ., in an interrogative form, to which 
 he thereupon replies by the disclaimer, y7 yévoirro. The explanation of the 
 words, which in themselves are simple enough, is accordingly as follows : 
 “* But the mediator—not to leave unnoticed an inference which might possi- 
 bly be drawn to the prejudice of the promises from the évy yecpi yecitov just 
 said—but the mediator, that is, any mediator, does not belong to a single person, 
 but intervenes between two or more ; God, on the other hand, is a single per- 
 
134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 son, and nota plurality. Zs it now—when these two propositions are applied 
 in concreto to the law and the promises—is it now to be thence inferred that the 
 law, which was given through a mediator, and in which therefore there took 
 part more subjects than one, in point of fact two (namely, God and Israel), 
 between whom the mediator had to deal, is opposed to the divine promises, in 
 which the same one God, who in the case of the law acted through a medi- 
 ator and so implied two parties, acted directly ? God forbid! From this 
 point of difference in the divine bestowal of the law and the promises, by 
 no means is any such conclusion to be arrived at to the prejudice of the lat- 
 ter, as if now, through the law mediatorially given by the one God, another 
 divine mode of justification were to be made valid.” In this view, ver. 20 
 contains two loci communes, from the mutual relation of which in reference 
 to the two conereta under discussion (the law and the promises) in ver, 21 a 
 possible inference is supposed to be drawn, and proposed by way of ques- 
 tion for a reply. The dé is in both cases adversative : the first introducing 
 a supposed objection, and the second an incidental point belonging to this 
 objection, the relation of which incidental point to the first proposition 
 strengthens the doubt excited ; 6 wecit¢ denotes the mediator absolutely as 
 genus (** quae multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis,” Hermann, ad Iph. 
 Aul. p. 15, pref.): évdc otk éotw is predicate, negativing the évdc eivaz as re- 
 gards the mediator, with emphatic stress laid on the prefixed évé¢ (not on 
 the oix, as Hofmann thinks), and évé¢ is masculine,’ without requiring any- 
 thing to be supplied : ec éorvv is predicate, and cic, in conformity with the 
 axiom of monotheism here expressed, is used quite in the same purely nwmer- 
 ical sense as évé¢g previously. Lastly, in the interrogative inference, ver. 21, 
 6 véuoc is used, as the close annexation by ody sufficiently indicates, in pre- 
 cise correlation to 6 pecitne in ver. 20 (for the law was given through a medi- 
 ator, ver. 19), and trav érayyedov tov Ocov to @ éxfyyeATa, ver. 19 ; but the 
 emphasis in this question of ver. 21 is laid upon «ara, for Paul will not allow 
 it to be inferred from the two propositions expressed in ver. 20 (7 yévoito), 
 that the law stood in arelation to the promises which was antagonistic to them 
 and opposed to their further validity as regards justification. —The numer- 
 ous different interpretations of this passage—and it has had to undergo above 
 250 of them—have specially multiplied in modern times : for the Fathers of 
 the Church pass but lightly over the words which in themselves are clear, 
 without taking into consideration their difficulties in relation to the general 
 scope of the passage,—mostly applying the 6 dé peciryg évic ob éotev, taken 
 correctly and generally, to Christ,? who is the Mediator between God and 
 
 1 Not neuter, as Holsten takes it, although 
 0 6€ @eos eis éotey Which follows can only 
 indicate the masculine. Holsten, not with- 
 standing all his subtle acuteness, errs also 
 in making the law itself,in opposition to 
 the tenor of the words, to be the heat7ns (see 
 on ver. 19), and in explaining the predicate 
 ets attached to o @eos in the sense of the i7- 
 mutability of the divine will ; holding that 
 the law stands, not in unity with the 
 
 promise, but between the two component 
 parts of the latter (the giving of the 
 promise and its fulfilment), and that God’s 
 one saving will reveals itself in the promise 
 and its two parts. See, in opposition to 
 Holsten, Hilgenfeld in his Zeétschr. 1860, 
 p. 230 ff. 
 
 2 Jerome, however, explains the passage 
 as referring to the two natures of Christ: 
 ‘*manu mediatoris potentiam et virtutem 
 
CHAP, II., 20; 21. 135 
 man, and partly casting side-glances at the opponents of Christ’s divinity ;? 
 although a diversity of interpretation (some referring pecitn¢ to Moses, and 
 others to Christ) is expressly mentioned by Oecumenius. Although no spe- 
 cial dogmatic interest attached to the passage, nevertheless in the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries (see Poole’s Synopsis) the variety of inter- 
 pretations was already such that almost every interpreter of importance 
 (yet, as a rule, without polemical controversy, because the dogmatic ele- 
 ment did not come into play) took a way of his own. It became, how- 
 ever, still greater after the middle of the eighteenth century (especially after 
 grammatico-historical exegesis gained ground, but with an abundant in- 
 termixture of its philological aberrations), and is even now continually 
 increasing. How often have the most mistaken fancies and the crudest 
 conjectures sought to gain acceptance in connection with our passage, 
 the explanation of which was regarded as a feat of exegetical skill !? It is 
 enough that out of the multitude of various interpretations—omitting the 
 criticism in detail of the earlier views down to Keil *“—we specify the more 
 
 ejus debemus accipere, qui cum secun- 
 dum: Deum unum sit ipse cum Patre (0 é¢é 
 @eds, as God), secundum mediatoris officium 
 (6 6€ recttys) alius ab eo intelligitur,”’ ‘‘ By 
 the hand of a Mediator we ought to under- 
 stand the power and virtue of Him who ac- 
 cording to God is understood as one with 
 the Father, but in His office of mediator 
 is understood as other than Him” (evos ov« 
 éotiv)! Theodoret understands 0 éd€ peortys 
 definitely of Joses, who intervened be- 
 tween God and the people (évos ov« éottv), 
 but holds that 0 S€ @eds eis éorw affirms 
 that if is one and the same God who 
 first gaye the promises to Abraham, then 
 gave the law, and now has shown the 
 goal (ro mépas) of the promises. Mecirns is 
 explained as referring to J/oses by Genna- 
 dius in Oecumenius (p. 742 C); on the 
 other hand, Chrysostom and Theophylact 
 take as a basis the conclusion, wote kat 
 6 Xptortos Sv0 Tway eater meaitys, Geov dydAady 
 kal avtpuorwv, ** so that Christ is Mediator of 
 two, manifestly of God and men” (Theo- 
 phylact).—Among modern Catholic exposi- 
 tors, Windischmann and Bisping have close- 
 ly followed Jerome in the reference of the 
 second half of the verse to the two natures 
 of Christ. The meaning is supposed to 
 amount to this, that the promise was direct- 
 ly addressed from God to God (#.é.,to Christ), 
 and the passage is thus a locus classicus in 
 Savor of the divinity of Christ. Not so 
 Reithmayr, who in substance follows the 
 interpretation of Theodoret. 
 
 1 See Chrysostom. 
 
 2 For a general view of the mass of inter- 
 pretations, the following works are of ser- 
 vice :—Koppe, Hwe. VII. p. 128 ff. ed. 3: Bo- 
 
 nitz, Plurimor. de l. Gal. iii. 20 sententiae ex- 
 aminatae novaquée ejus interpr. tentata, Lips. 
 1800; also his Spicileg. observatt. ad Gal. iii. 
 20, Lips. 1802: Anton, Diss. l. Gad. iii. 20 cri- 
 tice, historice, et exeg. tract. in Pott’s Sylloge, 
 V. p. 141 ff. : Keil (seven programmes), in 
 his Opuse. I. p. 211 ff.: Winer, #xc. III. : 
 Schott, p. 455 ff.: Wieseler, and de Wette 
 ed. Moller, tv doc. 
 
 3 Luther, 1519: ‘‘Ex nomine mediatoris 
 concludit, nos adeo esse peccatores, ut legis 
 opera satis esse nequeant. Si, inquit, lege 
 justi estis, jam mediatore non egetis, sed 
 neque Deus, cum sit ipse unus, secum op- 
 time conveniens. Inter duos ergo quaeri- 
 tur mediator, inter Deum et hominem, ac si 
 dicat ; impiissima sit ingratitudo si media- 
 torem rejicitis, et Deo, qui unus est, remit- 
 titis,’ ete., ‘‘ From the name of Mediator 
 he concludes that we are sinners in such 
 way as to be unable to fulfil the works of 
 the law. If, said he, ye are just by the law, 
 ye do not need now a Mediator, and God, 
 since He is one, is not self-consistent. A Me- 
 diator, therefore, is required between two, 
 viz., between God and man, as though he 
 were to say: Most godless would be your in- 
 gratitude if you reject a mediator, and to 
 God, who is one, you remit,’’ etc. Erasmus 
 in his Paraphr., understanding Christ as re- 
 ferred to (in the Annotat. he says nothing 
 at all about the passage) : ‘‘ Atqui concilia- 
 tor, et si intercedit, inter plures intercedat 
 oportet; nemo enim secum ipse dissidet. 
 Deus autem unus est, quocum dissidium 
 erat humano generi. Proinde tertio quo- 
 piam erat opus, qui naturae utriusque par- 
 ticeps utramque inter sese reconciliaret 
 Deum placans sua morte, et homines sua 
 
136 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 recent literature, and adduce the following : 1. Keil, who comes nearest to 
 our view, explains thus (see Opuse. I. p. 365 ff.) : ‘‘ Meditatorem quidem non 
 unius sed duarum certe partium esse, Deum autem, qui Abrahamo beneficii 
 
 doctrina ad verum Dei cultum pelliciens,”’ 
 “But the conciliator, who intercedes, must 
 intercede among a number; for no one 
 disagrees with himself. God, however, 
 with whom there was disagreement as re- 
 spected the human race, is one. Hence 
 there was need of a third participant of 
 both natures to reconcile both with one 
 another, appeasing God by his death, and 
 alluring men by his doctrine to the true 
 worship of God.”’ Calvin also, explaining 
 the passage of Christ, considers : ‘‘ diversi- 
 tatem hic notari inter Judaeos et gentiles. 
 Non unius ergo mediator est Christus, quia 
 diversa est conditio eorum, quibuscum 
 Deus, ipsius auspiciis, paciscitur, quod ad 
 externam personam. YVerum P. inde aesti- 
 mandum Dei foedus negat, quasi secum 
 pugnet aut varium sit pro hominum diver- 
 sitate,” ‘‘Here the diversity between Jews 
 and Gentiles is noted. Christ, therefore, 
 is not a mediator of one, because diverse 
 isthe condition of those with whom God, 
 by His tokens, makes a covenant as to 
 the outward person. But Paul denies that 
 God’s covenant is to be thence estimated 
 as though it were inconsistent or various in 
 accordance with the diversity of men.” 
 Castalio gives the sense of the words cor- 
 rectly : “‘Sequester autem internuntius est 
 duorum, qui inter sese aliquid paciscuntur: 
 atqui Deus unus est, non duo,” ‘‘ A media- 
 tor is a messenger between two who make 
 some covenant with one another: but God 
 is one, not two ;” but then draws therefrom 
 the strange inference: “‘itaque necesse est 
 Mosen Dei et Israelitarum internuntium 
 fuisse, nec enim potest Dei et Dei internun- 
 tius fuisse, cum duo Dei non sint,”’ ‘‘ It was 
 necessary, therefore, for Moses to be a 
 mediator between God and the Israelites ; 
 for he could not have been a mediator be- 
 tween God and God, since there are not 
 two gods; and from this again he infers 
 that both parties had thus promised some- 
 thing, God promising life and the Israelites 
 obedience ; and lastly, with equal arbitrari- 
 ness : “‘nune quoniam legi parere nequeunt, 
 supplicio sunt obnoxii,”’ ‘‘ Since, now, they 
 cannot obey the law, they are subject to 
 punishment.’’ Grotius (comp. Beza): *‘ Non 
 solet sequester se interponere inter eos, qui 
 unum sunt (évds, neuter), i.e. bene conve- 
 niunt; Deus sibi constat,” *‘ A mediator is 
 not accustomed to interpose between those 
 who are one (evos, neuter gender), 7.e., those 
 
 who well agree. God is self-consistent ;’’ 
 from which he arbitrarily infers: ‘‘ quare 
 nisi homines se mutassent, nunquam opus 
 fuisset mediatore neque tum neque nunc,” 
 ‘““ Wherefore, unless men had changed, there 
 would never have been need of a mediator, 
 whether then or now.’’? Comp. Schoettgen, 
 who, however, assumes the first part of the 
 verse to be an objection on the part of the 
 Jews,and 0 dé @ebs cis or to be Paul’s reply. 
 Wolf, although referring peotrov in ver. 19 
 to Moses, yet in ver. 20 understands peoirns 
 of Christ; ‘““Ille vero mediator (qui impri- 
 mis hic respiciendus est) unius non est (sed 
 duorum), quorum unus est Deus,” “But 
 that mediator who must here be especially 
 regarded is not of one, but of two, one of 
 whom is God.” Clarke, who understands 
 feotr, in ver. 19 as referring to -Christ: 
 “ Quilibet vero »ecizys est duarum partium. 
 Deus est una pars. Ergo quorum erit Chris- 
 tus mediator nisi Dei et hominum?” ‘ But 
 every mediator is of two parts. Godis one 
 part. Of whom, therefore, will Christ be 
 mediator, unless of God and men?” Ben- 
 gel discovers the syllogism : Unus non utitur 
 mediatore illo (i.e., quisquis est unus, isnon 
 prius sine mediatore, deinde idem per me- 
 diatorem agit); atqui Deus est unus (non 
 est alius Deus ante legem, alius deinceps, 
 sed unus idemque Deus); ergo mediator 
 Sinaiticus non est Dei sed legis, Dei autem 
 promissio,”’ ** One does not use that medi- 
 ator (7.e., whoever is one, does not act first 
 without a mediator, and then do the same 
 through a mediator) ; but God is one (there 
 is not one God before the law, and another 
 after the law, but God is one and the 
 same); the Sinaitic mediator, therefore, is 
 not of God, but of the law, while the prom- 
 ise is of God.” Wetstein: ‘‘Sicut quando 
 arbitrum vel medium vel sequestrum dici- 
 mus, intelligimus ad officium ejus pertinere, 
 ut non uni tantum partium faveat, sed 
 utrique sese aequum praebeat; ita etiam 
 quando Deum dicimus, intelligimus non 
 Judaorum solum, sed omnium hominum- 
 patrem. Undestatim colligitur, Mosen, qui 
 inter Judaeos solum et Deum medius fuit, 
 non veri nominis medium fuisse, sed a 
 bonitate Dei expectari debere alium, totius 
 humani generis negotium gerentem, i.e. 
 Christum,”’ ‘‘ As when we speak of an ar- 
 biter or medium or mediator, we under- 
 stand that it pertains to his office to 
 favor not only one of the parties, but to 
 
CHAP. III., 20, 21. 137 
 aliquid promiserit, unum modo fuisse ; hineque apostolum id a lectoribus suis 
 colligi voluisse, in lege ista Mos. pactum mutuum Deum inter atque populum 
 Tsraelit. mediatoris opera intercedente initum fuisse, contra vero in promissione 
 rem ab uniws tantum (Dei se., qui solus eam dederit) voluntate pendentem trans- 
 actam, hineque legi isti nihil plane cum hae rei fuisse, adeoque nec potuisse ew 
 novam illius promissionis implendae conditionem constitui, eoque ipso promis- 
 sionem hane omnino tolli,” ‘‘That a mediator indeed is not of one, but 
 certainly of two parties, but that God, who had promised some benefit to 
 Abraham, was only one ; hence that the apostle wished it to be inferred by 
 his readers that in the law of Moses a mutual agreement had been made be- 
 tween God and the Israelitish people by the intervention of a mediator ; 
 but, on the other hand, that what is comprised in the promise is dependent 
 upon the will of only one (viz., of God, who alone has given it), and hence 
 that the law and the contents of the promise are entirely different, and, ac- 
 cordingly the new condition of the fulfilment of this promise, could not be 
 fixed, and by this very means the promise be altogether withdrawn.” But 
 (a) to take the second half of the verse not generally, like the first, but his- 
 torically, as if 7v was written, is an arbitrary deviation from the parallelism ; 
 and (0) the conclusion professedly to be drawn by the reader, hincque legi isti 
 nihil, ‘‘hence that law,” etc., is quite without warrant, for Paul himse’f puts 
 as a question in ver. 21 the inference which he conceives may be possibly 
 
 drawn from ver. 20. 
 
 show himself just to both; so also when 
 we speak of God, we understand the Father 
 not alone of the Jews, but of all men. 
 From this the inference is immediate that 
 Moses, who was mediator between the 
 Jews only and God, was not one of true 
 name, but that from the goodness of God 
 another ought to be expected to act for 
 the entire human race, i.e., Christ.’’ Mi- 
 chaelis (following Locke): ‘‘ But this law 
 cannot, in respect to the Gentiles, alter any- 
 thing in the former covenant of God, For 
 one of the parties who had a share in this 
 covenant, namely, the Gentiles, had not 
 empowered Moses as a mediator and knew 
 nothing of him; but God Himself is only 
 one party, and cannot alter His covenant 
 through a mediator appointed on one side 
 only.”’ Nosselt (Hvercitatt. ad s. s. interpr. 
 p. 143 ff.) and Rosenmiiller: ‘‘ lie autem 
 (Moses nempe) mediator illius unius (prolis 
 Abrahamieae, the Christians /) non est, Deus 
 autem est unus (communis omnium) Devs.” 
 “ But he” (viz. Moses) ‘‘ is not the mediator 
 of that one”’ (viz., the offspring of Abraham) 
 “but God is one’ (i.e. common to all).” 
 Morus, interpreting it as a syllogism with 
 an interrogative major: ‘* Hic vero (Moses) 
 nonne est mediator ejus, qui immutabilis est ? 
 Subsumtio: aiqui vero Deus est immutadilis. 
 Conclusio; num ergo lex adversari potest, 
 
 2. Schleiermacher’s explanation is essentially sim- 
 
 ete. ? ‘““But is not this one” (Moses) ‘‘ the 
 mediator of him who is immutable? Minor 
 premise: But God is immutable. Conclu- 
 sion: Can the law then be against,” ete. 
 Gabler (Prolus. ad Gal. iii. 20, 1787) has the 
 same alteration in the sense of eis: ‘‘ He 
 (Moses) was nol, however, a mediator of some- 
 thing immutable,” ete. Koppe: “Jam qui- 
 dem non vouw Mosis tantum suus est weoitns 
 (plures fuerunt, imprimisque o pecityns THs 
 katy, dcaOyxns Jesus) sed unus tamen idemque 
 Deus est, qui misit omnes, is adeo debet sibi 
 constare nec potest secum ipse pugnare,” ‘It 
 is true indeed that by the law of Moses he is 
 not alone its mediator (there were a num- 
 ber, and especially Jesus, the Mediator of 
 the new covenant), but, nevertheless, He 
 is one and the same God, who sent all, 
 and therefore He ought to be self-consis- 
 tent, and cannot conflict with Himself.” 
 So also, in substance, Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius: é€vés means for one matter; and the 
 sense is, ‘‘that the law has been one of 
 the many divine institutions, but as such 
 it must stand in connection with the general 
 plan of the divine government.’’—Some of 
 these interpretations condemn themselves, 
 and others find their refutation in our ex- 
 amination of the more modern interpreta- 
 tions after Keil. 
 
138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ilar (in Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 186 ff.) : ‘‘ The mediator of an agreement does not 
 exist where there is only one person, but always presupposes two persons ; these 
 were God and the Jewish nation. But God is One in reference to His promises ; 
 that is, God therein acts quite freely, unconditionally, independently, and for 
 Himself alone, as One numerically, because it is no agreement between two, but 
 ITis free gift (yapic). Does the law therefore conflict, etc.?”* But in this 
 view (a) the application of ver. 20 to the conereta, ‘‘ concretes,” of the law 
 and the promises, which is in fact not made until ver. 21, is imported into 
 and anticipated in ver. 20. Moreover, (6) cic imperceptibly changes from 
 its numerical sense into the idea of aloneness and independence ; and (ce) 
 the idea of free grace is arbitrarily introduced, and is not expressed by Paul. 
 Nearest to this interpretation of Schleiermacher and Usteri comes Hilgenfeld, 
 whose interpretation,’ accompanied essentially by the same difficulties, ulti- 
 mately amounts to the non-Pauline idea, that the position of God as a party 
 in regard to the law is not in harmony with the divine unity (that is, with 
 the divine monarchy). Comp. also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77, accord- 
 ing to whom Paul negatively ‘‘strikes the law to the ground as incompati- 
 ble with the sole agency of God.” But how could Paul desire to strike to 
 the ground the law, which to him was dyioc, ayabéc, ‘holy, good,” and 
 mvevuarixoc, ‘* spiritual” (Rom. vii. 12, 14) ? No, all he desires to show is, that, 
 notwithstanding the diversity of its divine bestowal from the mode of giving 
 the promise, it is not opposed to the promise. 38. Winer: ‘‘ Non potest 
 peaitne cogitari aut fingi, qui sit évdc, unius h. e. unius partis: 6 dé O&d¢ 
 ele gor, Deus et unus, una (altera) tantummodo pars ; ita quaenam est altera? 
 gens Israel. Jam si hoc, sponte efficitur, legem Mos. pertinere etiam ad Judaeos, 
 hosque legi isti observandae adstrictos fuisse,” ‘‘ A mediator cannot be con- 
 ceived of or imagined who is of one, i.e., of one part ; ‘ but God is one,’ one 
 (other) part only. What then is the other? The Israelitish nation. If 
 now this is so, it spontaneously results that the law of Moses pertains also to 
 the Jews, and they are bound to observe this law.”’* Thus ver. 20 contains 
 only a parenthetical idea, Paul having in view to re-establish the dignity of 
 
 1In essential points, Usteri (ommentar, 
 p. 121; comp. with Beilage, p. 239) agrees 
 with Schleiermacher in his explanation. 
 Moreover, the substance of Schleier- 
 macher’s interpretation is already to be 
 found in Zachariae, who paraphrases as 
 follows: “A mediator presupposes two 
 parties who make some promise to each 
 other, inasmuch as a promise made on one 
 side without a counter promise does not 
 need any mediation between two. But in 
 the case of Abraham God alone promises, 
 who grants him a promise out of free 
 grace.” 
 
 2In his Commentary. We takes another 
 view in his Zeétschr. 1860, p. 2386 ff.: ‘ Paul 
 wished to express that the covenant of the 
 law, being ordained through angels and a 
 
 mediator, and consequently through a 
 plurality, shows itself thereby to be entirely 
 different from the covenant of promise 
 which was given by the divine unity, and 
 consequently cannot cancel the latter.” 
 But this cancelling might certainly have 
 been inferred from the very difference ; 
 besides, the plurality, which is supposed to 
 be implied in évds ov« éeotiv, would have 
 nothing at all to do with the angels, but 
 would necessarily refer only to the medi- 
 ator, who has to mediate between two—in 
 this case, between God and the Israelites. 
 3JIn the explanation of the words Kern 
 (in the Z%ib. Zeitschr. 1830, 3) agrees with 
 Winer, only he does not insert tantummodo, 
 * only,” in the second clause. He looks 
 upon the words as an opponent’s objection, 
 
CHARS Ti, 20 veils 
 
 the law, which appeared weakened by rév rapa. yap rpoceréfy + Lex Mos. 
 data fuit peccatorum gratia ; propterea vero non est, quod quis eam tanquam ista 
 émayyeria longe inferiorem contemnat; data e nim et ipsa est auctoritate 
 divina, ‘‘ The law of Moses was given on account of sins ; but from this the 
 inference is not just that one may despise it as far inferior to the promise ; 
 for it was given by divine authority.”—d.aray. dc’ ayyéawv— gentique 
 Hebr. tanquam agendi norma proposita év yetpi pecit. O¢ ovK ~oTLv 
 évéc, ‘‘ Asa noun of actionit was set forth to the Hebrew nation.” It can- 
 not be urged against Winer, that Paul must necessarily have written 6 eic.' 
 But (a) in the logically exact chain of argument there is no indication at all 
 that ver. 20 is to be taken as a parenthesis. (b) Since 6 peaity¢ is subject, 6 
 Oed6c, which likewise is placed at the beginning of the sentence, may not be 
 arbitrarily understood as predicate. (c) It must have been more precisely 
 indicated by Paul, if it were intended that the first éoriv should be under- 
 stood as the copula of a general judgment, and the second as historical 
 (appears in the giving of the law); for every reader, if he had understood the 
 first half of the verse as a general judgment, would naturally understand 
 
 the second in like manner. 
 
 and in 6 6€ @eds eis eotv he finds the idea 
 intimated, that God in consequence took it 
 upon Himself to bless those who obey the 
 law ; whence the question follows: Does 
 therefore the law, by which God has bound 
 Himself to make blessed on account of 
 works, conflict with the promises of God? 
 But against this view it may be urged that 
 there is absolutely nothing to indicate ver. 
 20as the language of an opponent ; further, 
 that the points brought forward against 
 Winer, under (0), (c), and (@), equally apply 
 here; and lastly, that the idea found in o dé 
 @eds eis eoTty is not suggested by the con- 
 text, but arbitrarily introduced. Baur also, 
 Paulus, Il. p. 215 f. ed. 2 (comp. his neutest. 
 Theol. p. 157), agrees with Winer in his con- 
 ception of the words: the mediator belongs 
 not to one, but to two parties, but God is 
 only the one of the two parties. By this 
 ' Paul is supposed to intimate, that the law 
 has a merely subordinate significance, just 
 as that of the mediator, insomuch as he 
 is not himself one of the two parties, is 
 merely subordinate: ‘‘the émayyeAia, 
 “promise,” as @ 5ta0y«y, “covenant.” 
 in which God «iséare, “is one,” without a 
 eaityns having anything to do with it, stands 
 higher than the v6jos, “law,” which cannot 
 be conceived without the weattys, ‘“medi- 
 ator,” and is essentially conditioned by him.” 
 But in this interpretation Paul would not 
 have said what he meant to say, and would 
 have said what he did not mean. The view 
 of Holsten (Deutung u. Bedeut. ad. Worte 
 
 (ad) It would not occur to any reader to refer ei¢ 
 
 Gai. iii. 20, Rostock 1853, and Inhalt u. 
 Gedankengang des Gal. Br. 1859, pp. 39 ff., 
 63 ff.) is allied to the explanation of Baur. 
 Holsten understands pecitys,‘‘ mediator,” as 
 referring to the law, and makes é€vos neuter : 
 Between the law and the promise the rela- 
 tion is not that of an ev, but of an essential 
 distinction : but God is at one with Him- 
 self, not presenting any difference with 
 Himself, namely, in the sense of the im- 
 mutability of the divine will. This explana- 
 tion cannot be accepted, because it starts 
 from the supposition that the law is placed 
 under the category of the pecitns, * media- 
 tor.”’” Paul cannot have so conceived it, be- 
 cause he has said that the law was ordained 
 through a peoirns, ‘* mediator ;’’ therefore 
 
 law and mediator must have been present to 
 
 his mind as different ideas.— Steinfass (in 
 Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1856, p. 237) understands 
 the literal sense definitely and correctly, 
 but from the words 6 Sé @e dsets éaruv, ‘* but 
 God is one,” derives the tacit idea: God 
 therefore is not the other party, and conse- 
 quently is not under the law—by which the 
 freedom of Christ as the Son of God from 
 the law is supposed to be proved. But thisis 
 an idea foreign to the context and imported 
 into the passage, not even quite Pauline ; 
 for submission to the law certainly formed 
 apart of the state of humiliation of the 
 Son of God (Gal. iv. 4), while as to the 
 state of exaltation His elevation above the 
 law is a matter of course. 
 1 See Winer, Gramm. p. 110. 
 
140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 to asuppressed 6 érepoc : for évéc had just been used absolutely in a numeri- 
 cal sense, in which therefore ei¢ at once presents itself ; and this the more, 
 because the first sentence, by its negative form, has prepared the way for an 
 antithesis to follow. (¢) The idea which 6dé O¢d¢ cic éotw is supposed to in- 
 dicate : therefore the law is obligatory on the Israelites, conveys something 
 which is so entirely a matter of course, that it could not be made use of at 
 all as an element of the dignity of the law ; for the law was, in fact, given to 
 the Israelites, and even to think of that obligation as non-existent would 
 have been incongruous. And (/) even assuming such a superfluous idea, 
 in what a strangely mysterious way would Paul have intimated it! That 
 which he meant to say, he would wholly without reason have concealed, and 
 have given out as it were a riddle. Apart from the unsuitableness of the 
 idea generally, and from the inappropriate eic, he must have said: 6 dé 
 ’"Iopaia elc gov, ‘‘ but Israel is one.” 4. Schulthess has sought to vindicate 
 his interpretation,’ viz. : ‘‘ Hie mediator (Moses) non est mediator unius, 1.€., 
 communis illius Dei, qui olim Abrahamo spopondit, per eum aliquando gentes 
 beatum iri, et qui est unus, 8. communis omnium parens, sed est potius medi- 
 ator angelorum,” ‘‘This mediator (Moses) is not a mediator of one, 7.é., 
 common to that God who once promised Abraham that through Him at some 
 time the nations would be blessed, and who is one, or the common parent 
 of all, but is rather the mediator of angels.”? But (a) how erroneous it is to 
 assume that the anarthrous évé¢ should denote the universal God of men, and 
 
 how alien this reference is to the context ! 
 ayyédwv to the notion, that Moses was ‘‘mediator angelorum” / 
 
 (0) How opposed is the dv 
 (c) How at 
 
 variance is the idea of the law as the work of angels with the conception 
 throughout the Bible (comp. on ver. 19) of the law as the work of God! In 
 
 1 Proposed in Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal. 
 II. 3, p. 183 ff. in his Mngelwelt, Engelgesetz 
 und Engeldienst, Ziirich 1833, and in de G. 
 Hermanno, enodatore ep. P.ad Gal., Ziirich 
 1835. 
 
 2Similar also is the interpretation of 
 Caspari (in the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.), 
 that ‘‘ Moses, the middle-man of the angels 
 who gave the law, is not the mediator of 
 the One who gave the promise ; he is the 
 mediator of many angels, but God is one.” 
 Vogel’s explanation (in the Stud. wu. Kvrit. 
 1865, p. 524) comes in substance to the same 
 effect : “‘ Where there is a mediator, there 
 is a plurality of those commissioning him ; 
 such a plurality existed in the giving of the 
 law; but God is one; consequently the law 
 proceeded from a plurality distinct from 
 God, and the anges form this plurality.” 
 In opposition to Vogel, see Hilgenfeld, in 
 his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 452 ff. ; Matthias, in 
 the monograph quoted at ver. 19, p. 30 ff. ; 
 Hauck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 699 ff. 
 Nevertheless Hauck (in the Stud. wu. Krit. 
 1862, p. 541 ff.) has likewise assumed a plu- 
 rality in jegitys, mediator—the plurality of 
 
 men, Whom Moses represents as one out of the 
 midst of them (but pecitns does not mean 
 this) ; hence he cannot be representative of 
 the one God. Nothing in our passage can be 
 regarded as more certain than that 6 peot- 
 mys, applied to the act of giving the law, 
 embraces in itself the idea: ov Swe Kvptos, 
 ‘“* what the Lord made” (not directly, but), 
 ava @égOV a’TOD Kal ava METOV THY 
 vidv “lopandA evTa XeEtpe 
 Mwvo7, ‘between him and the children of 
 Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses” 
 (Lev. xxvi. 46). Buhl, 7c. p. 18, has inter- 
 preted the passage similarly to Hauck, but 
 with an incorrect inference from the nega- 
 tion of necessity to the negation of possi- 
 bility: the mediator always represents a 
 great number of persons ; but God is single, 
 and as such does not need any mediator : 
 therefore the mediator (ver. 19) cannot be 
 the representative of God, but, on the con- 
 trary, can only accept the law for a plural- 
 ity of recipients. Thus the law stands in 
 contrast to the covenant of promise, which 
 was given to the One oméppa, “ seed.” 
 
 Oper Suwa ev 
 
CHAPS Thiiey CO neal. 141 
 how wholly different a way must Paul have spoken of and proved such a 
 paradox, and how j/requently would he have reverted to it (especially in the 
 Epistle to the Romans) in his antinomistic discussions !_ 5. Akin to this, as 
 far as the idea is concerned, is the interpretation of Schmieder (Nova interpr. 
 l. Paul Gal. iii. 19 f., Numb. 1826, and in Tholuck’s literar. Anz. 1830, No. 
 54): ‘ Quivis minister vel multorum est vel unius: atqui mediator non est 
 Qui multorum est minister, ad quod genus 
 mediator pertinet, non est unius: atqui Deus (absolute) unus- est: ergo cum 
 multorum sit mediator, non est Dei minister,” ‘‘ Every minister is either of 
 many or of one ; but a mediator is not of one: therefore he is a min- 
 ister of many. He who is a minister (to which class a mediator belongs) 
 of many, is not of one ; but God is absolutely one : since, therefore, he isa 
 minister of many, he is not a minister of God.” The connection is 
 supposed to be : ‘‘ Concedo legem per angelos datam esse a Deo, non humana 
 arte inventam, sed eo ipso, quod per angelos ministros, non per Deum aut Dei 
 Jilium promulgata est, inferior est evangelio,” ‘‘T grant that the law was 
 given by God through angels, and not devised by human art, but from the 
 very fact that it was published through angels as ministers and not through 
 God or the Son of God, it is inferior to the gospel.”! This interpretation is 
 objectionable, (@) ina general point of view, because it rests wholly on the 
 erroneous view that yecirov in ver. 19 applies not to Moses, but to the ange- 
 lus mediator, ‘‘ angel mediator ;” (6) because Paul could not have expressed 
 so peculiar an antinomistic argument more obscurely or more enigmatically 
 than by thus omitting the essential points ; (c) because the idea of peciryc 
 by no means implies that the weoiryc is the ‘‘ minister multorum:” he may 
 be commissioned as well by one as by many, as, in fact, Christ was commis- 
 sioned as a pecityc by One, viz., by God.? 6. Steudel, in Bengel’s Archiv. I. 
 p. 124 ff., supposes that ver. 19 is an opponent’s question : ‘‘ To what purpose 
 then serves thelaw? Was it bestowed merely somehow as an additional gift on 
 
 unius: ergo est multorum minister. 
 
 1 Schneckenburger’s explanation (in his 
 Beitr. p. 189 ff., and in the Stud. uw. Krit. 
 1835, p. 121) agrees with Schmieder’s. 
 
 quorum mediator vice fungebatur,’ ‘For 
 there would have been no need of a media- 
 tor, if only one had borne the law ; but if a 
 
 Huth’s attempt at an explanation (Comment. 
 de loco Gal. iii. 19 f., Altenb., 1854) agrees 
 partly with Schmieder and partly with 
 Schulthess ; he understands ev xetpi peoitov 
 of an “‘angelus mediator,” angel-mediator, 
 and then in ver. 20 finds the idea that the 
 law proceeds from angels, and not from 
 God, as follows: ‘‘ Wediatore enim nihil opus 
 Suisset, si unus tantummodo legem tulisset ; at 
 si multitudo quaedam, qualis est angelorum, 
 legem ferre vult tum rei summa exsequenda 
 traditur uni, qui mediatoris vicem inter legis 
 latores et eos gerat quibus lex destinata est. 
 Haec autem ratio cadere non potest in Deum, 
 quippe qui unis numero sit, ideoque mediatore 
 non indigeat. Hx hoc ipso igitur, quod in 
 Serenda lege Mosaica opus fuit mediatore. col- 
 ligendum est, originem ejus repeti non debere 
 ab uno Deo, sed a pluribus, h. e. ab angélis, 
 
 multitude, such as that of angels, wishes to 
 bear the law, then to execute the comple- 
 tion of what matter pertains thereto, it is 
 delivered to one who occupies the place of 
 mediator between the bearers of the law 
 and those for whom it has been destined. 
 This method, however, cannot occur with 
 respect to God, as being one in number and 
 accordingly not needing a mediator. From 
 the very fact, then, that in propounding the 
 law of Moses, there was need of a mediator, 
 it must be inferred that its origin should 
 not be derived from one, viz., God, but from 
 many, z.é., from the angels, whose place the 
 mediator fulfilled.” 
 
 2See also, in opposition to Schmieder, 
 Liicke in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1828, p. 95 ff.; 
 Winer, Hae. III. p. 171 ff. 
 
142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 account of transgressions (in order to be transgressed), until the seed should come 
 to whom the promise applied? And yet was it made known through angels, 
 and by the ministry of a mediator ?” To which Paul answers, Certainly through 
 the ministry of a mediator ; only he was not the mediator of an united seed (of 
 the onépyatoc tév riorebovewr, ver. 16), but God is one (not another for the 
 Gentiles).” But (a) there is nothing that indicates any such division of the 
 passage into dialogue ; and (/) how strange it would be that Paul should 
 have grasped, and furnished a reply to, nothing but the last part of the op- 
 ponent’s question, év yerpi wecitov, which, moreover, would be only a subor- 
 dinate part of it! (c) The article must be added to évéc, if it is to apply to 
 the orépya already spoken of (as assumed also by Jatho) ; but xo supplement 
 whatever to évéd¢ is suggested by the context ;’ and if tov évd¢ orépuatoc 
 were read, then, according to ver. 16, it would mean not the body of 
 Christians, but Christ Himself.? (d) évd¢ and cic would be taken in different 
 senses : 7. Sack * supposes that Paul avails himself of the 
 idea of a mediator to limit the recognition of the law, which perhaps some 
 Jewish Christians were disposed to assert to an exaggerated extent, and 
 
 united and one.* 
 
 says: ‘‘ The mediator, however, is not of one kind, but God is One and the 
 same. Forus Christians there is certainly another mediator than Moses ; but 
 God, the God in both Testaments, is nevertheless One and the same.” But 
 
 it is obvious that évé¢ éorw cannot mean unius generis est, ‘is of one 
 class,” and it is equally evident that the clause, ‘‘ for us Christians there 
 
 1 This applies also against Kaiser’s strange 
 attempt (de apologetic. Hv. Joh. consiliis, Erl. 
 1824, p.7 ff.) to obtrude the entirely foreign 
 supplement of vios : ‘* Hie mediator Moses non 
 est unius filius, Deus autem (nempe) est unus,”? 
 ““This mediator, Moses, is not the son of one, 
 but God is one.” Moses is not to be com- 
 pared with Christ, the only-begotten Son 
 of God. 
 
 2 This remark also applies to the very 
 forced and arbitrary explanation of Mich. 
 Weber (Paraphr. cap. III. ep. ad. Gal. 1863) : 
 “ Hic autem interventor (Moses) non est inter- 
 ventor unius illius posteritatis Abrahami,quam 
 paulo ante Christianos esse dixi, Israelitarum 
 sed Israclitarum 
 aapKainierventor quippe in quo spem suam 
 jiduciam que ponunt (Joh. ii. 45). Hx hac igitur 
 parte, in interventore, Israclitaé kata capKa, 
 differunt ab Isradlitis kata mvevpa, quippe 
 qui spem fiductamque suam non in Mose, sed 
 in solo Christo ponunt, meatty @eod x. avOparav 
 (1 Tim. ii. 5). Jn Deo autem (0 yé @eds) nulla 
 est diversitas; nihil diseriminis Israelitis 
 kata capxa cum Israditis kata mvedpa interce, 
 dit, cundem Deum verum colunt illi quem hi- 
 Deus est unus idemque. Utrique habent qui- 
 dem &Aov Kat adAov interventorem, non autem 
 aAAov kat addAov Deum,” ‘This intercessor 
 (Moses), however, is not the intercessor of 
 that one posterity of Abraham, which 
 
 KaTa Tvevdpma, KaTa 
 
 shortly before I have said to be Christians, 
 viz., the intercessor of Israelites according 
 to the spirit, but of Israelites according to 
 the flesh, since they put in him their hope 
 and confidence (Johnii. 45). In this respect, 
 therefore, in the intercessor, Israelites ac- 
 cording to the flesh differ from Israelites 
 according to the spirit, since they put their 
 hope and trust not in Moses, but in Christ 
 alone, the mediator between God and men 
 (1 Tim. ii. 5). In God, however, there is no 
 diversity; no distinction intervenes between 
 Israelites according to the flesh and Israel- 
 ites according to the spirit; the former 
 worship the same true God as the latter; 
 their God is one and the same. They have 
 different intercessors, but not different 
 gods.” 
 
 3 And in eis the relation of God to the 
 Jews and Gentiles would be arbitrarily as- 
 sumed. This is also done by the anonymous 
 writer, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 331 ff., 
 according to whom our passage is intended 
 to assert that the mediator of the law was 
 not only the mediator of God, but also had 
 reference to the Jewish people, whereas 
 God with His promise had reference to all 
 the nations of the earth, both Jews and 
 Gentiles. 
 
 4 In the 7%ib. Zeitschr. 1881. I. p. 106 f. 
 
CHAP. I1I.,.20, 21. 143 
 
 is certainly,” etc., is arbitrarily brought in. See also Schneckenburger,' 
 and (in opposition to Steudel, Kern, and Sack) Winer.* 8. Hermann : Jn- 
 terventor non est unius (i.e., interventor ubi est, duos minimum esse oportet, inter 
 quos ille interveniat) ; Deus autem unus est: ergo apud Deum non cogitart po- 
 test interventor ; esset enim is, qui intercederet inter Deum et Deum, quod ab- 
 surdum est,” ‘‘ An intercessor is not of one (i.e., wherever there is an in- 
 tercessor, there must be at least two with whom he intercedes) ; God, how- 
 ever, is of one ; therefore an intercessor with God cannot be thought of ; 
 for he would have to be one to intercede between God and God, which 
 is absurd.” And the connection is: ‘‘ Id agebat P. ut ostenderet, legem 
 Mosis, quae nihil neque cum promissione Abrahamo data neque cum praesente 
 effectione promissionis commune haberet, dumtazat interim valuisse, jam autem 
 non amplius valere.  Rationem reddit hane, quod superaddita sit (ideo 
 x pocetédn dixit), eoque non pertineat ad testamentum, cui non liceat quidquam 
 addi ; deinde quod non, sicut testamentum illud, ab ipso Deo condita et data, sed 
 disposita per angelos allataque sit manu interventoris : atqui interventori, quod 
 interventor non sit unius, non esse locum apud Deum, qui unus sit, utpote testa- 
 tor, cujus unius ex voluntate nemine intercedente haereditatem capiat haeres,” 
 ‘¢Paul did this to show that the law of Moses, which had nothing in 
 common with the promise given to Abraham, nor with the present effect 
 of the promise, only had been some time valid, but was now no longer 
 valid. He gives this reason, that it was added (he said accordingly zpoce- 
 réOy), and accordingly does not pertain to the covenant, whereto nothing 
 - could be added ; then that it was not instituted by God Himself and given, 
 as that former covenant, but ordained by angels and delivered by the hand 
 of a mediator ; but for the intercessor, since he is not the intercessor of one, 
 there is no place with God, who is one, seeing that He is the testator, from 
 the will of whom alone and without the intervention of any one, the heir 
 receives the inheritance.” But (a) it could not be expected that the reader 
 should derive from ver. 20 the idea that no mediator is conceivable in the 
 ease of God on account of His oneness ; nor could it be so conceived by 
 Paul himself, for, in fact, with the one God a mediator may certainly have 
 a place,—not, however, ‘‘ inter Deum et Deum,” ‘‘ between God and God,” 
 into which absurdity no one could fall, unless Paul so expressed it, but inter 
 Deum et homines, ‘‘ God and men,” in which office the history of the theoc- 
 racy showed so many mediators and at last Christ Himself. (0) The question 
 in ver. 21 (oiv), with the answer expressive of horror, pz yévoiro, presupposes 
 that the subject-matter of this question—consequently an antagonistic rela- 
 tion of the law to the promises—might possibly (although quite unduly) be 
 derived from ver. 20. But according to Hermann, Paul in vv. 19 and 20 
 has already proved that an antagonism of the law to the promises does not 
 exist, that the law was no longer valid, and had nothing at all in common 
 with the promises. So, in a logical point of view, the question in ver. 21, 
 6 obv véuoc K.T.A., Could not be asked, nor could the answer py yévorro be 
 made. (c) It may, besides, be urged against Hermann, that not only is d/ 
 
 1 Beitr. p. 187 f. 2 Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. V1. 1, p. 31 fe. 
 
144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 ayy. év yerpt peo. regarded as lowering the authority of the law, but a quite 
 undue stress is also laid upon rpoceré67 ; for in ver. 19 the emphasis lies on 
 Tov rapaB. yaprv. 9 Matthies’ interprets : ‘‘ But the mediator . . . does not 
 relate to one, for his nature is in fact divided or disunited, since he is placed 
 between two sides or parties opposed to one another ; and therefore in connection 
 with him we cannot think of unity, but only of duality, or of the variance sub- 
 sisting between two parties ; but God is One, comprehends in Himself nothing 
 but unity, so that His nature contains no variance or disunion.” Thus 
 also, in the main, de Wette,? and among the older expositors Jac. Cap- 
 pellus. But the simple numerical conception of unity is thus arbitrarily 
 transformed into the philosophical idea, and the contrast of plurality is 
 turned into the contrast of diswnion. How could a reader discover in 6 Oed¢ 
 ei¢ éorev anything else than the popular doctrine of Monotheism? 10. 
 Schott : ‘‘ Mediator quidem non uni tantum (eidemque immutabili) addictus 
 est homini 8. parti, i.e., in quavis causa humana, quae mediatore indiget, duae 
 certe adsunt partes, quibus wecitne inserviat, sive res inter duos tantum hom- 
 ines singulos transigatur, sive multitudo sit ingens eorum, qui alterutram vel 
 utramque partem constituant (v. ¢. populus) . . . ubi plures imo multi ejusdem 
 JSoederis participes sunt et fiunt (praesertim ubi maxima est singulorum vicissi- 
 tudo, dum mortuis succedunt posteri), facile etiam mutatis animorum consiliis 
 atque propositis, foedus mutatur aut tollitur, pecity cujus ope constitutum 
 Suerat haud impediente . . . proinde ex eo quidem, quod lex Sinaitica év 
 xetpt wecirov promulgata est (ver. 19), non sequitur auctoritatem ei compe- 
 tere perpetuam [his verbis P. corrigere voluit perversam eorum opinionem, qui in 
 defendenda legis auctoritate perpetua valitura ad personam Mosis mediatoris 
 provocarent| . . . attamen Deus est unus, qui semper idem manet Deus immu- 
 tabilis, foedus legislationis Sinaiticae non fuit humanae, sed divinae auctorita- 
 tis, neque ab arbitrio hominum, sed a voluntate Dei pendebat immutabilis. 
 His perpendendis quaestio excitabatur (ver. 21), an forte haee legislatio Sinait. 
 auctoritate divina insignis ipso Deo jubente promissionem Abrahamo datam 
 ejusmodi limitibus circumscribere (mutare) voluerit, ut non amplius esset pro- 
 missio, cujus eventus liberae tantum Dei gratiae adnecteretur,” ‘‘ A mediator, 
 indeed, is not devoted to only one (and that too an immutable) man or 
 party, @.e., in every human cause that needs a mediator, there are undoubt- 
 edly two parties present which the mediator serves, whether the transaction 
 be between only two individuals, or the multitude of those constituting one 
 or the other party be great, e.g., the people . - . where a number, aye, many 
 are and become sharers in the same covenant (especially where the change 
 of individuals is very great, when posterity succeed the dead), and where 
 the designs and purposes of minds being easily changed, the covenant is 
 easily changed or annulled, when the mediator by whose aid it was estab- 
 lished does not hinder. . . . Hence from the fact that the Sinaitic law was- 
 promulgated ‘in the hand of a mediator’ (ver. 19) it does not follow that 
 
 1 As in substance also Rinck, Zucubdr. clause is merely: “that which God in Him- 
 erit. p. 172 ff., and in the Stud. u. Kvrit. 1834, self, irrespective of the disunion which has 
 p. 309 ff. arisen between Him and men, has promised, 
 
 2 According to him, the idea in thesecond _ is elevated above this disunion.” 
 
CHAP! TL. 20521 145 
 
 perpetual authority belongs thereto [by these words, Paul wished to correct 
 the perverse opinion of those who in defending the perpetually valid author- 
 ity of the law appealed to the authority of Moses]. . . . Yet God is one, 
 who always remains the same immutable God, and the covenant of Sinaitic 
 legislation was not of human, but of divine authority, and did not depend 
 upon the will of men, but upon the will of the immutable God. In weigh- 
 ing these things, the question was excited (ver. 21) as to whether perhaps this 
 Sinaitic legislation, notable by its divine authority, God himself command- 
 ing it, was intended to circumscribe (change) the promise given to Abraham 
 by such limits, that it would be no longer a promise, whose issue would be 
 dependent only upon the free grace of God.” How much is supplied by the 
 expositor in this interpretation, so copiously provided with modifying 
 clauses! But it is decidedly erroneous, on account of the sense of cic and 
 évéc being changed into the idea of immutabdilis, ‘‘immutable,”? and also 
 because the proposition 6 dé yecirn¢ évdg ovK éarv is limited to causae humanae, 
 and yet the inference is supposed to be therein conveyed that the Sinaitic 
 legislation is not always valid. Paul assuredly could never have thus illogi- 
 cally corrected the zealots for the law, and then in the very same breath have 
 set aside the inference by attamen Deus est unus, ‘‘ but nevertheless God is 
 One.” 11. Gurlitt® refers évé¢ to the Gentile Christians, as one of the two 
 divisions of the orépya ’ABp. : ‘‘ The law was given through angels and 
 through a mediator, and God indeed is throughout only One; what proceeds 
 Jrom Him, therefore, demands in every case equal recognition. It must 
 nevertheless be taken into consideration, that the mediator is no mediator 
 of those who were previously Gentiles, and that therefore the law was 
 not destined for the latter by God Himself.” But, apart from the fact that in 
 this view of évé¢ there must have been previous mention of a twofold pos- 
 terity of Abraham and row évé¢ must have been here used, and not to men- 
 tion that the évé¢ and ei¢ are not taken as alike in sense, the interpretation 
 must be at once pronounced decidedly wrong, because it depends upon the 
 erroneous view that the orépua, vv. 16, 19, means not merely Christ Him- 
 self, but also the corpus mysticum, ‘‘ mystical body,” of Christ. 12. Olshau- 
 sen, taking 6 dé Ocdc ele éorvv as : God is one or a single one, and consequently 
 only one party, explains it thus : ‘‘ Mediation presupposes a state of separa- 
 tion, and there can be no mediation in the case of one ; since God is the one 
 party, there must also have been a second, viz., men, who were separated ' 
 from God: In the gospel it is otherwise : in Christ, the representative of 
 the Church, all are one ; all separations and distinctions are done away 
 in Him” (ver. 28). Thus Paul, in order to call attention to the inferiority 
 of the law to the gospel, gives a cursory, parenthetic explanation as to the 
 idea of a mediator. This is (1) unsuitable to the context ; for in ver. 19, 
 diatay. dV ayyédwv év yerpi peo. has set forth the glory of the giving of the law. 
 (2) The idea: and consequently also only one party, is quite arbitrarily added to 
 6 dé Bed eic éorev. (8) In like manner, all the rest which is supposed properly 
 
 1 For which Schott should not haye ap- 2 Inthe Stud. wu. Krit. 1837, p. 806 ff. ; 1843, 
 pealed to Rom. iii. 30, Phil. i. 27. D: 16 it. 
 
 10 
 
145 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 to constitute the sense of the words (‘‘ men, who were separated from God ;” 
 ‘in the gospel it is otherwise,” etc.) is the pure invention of the expositor. 
 13. Matthias,’ correctly explaining the first half of the verse, sees im 6 dé 
 Gcbc cic gor the minor premiss of an enthymeme, which has to be completed 
 by supplying the major premiss and conclusion : ‘‘ If God is one of those two 
 parties, the law, although ordained by angels, is nevertheless ‘an ordinance of 
 God ; but God is this ; and consequently the law, ete., is an ordinance, not of 
 angels, but of God.” Against this interpretation we may urge that the special 
 connection with the point dvatayeic¢ dv ayyédov is not conveyed by the text ; 
 that the explanation of ei¢ by alter is contrary to the context ; that ver, 21 
 would be unsuitably subjoined from a logical point of view (see on xara, 
 ver. 21) ; and lastly, that the idea of the law being an ordinance of God 
 was one altogether undisputed and not needing any proof. 14. Ewald? 
 assumes that Paul with this ‘‘ quick flash of thought” intended to say : 
 ‘‘The idea of the mediator necessarily presupposes two different living 
 beings between whom, as being at variance or separated, mediation has to 
 take place ; because the mediator of one is not, does not erist at all, is an im- 
 possibility. But since G’od is in strictness only One, and does not consist of 
 two inwardly different Gods or of an earlier and later God, it is evident that 
 Moses as mediator did not mediate between the God of the promise and the 
 God of the law, and thereby mix up the law with the promise and cancel 
 the promise by the later law ; but he only mediated (as is well known) 
 between God and the people of that time.” But even this interpretation, 
 the thought of which would probably have been expressed most simply 
 by Paul writing 6 62 pecityg Ocov éativ, 6 dé Cede Eig éoTL, 18 liable to the 
 objections urged above (under 8) against Hermann’s explanation. 15. 
 According to Hofmann (compare also his Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 55 ff), 
 the jirst half of the verse is intended to affirm that, where there is only 
 one to whom something is to be given, there is no room for mediatorship ; such 
 an individual recipient may receive it directly. Now, as the promise ran 
 to Abraham’s posterity as an unity, it is evident that the giving of the law, 
 just because it was destined for a plurality of individuals, could be no 
 fulfilment of the promise. The second half of the verse, which with dé passes 
 on to the divine side of the event, places the unity of God in contradistinetion 
 to the plurality of angels; that which comes to men through the latter must be of 
 a different kind from the promised gift, which the One was to give to the One— 
 the one God to the one Christ. Thus on this side also it is clear that the 
 giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but was only 
 ordained for the time, until Christ should come. But (a) all this artificial 
 interpretation must at once fall to the ground, because it conceives évéc to 
 be opposed to a plurality of recipient subjects ; for it is not true that the 
 bestowal through a mediator presupposes such a plurality, seeing that it 
 may take place just as well with one as with many recipients. (0) It is in- 
 correct that the unity of God is placed in contrast with the plurality of 
 
 1 After several earlier attempts, accord- graph quoted at ver. 15. 
 ‘ling to his last view of 1866, in the mono- 2 Comp. also his Jahrb. IV. p. 109. 
 
GHAP, 11m. 20, 21. 147 
 
 angels (which is not even marked, by roAAév ayy. or the like): it stands in 
 contrast to the évd¢ ov« gor, and it is untrue that the ‘‘ mediateness of the 
 giving involved its taking place through many’—just as if the mediate 
 giving could not with equal fitness take place through one, as in fact it has 
 very often been given by God through one! (ec) Paul’s intention is, not to 
 show that the giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but, 
 as is clearly evident from ver. 21, to show that the law was not opposed to 
 the promise. — 16. Wieseler : ‘‘ Moses as mediator, however (dé being restrictive), 
 has reference not merely to God (but also to men): for a mediator from his 
 nature has not reference to one (but to two parties) ; but God is one. Conse- 
 quently the failure of that mediatorial office of Moses was based on the fact, 
 that he as mediator had to do not only with God, but also with men. The 
 fault does not lie with the faithfulness of God, who appointed him as medi- 
 ator,—an idea which cannot be entertained,—but rather with the action of 
 men,” etc. Against this interpretation it may be urged, not only that the 
 words eic¢ éotvy imperceptibly acquire the sense : is only one of the two parties, 
 which Paul would certainly have been able to express otherwise than by the 
 confession of monotheism (Deut. vi. 4 ; Jas. ii. 19 ; Rom. iii. 30; 1 Cor. 
 viii. 4, 6, ef al)., but also that the idea of a failure on the part of the law- 
 giving, and of the blame due for it, was remote from the apostle’s mind, 
 and would here be unsuitable to the divine purpose expressed in ver. 19. 
 The law became to men the divayie rij¢ duapriac, ‘‘strength of sin” (1 Cor. xv. 
 56) ; but this falls to be regarded not as a failure on the part of the law- 
 giving, but as a necessary stage in the development of the divine plan of salva- 
 tion (ver. 22 ff.; Rom. vii.). 17. According to Stélting,’ évd¢ and ec are to 
 be taken in the sense of absolute unity. Ver. 20 is supposed to contain a 
 syllogism with a suppressed conclusion: viz., A mediator does not belong to 
 one ; but God is one ; consequently a mediator does not belong to God. 
 Accordingly God is absolutely excluded from any mediation through the law : 
 the objects of this mediation are on the one hand the Jews, and on the other 
 hand their contrast, the Gentiles ; and the law was to unite these two disso- 
 ciated parts, which it effected by showing that the Jews were in need of 
 redemption, and by making the Gentiles capable of redemption (Rom. iii. 
 22 f., 29f.). The mediator, with the law in his hand, is supposed to have 
 placed himself between Jews and Gentiles, and to have made both egual 
 through the law,—an equalization which does not take place with God, as 
 there is not one God of the Jews and another God of the Gentiles, between 
 whom mediation might occur, but only a single God, who treats Jews and 
 Gentiles with equal justice, being, as He is, a single Person without oppo- 
 nent, an absolute unity. Even this acutely carried out interpretation is not 
 tenable : for (a) the reader finds no indication in the text that évéc and etc 
 are to be taken inthe pregnant sense of absoluteness ; and Paul, in order to be 
 understood, must at least have written, in the second half of the verse, some- 
 thing like 6 dé Oed¢ 6 évTwe cic (Or 6 dx/0¢ ec) éorw, ‘‘ God is actually or abso- 
 lutely one. Nor (0) isit correct that absolute unity excludes the being an object 
 
 
 
 1 Beitrige z. Hxeg. d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 86 ff. 
 
148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 of mediation ; because the absolutely one God has allowed mediation to 
 take place between Himself and man, not only through Christ, but also in the 
 ancient history of salvation, through His ministers (the angels, Moses, and 
 the prophets). (c) There is nothing in the words of the passage to make us 
 think of the Jews and Gentiles as objects of the mediation ; since the law is 
 rather to be recognized as the wecdéroyov, ‘‘ middle wall” (Eph. ii. 14) between 
 the two, which had to be removed by Christ in order to their union. Tothe 
 national consciousness, not only of the apostle, but also of his readers, God and 
 Israel could alone occur as the parties reconciled with one another through 
 the peoirnc. (d) It is not correct that the conclusion drawn from ver. 20 is 
 not expressed. It is expressed in ver. 21, and rejected as erroneous.—Lastly, 
 Riickert confines himself to the correct translation of the words, ‘‘ The me- 
 diator does not refer to one (but always to more than one) ; but God is one ;” 
 from which is to be concluded, ‘‘ Therefore the mediator does not refer to God 
 alone, but also to others.” Ye, however, at the same time confesses that 
 he does not see any way, in which these propositions and this conclusion 
 are to be connected with the foregoing passage, so as to yield any relevant 
 and lucid thought. While Riickert has thus despaired of an explanation on 
 his own part, he has not questioned the title of the passage to receive an 
 explanation. But this course, to which Michaelis was already inclined,’ 
 has been actually adopted by Liicke,* who holds ver. 20 to be a gloss, 
 which had originally served, on the one hand, to explain the conclusion 
 of ver. 19 (the mediator was interpreted as applying to Christ, and it 
 was desirable to point out that this mediator belonged not merely to the 
 Jews, but also to the Gentiles), and, on the other, to give a reason for the 
 beginning of ver. 21. But the witnesses in favor of its genuineness * are so 
 decisively unanimous, that no other passage can appear better attested. 
 Liicke only makes use of an argumentum a silentio,—namely, that Irenaeus, 
 Tertullian, and Origen do not cite our verse ;* but little stress can be laid 
 on this, when we consider how lightly in general the Fathers were wont to 
 pass over the words in question, without even discerning in them any 
 special importance or difficulty. [See Note L., p. 161.] 
 
 Ver. 21. 6 otv véuoc Kata Tov éxayyediov;] otv, the reference of which is 
 differently explained according to the different interpretations of ver. 20, 
 draws an inference, not from the definition of the object of the law in ver. 
 19,° but from ver. 20, which is not arbitrarily to be set aside, or to be treat- 
 
 1“T wished, in fact, that it were allow- text compiled from adouble gloss. Only 
 
 able for me in the explanation to pass over 
 the whole verse, and to give it out as a 
 marginal note of some reader not under- 
 standing Paul, which had found its way 
 into the text.”—Michaelis, Paraphr. p. 33, 
 ed. 2. 
 
 21Tn the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 83 ff. 
 
 3 There is not even the slightest variation 
 in the individual words, or in their arrange- 
 ment,—a fact which, judging by critical 
 analogy, would be scarcely conceivable ina 
 
 the A4ith. adds duorum at the end, evi- 
 dently an exegetical addition, the author of 
 which appears to have had in his mind some 
 explanation which bore a similarity to that 
 of Clarke, Locke, Winer, or Gurlitt. 
 
 4 Clement of Alexandria has it at least 
 once, in the Theodot. ed. Col. p. 797 A. 
 
 § Castalio, Luther, Gomarus, Pareus, 
 Estius, Bengel, and others, including Liicke, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
 Stiélting. 
 
CHAP, JIE. «24: 149 
 ed merely as an appendage of ver. 19.7. The law, namely, which was given 
 through a mediator, and therefore essentially otherwise than the promise, 
 might thereby appear to introduce on the part of God another way of grant- 
 ing the Messianic salvation than the promises, and consequently to be opposed 
 to the latter.? —xata tév émayyedidv| See vv. 8,16. The xard is the usual 
 contra, in opposition to. Matthias incorrectly explains it : ‘‘Is it included 
 under the idea of the promises ?” Since the simple éori—and not, possibly, 
 tacceta, ‘‘ arrayed” %—is to be supplied, the expression would be wholly 
 without the sanction of usage. Moreover, looking to the specific difference 
 in the ideas of the two things, Paul could not have asked such a question at 
 all. — ei yap £060y vduoc x.t-2] ground assigned for the yu yévouro, and there- 
 fore proof that it would be incorrect to conclude from ver. 20 that the law 
 was opposed to the promises. For if it had been opposed to the promises, 
 the law must have been in a position to procure life ;* and if this were so, 
 then would righteousness actually be from the law,’ which, according to the 
 Scriptures, cannot be the case (ver. 22). — vduoc] just as in the whole con- 
 text : the Mosaic law, although without the article, as in il. 21, iii. 11, 18 ; 
 Winer, p. 117.—6 dvvau. (wor.] The article marks off the definite quali- 
 ty which, in the words ei yap éd66y vduoc, is conceived by the law-giver 
 as belonging to the law:° as that which is able to give life ; and this is the 
 point of this conditional sentence. — Cworomjoa] ‘* Hoc verbo praesupponi- 
 tur mors peccatori intentata,” ‘‘By this word, the death threatened 
 against the sinner is presupposed,” Bengel. The «7, however, which the law 
 is not able to furnish, is not the being alive morally,’ but, in harmony 
 with the context, the everlasting Messianic life (see Kiiuffer, de bibl. Cw7e¢ 
 alwviov notione, p. 75), as is evident from ver. 18 (ci yap ék véuov 7 KAnpovopia) 
 and from ver. 22. Comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6. The moral quickening is pre- 
 supposed in this Cworoujoa. The law, in itself good and holy, could not sub- 
 due the dominion of the principle of sin in man (Rom. viii. 8), but rather 
 necessarily served to promote this dominion (see on ver. 19), and was there- 
 fore unable to bring about the eternal life which was dependent on obedi- 
 ence to the law (ver. 12): given unto life, it was found unto death, Rom. 
 vii. 10. Paul never uses Cworoeiv of the moral quickening, nor cvf{woroeiv 
 either (Eph. ii. 5 ; Col. ii. 13). The €o# is the eternal life which is mani- 
 fested at the Parousia (Col. iii. 3 f.), and therefore in reality the «Anpovouia 
 
 1 Also in 1 Cor. vi. 15, odv (in opposition to 
 Stdlting’s appeal to the passage) introduces 
 a possible (mischievous) inference from 
 what immediately precedes, to be at once 
 repelled with horror by p7 yevorto. 
 
 2 See the fuller statement at ver. 20. 
 
 3 See Lobeck, Phryn. p. 272. 
 
 4This consequence depends upon the 
 dilemma: Life may be procured either 
 through the promises ov through the law. 
 If, therefore, the law stands in opposition 
 to the promises, so that the latter shall no 
 longer be valid, the 7aw must be able to 
 procure life. This dilemma is correct, 
 
 because no third possibility is given in the 
 divine plan of salvation. 
 
 5 Even if av be not genuine, this interpre- 
 tation is not altered (Buttmann, neuvt. Gr. 
 p. 194, 6); and we cannot explain (with Hof- 
 mann): ‘If there was given, etc., then 
 was,” ete. This imperfect (erat) would be 
 illogical; Paul would have written éeoriv or 
 yeyovev, 
 
 6 Winer, p. 127; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 
 We ust 
 
 7 Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen, 
 
 ‘Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck, Hofmann, Buhl, 
 
 and others, following older expositors. 
 
150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (vv. 18, 29).1 — dvrwc¢ Ex vduov av jv 7 Stxatoobvy] then in reality (not merely in 
 Jewish imagination) the law would be that, from which the existence of right- 
 eousness would proceed, namely, by its enabling men to offer complete obe- 
 dience. The argument proceeds ab effectu, ‘‘ from the effect” (Cworogear), 
 ad causam, ‘‘to the cause” (7 dicacocbvy), for, without being righteous before 
 God, man cannot attain eternal life : not as Riickert, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
 and others, in accordance with their view of Cwor., are compelled to assume, 
 a causa (the new moral life whereby the law is fulfilled) ad effectum, ‘* for 
 the effect” (the dcxasoctvy which would be acquired by the fulfilment of 
 the law). The relation between Gworoujoa and 7 dicavocivy is aptly indicated 
 by Oecumenius : ov« écwcoev ovdé édixaiwoev, ‘‘neither saved nor justified,” 
 and by Bengel: ‘‘ Justitia est vitae fundamentum, ‘‘ Righteousness is the 
 foundation of life.” 
 
 Ver. 22. But the case supposed (£647 véuocg 6 Suva. Cworormoar) does not 
 exist : for, on the contrary, according to the Scriptures all men have been 
 subjected to the dominion of sin, and the purpose of God therein was, that 
 the promised salvation should not come from the law, but should be bestowed 
 on believers on account of faith in Christ. [See Note LI., p. 161.] What 
 sort of position is assigned under these circumstances to the lav, is then 
 stated in ver. 23. — ovvéxdercev 7 ypady x.t.A.] Scripture is personified, as in 
 ver. 8. That which God has done, because it is divinely revealed and attest- 
 ed in Scripture (see Rom. iii. 9-19) and thereby appears an infallible certain- 
 ty, isrepresented as the act of Scripture, which the latter, as in its utterances 
 the professed self-revelation of God, has accomplished. 'The Scripture—that 
 is, when regarded apart from the personification, God, according to the di- 
 vine testimony of the Scripture—has brought all into ward under sin, that is, 
 has put the whole of mankind without exception into the relation of bond- 
 age, in which sin (comp. Rom. iii. 9) has them, as it were, under lock and 
 key, so that they cannot escape from this control and attain to moral free- 
 dom. On the figurative expression, and on the conception of the matter as 
 a divine measure (not a mere declaration), compare on Rom. xi. 32. Fol- 
 lowing Chrysostom (7AéyZev) and others, Hermann finds the sense : ‘‘ per le- 
 gem demum cognitum esse peccatum,” ‘‘that only by the law is sin known” 
 (Rom. vii. 7 f., iii. 19 ff.), which, however, does not correspond with the 
 significance of the carefully-chosen ovvéxAeccev, and is also at varianee with 
  ypaoh, which is by no means? equivalent to véuoc, but denotes the O. T., 
 whilst 6 véj0¢ in the whole connection is the institute of the law. The bond 
 of guilt which is implied in the dominion of sin is obvious of itself, without 
 any need for explaining dyapriav as the guilt of sin. — Moreover, the empha- 
 sis is on the prefixed cuvéxiewev : included, so that freedom, that is, the at- 
 tainment of dicacocbvy, is not to be thought of. uyxdeieww, however, does 
 not denote : to include together, with one another, as Bengel, Usteri, and 
 others hold,* which is clearly proved by the fact that the word is very often 
 
 1Comp. ¢yoerat, ver. 12, to which our Theodoret), Beza, Calvin, Baumgarten, 
 Gwor. glances back. Crusius and others think. 
 2 As, following the Fathers (but not $3 Not even in Rom. xi. 382. 
 
CHAP. III., 23. 151 
 used of the shutting up of one, unaccompanied by others ;* but cvv corre- 
 sponds to the idea of complete custody, so that the enclosed are entirely and 
 absolutely held in by the barriers in question.” — ra ravra] the collective whole, 
 not : ail which man ought to do (Ewald), but like tov¢ tavtac, Rom. xi. 32. 
 The neuter used of persons, who are thus brought under the point of view 
 of the general category: the ¢totality.* According to Calvin, Beza, Wolf, 
 Bengel, and others (comp. also Hofmann), ra xdvra is supposed to refer not 
 But the 
 figurative cvvéx2eer, and also the context by roi¢ riatebovor and the personal 
 indications contained in ver. 23 ff., give the preference to our interpreta- 
 tion. Besides, ra ravra, taken of things, would mean all things,* which is 
 here unsuitable.® — iva 7 éxayyetia x.t.4.| the purpose ef God, because that 
 which was previously represented as the action of Seripture was in reality 
 the action of God.* — 7 érayyeria| that which was promised, a sense which the 
 abstract receives through dofj." That which is meant is the promised gift, 
 already well known from the context, namely, the cAypovouia, vv. 16, 18. — 
 éx xiotewc| not from obedience to the law, which with that subjection under 
 the control of sin was impossible, but so that the divine bestowal proceeds, 
 as regards its subjective cause, from faith in Jesus Christ.* The emphasis is 
 on this éx rior. I. X., and not on érayyedia (Hofmann).? — toig miotebovar] is 
 explained by Winer and others as an apparent tautology arising from the 
 importance of this proposition (and therefore emphatic); but without ade- 
 quate ground ;*° the expression, on the contrary, is quite in keeping with 
 the circumstances of the Galatians. That salvation was intended jor believ- 
 ers, was not denied ; but they held to the opinion that obedience to the law 
 must necessarily be the procuring cause of this salvation. Paul therefore 
 says: in order that, in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, not in virtue of obe- 
 dience to the law, salvation should be given to the believers—so that thus 
 the believers have no need of anything further than faith.” 
 
 Ver. 23. Aé| no longer connected with 4224 (Hofmann), but leading over 
 to anew portion of the statement (the counterpart to which is to follow in 
 ver. 25),—namely, to the position which the law held under the circum- 
 stances expressed in ver. 25. Before the introduction of faith, it was to 
 guard and maintain those who belonged to it in this relation of bondage, so 
 that they should not get rid of it and become free,—a liberation which was 
 reserved for the fazth which was to come. — rpé rov dé éAeiv] dé in the third 
 
 merely to men, but also to everything which they are, have, or do. 
 
 
 
 21Sam. xxiv. 19; Ps: xxxi. 9; Polyb: xi. 
 2.10; 1 Macc. xi. 66, xii. 7. 
 
 2 Comp. Herod. vii. 129: Acuvy cvyKAnic- 
 evn wavrover, “a harbor shut in from every 
 side,” Eur. Hec. 487 ; Polyb. i. 17. 8, i. 51. 10, 
 jii. 117. 11; also Plat. Tim. p. 71 C, where it 
 is used with éudparrecy ; 1 Mace. iv. 31, v. 5. 
 Una inciudere, * shut in together,’’ would be 
 ovykatakAeie.v, Herod. i. 182; Lucian, Vit. 
 aubt. 9, D. mort. xiv. 4. 
 
 3 See on 1 Cor. i. 27 ; Arrian. v. 22. 1. 
 
 4 Xen. Mem. i. 11; Rom. xi. 36, e¢ al. 
 
 5 Comp. on the matter itself, Rom. iii. 
 9, 19. 
 
 6 Therefore we must not (with Semler, 
 Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winer, Matthi- 
 as, and others) explain it ‘‘ logically : that 
 it might appear to be given,” etc. 
 
 7 Comp. ver. 14. 
 
 8 Comp. ver. 8. 
 
 ® See ver. 28 ff. 
 
 10 Passages such as ver. 9, Rom. i. 17, Phil. 
 iii. 9, are not relevant here. 
 
 11 Comp. v. 4 f. 
 
152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 place with the prepositional phrase.’ — Here also xiorie is neither doctrina 
 Jidem postulans, *‘ the doctrine demanding faith,” the gospel, as most ancient 
 expositors and Schott think, nor the dispensution of faith,* but subjective faith, 
 which is treated objectively. Comp. oni. 23, iii. 2. As long as there was 
 not yet any belief in Christ, faith was not yet present ; but when on the 
 preaching of the gospel men believed in Christ, the faith, which was previ- 
 ously wanting, had come, that is, had now set in, had presented itself,— 
 namely, in the hearts of those who had become believers. On éAéeiv as ap- 
 plied to mental things and states, which set in, comp. Pind. Nem. i. 48 
 (hopes); Plat. Pol. iii. p. 402 A (understanding) ; Soph. O. R. 681 (déxyoxc, 
 opinion). Comp. also Rom. vii. 9.—izd voyuov idporpoiueba cvyKrerduevor} 
 (see the critical notes) : under the law we were held in custody, so that we were 
 placed in ward with a view to the faith about to be revealed. The subject 
 is: we Jewish Christians (ver. 25) ; the emphasis is on izd véuov, and after- 
 wards on ziorwv. The law is represented as a ruler, under whose dominion 
 (ird véuov) those who belonged to it were held in moral captivity, as in a 
 prison ; so that they, as persons shut up in the gpoupa, ‘‘ ward,” under lock 
 and key, were placed beyond the possibility of liberation—which was only 
 to ensue by means of the faith that was to be revealed in the future. The 
 words and the context do not yield more than this : the puedagogic efficacy 
 of the law is not inferred till ver. 24, and is not to be anticipated here. 
 This view is opposed to that of many expositors,4 who find already expressed 
 here that paedagogie function, which, however, is understood in the sense 
 of the ‘‘usus politicus,” ‘‘ political use,” of the law (but see on ver, 24): ‘‘in 
 severam legis disciplinam, quae ne in omnem libidinem effunderemur cavit, 
 traditi,” ‘‘ delivered to the strict discipline of the law, which guarded us from 
 giving ourselves over to every lust,” Winer. But the whole explanation of 
 the law guarding from sin (to which also Wieseler refers égpovp.) is opposed 
 to the correct interpretation of trav rapaBdoewy yapw (ver. 19), and also to 
 ver. 22. The captivity so forcibly described by Paul is just the sinful 
 bondage under the Jaw, Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 56. Observe, moreover, in 
 order to a just understanding of the passage, that id véuov, according to 
 the very position of the words, cannot without proceeding arbitrarily 
 be connected with ovyxd.*—a connection which is not warranted by the 
 
 1See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 397 ; Klotz, Plat. Av. p. 365 E; ¢povpa, Plat. Phaed. 
 
 ad Devar. II. p. 878 f. 
 
 2 Buhl, comp. Riickert. 
 
 3 If, with Winer, Usteri, and Schott, éhpovp. 
 is explained merely as asservabamur (1 Pet. 
 i. 5),—comp. Hofmann, ‘ we were held in 
 keeping,’—it yields, according to the con- 
 nection with ovyxexAecouevor, and with the 
 inference thereupon of the paedagogic func- 
 tion of the law, too weak a thought. Comp. 
 Wisd. xvii. 16. Luther, Calvin, and many 
 others, including Riickert and de Wette, 
 have rightly found in éfpovp. and cvykeka. 
 the figurative idea of a prison (fpovprov 
 
 p. 62 ff). The prison, however, is not the law 
 itself; but the latter is the ruler, under 
 whose power the captives are in prison,— 
 because, namely, under the law, as the 
 Svvamts THs amaptias (1 Cor. xv. 56), they are 
 not in a position to attain to the freedom 
 of moral life. 
 
 4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
 Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Winer, Riickert, 
 Schott, Ewald, and others. 
 
 5So de Wette, Wieseler, and many 
 others, also my own former interpretation. 
 
CHAP. III., 23. 153 
 other thought, ver. 22,—but must be joined to é¢povp ;* and further, that 
 the present participle cvyxAecéuevoc (with the ei¢ rv ué2.2. x.7.A2. belonging to 
 it) forms the modal definition of épporpobtucba, representing the continued opera- 
 tion of the latter, which, constantly appearing in fresh acts, renders libera- 
 tion impossible. Hofmann? understands ovyxdeiew eic in the sense ef con- 
 straining to something ; it expresses in his view the constraining power, with 
 which subjection to the law served to keep the people directed towards the 
 faith which was to be revealed in the future.* Such an use of the phrase is 
 indubitably found among later Greek authors, and_is especially frequent in 
 Polybius ;* but how improbable, and in fact incredible it is, that Paul should 
 have here used this word in a different sense from that in which he used it 
 immediately before in ver. 22, and in the kindred passage, Rom. xi. 32 (he 
 has it-not elsewhere)! This sense could not have occurred to any reader. 
 Besides, the idea of constraint against one’s will, which must be conveyed in 
 ovyKAeou. eic,° and which Hofmann obliterates (‘‘the law conferred on the 
 people its distinctive position, and its abiding in this distinctive position was 
 at the same time an abiding directed towards the faith that was to come”), 
 would neither agree with the text (vv. 22, 24) nor harmonize with history.*® 
 —elc Tv péADovoay riot aroxadvebyvar] AS cic in Ver. 24 is evidently to be 
 understood as felic, and as the temporal interpretation wsque ad, ‘‘up to,” 7 after 
 mpd Tov éAeiv tiv wiotw, Which includes in itself the terminus ad quem, would 
 be very unmeaning, eic is to be explained : towards the faith, that is, with 
 the design, that we should pass over into the state of faith. Luther (1519) 
 aptly remarks: ‘‘in hoc, ut fide futura liberaremur,” ‘‘in this, that 
 we should be freed by future faith.” In accordance with the view 
 of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Calovius, Raphel, Bengel, Hof- 
 mann, ¢ic¢ x.7.2. is to be connected with cvyxAetwdpuevor, because the latter, 
 without this annexation of the telic statement cic «.7.2., would not form a 
 characteristic modal definition of égpovp. This eic¢ «.7.A. is, in the history of 
 salvation, the divine aim of that ciyxAecove, Which was to cease on its attain- 
 ment ; Christ is the end of the law. Comp. ver. 22, where iva x.7.2. corre- 
 sponds with the ¢ic «.7.A. here. — néAdovoay] is placed first,® because with 
 that earlier situation is contrasted the subsequent future state of things which 
 was throughout the object of its aim.’ — droxadvg6qvac] for so long as there 
 was not yet belief in Christ, faith had not yet made its appearance : it was 
 still an element of life hidden in the counsel of God, which became revealed 
 as ahistorical phenomenon, when Christ had come and the gospel—the 
 
 1 Augustine and many others, also Hof- 
 mann, Reithmayr, Buhl. 
 
 2 Comp. his Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 59. 
 
 8 Raphel, Polyb. p. 518, has understood 
 ovykAciery eis in a Similar way to Hofmann, 
 and finely paraphrased it : ‘ eo necessitatis 
 quem adigere, ut ad fidem tanquam sacram 
 ancoram confugere cogatur,” ‘‘to drive 
 with such a degree of necessity, that it is 
 compelled to betake itself to faith as a 
 sacred anchor.’’ Comp. Bengel. 
 
 4See Raphel, and Schweighiuser, Lex. 
 Polyb. p. 571 f. 
 
 5 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 545. 
 
 6 Rom. xi. ; Acts xxviii. 25 ff. 
 
 ™ Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe, 
 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Usteri, and 
 others. 
 
 §Paui did not write els 7. miot. T. WEAA. 
 amrOK. 
 
 ® Comp. on Rom. viii. 18. 
 1 Pet. v. 1, 2 Mace. viii. 11. 
 
 Similarly in 
 
154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 preaching of faith (vv. 2, 5)—was made known. ’Aroxad. cannot be under- 
 stood as the infinitive of design and, according to the reading ovyxexrecopévor, 
 as belonging to the latter word,’ because in the religious-historical connec- 
 tion of the text it must signify the final appearance of the blessing of salva- 
 tion, which hitherto as a pvorjpiov, ‘‘ mystery,” had been unknown (Rom. xvi. 
 25). Besides, Paul would thus have written very far from clearly; he must at 
 least have placed the infinitive before ovyxexAzcc. 
 
 Ver. 24. Accordingly the law has become our paedagogue unto Christ. Asa 
 paedagogue* has his wards in guidance and training for the aim of their 
 future majority, so the law has taken us into a guidance and training, 
 of which Christ was the aim, that is, of which the aim was that we in 
 due time should no longer be under the law, but should belong to 
 Christ. This munus paedagogicum, ‘‘ pedagogical office,” however, result- 
 ing from ver. 28, did not consist in the restriction of sin,* or in the circum- 
 stance that the law ‘‘ab inhonestis minarum asperitate deterreret,” ‘“‘by the 
 asperity of its threats deterred from dishonorable things,” “—views de- 
 cidedly inconsistent with the aim expressed in ver. 19, and with the tenor 
 of ver. 28, which by no means expresses the idea of preparatory improve- 
 ment ; but it consisted in this, that the law prepared those belonging to it 
 for the future reception of Christian salvation (justification by faith) in such 
 a manner that, by virtue of the principle of sin which it excited, it contin- 
 ually brought about and promoted transgressions (ver. 19 ; Rom. vii. 5 ff.), 
 thereby held the people in moral bondage (in the gpovpd, ver. 23), and by 
 producing at the same time the acknowledgment of sin (Rom. iii. 20) 
 powerfully brought home to the heart (Rom, vii. 24) the sense of guilt and 
 of the need of redemption from the divine wrath (Rom. iv. 15),—a redemp- 
 tion which, with our natural moral impotence, was not possible by means 
 of the law itself (Rom. iii. 19 f., viii. 3). Luther appropriately remarks : 
 ‘*Lex enim ad gratiam praeparat, dum peccatum revelat et auget, humilians 
 superbos ad auxilium Christi desiderandum,” ‘‘ For the law prepares for 
 grace, while it reveals and amplifies sin, humbling the proud to desire 
 Christ’s aid.” ° Under this paedagogal discipline man finally cries out : 
 tadainwpoc éyo, Rom, vii. 24. —ei¢ Xprotév] not wsgue ad Christum, ‘‘ until 
 Christ,” ° but designating the end aimed at, as is shown by iva éx 7. dex. 5 
 comp. ver. 23. Chrysostom and his successors,’ Erasmus, Zeger, Elsner, and 
 others, refer eic to the idea that the law rpod¢ tov Xpiordv, b¢ éotiv 6 dwWdoxaroc, 
 argye, ‘led to Christ, who is the teacher,” just as the paedagogi had to con- 
 
 1 Matthias: ‘‘in order to become mani- 
 fest, as those who were under the ban with 
 a view to the future faith.” 
 
 Comp. also Simplic. pict. 10, p. 116, ed. 
 Schweigh. ; and see Grotius on our passage. 
 4 Winer, and most expositors, including de 
 
 2 See on 1 Cor. iy. 15. 
 
 3 Comp. Liban. D. xxy. p. 576 CG: mpotov 
 Hév VoUw Tatdaywynoomey av’T@V THY mpoaipe- 
 OW, ws av THY amd TOU VOmoV Cynulav avadvomevat 
 gwOpovetv avaykagwyra, ‘at first by means 
 of the law we will moderate their course of 
 life, that, avoiding the penalty from the 
 law, they may be compelled to be discreet.” 
 
 Wette, Baur, Hofmann, Reithmayr, but not 
 Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler. 
 
 5 See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 287 f. ; Hol- 
 sten, z. Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 315 f. 
 
 ® Castalio, J. Cappellus, Morus, Rosen- 
 miiller, Riickert, Matthias. 
 
 7 See Suicer, Zhes. II. pp. 421, 544. 
 
CHAP. TM., 2d, 26: 155 
 
 duct the boys to the schools and gymnasia.* But this introduces the idea of 
 Christ as a teacher, which is foreign to the passage ; He is conceived of as 
 reconciler (iva éx rior. duc.) [See Note LIL, p. 162. ]— ive éx riotewg SixatwO. | is 
 the divine destination, which the paedagogic function of the law was to ful- 
 filin those who were subject to it. The emphatic éx zictewe (by faith, not 
 by the law) shows how erroneously the paedagogic eflicacy of the law is re- 
 ferred to the restriction of sin. 
 
 Ver. 25. No longer dependent on the dove in ver. 24. Paul now desires 
 to unfold the beautiful picture of the salvation which had come. — oixéri] This 
 is the breathing afresh of freedom. On the matter itself, comp. Rom. vi. 
 14, x. 4, vii. 25.— id raday.] without article : under tutorial power, 
 
 Ver. 26. The argumentative emphasis is laid first on ravrec, and then, not 
 on vioi,—which expositors have been wont to understand in the pregnant 
 sense : sons of full age, free, in contrast to the zai implied in radaywyéc,” 
 —hbut on vioi Oc0%, because in this Ccov the vioi actually has its express and 
 full definition, and therefore to supply the defining idea is quite unwarrant- 
 able. All of you are sons of God by means of faith ;* but where all without 
 exception and without distinction are sons of God, and are so through 
 faith, none can be, like Israel before the appearance of faith, under the 
 dominion of the law, because the new state of life, that of faith, is 
 something altogether different,—namely, fellowship with the vidrn¢ of 
 Christ (ver. 27). To be a son of God through faith, and to be under 
 the old tutorial training, are contradictory relations, one of which ex- 
 cludes the other, The higher, and in fact perfect relation,* excludes 
 the lower. —zdvrec] Paul now speaks in the second person, because what 
 is said in ver. 26 f. held good, not of the Jewish Christians alone (of 
 whom he previously spoke in the jirst person), but of all Christians in 
 general as such, consequently of all his readers whom he now singles 
 out for address ; whether they may have previously been Jews or Gen- 
 tiles, now they are sons of God. Wofmann supposes that Paul meant by 
 the second person his Gevtile-Christian readers, and wished to employ what 
 he says of them in proof of his assertion respecting those who had been pre- 
 viously subject to the law. In this case he must, in order to be intelligible, 
 have used some such words as kai yap byeic 20vn mavre¢ K.7.A. According to 
 the expression in the second person used without any limitation, the Gala- 
 tian Christians must have considered themselves addressed as a whole with- 
 out distinction, —a view clearly confirmed to them by the éc0 (ver. 27), and 
 the "Iovdaioc vide "EAAyv comp. with rdvre¢ ipeic (ver. 28). Where, on the 
 other hand, Paul is thinking of the Galatians as Gentile Christians (so far 
 as the majority of them actually were so), this may be simply gathered from 
 
 1 Plat. Zys. p. 208 C; Dem. 318. 12; Ael. 
 VE TA Pal 
 
 TAaVTES Yap, 
 4Theodoret aptly remarks: ¢éeée tav 
 
 2See, against this view, Wieseler and 
 Matthias. 
 
 3 dca 7. miot. stands third in the order of 
 emphasis, but has not the main stress laid 
 upon it in contradistinction to the wavtes 
 (Hofmann), as if it stood immediately after 
 
 TETLOTEVKOTWY TO TEAELOY* TL Yap TEAELOTEPOV 
 Tav viav xpymarigovtwy @eod, ** He showed 
 that which is complete in those who have 
 believed ; for what is more complete than 
 sons enjoying communion with God?” 
 
156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 the context (iv. 8). —év Xpior} "Iyjoot] belongs to rictewc. According to 
 the construction zorevery év tii,’ 7 rioti év Xpisto is fides in Christo reposita, 
 the faith resting in Christ ; the words being correctly, in point of grammar, 
 combined so as to form one idea.* But Usteri, Schott, Hofmann, Wieseler, 
 Ewald, Matthias, Reithmayr (Estius also pronouncing it allowable), join év 
 Xp. ’I. with vioi Ocov éore, of which it is alleged to be the modal definition ; 
 specially explaining the sense, either as ‘‘ utpote Christo prorsus addicti” 
 (Schott), or of the ‘‘znelusion in Christ” (Hofmann), or as assigning the od- 
 jective ground of the sonship, which has its subjective ground in éa rt. zior. 
 (Wieseler ; comp. Hofmann and Buhl). But all these elements are already 
 obviously involved in dva 7. zicr. itself, so that év X.’I., as parallel to dua r. x., 
 would be simply superfluous and awkward ; whereas, connected with 6a 
 7. 7., it expresses the emphatic and indeed solemn completeness of this idea 
 (comp. ver. 22), in accordance with the great thought of the sentence, 
 coming in all the more forcibly at the end, as previously in the case of 276i 
 (ver, 23) and éAotonc (ver. 25) the ziort¢ was mentioned without its object, 
 and the latter was left to be understood as a matter of course. 
 
 Ver. 27. The words just used, viol Oecd éore, expressing what the readers 
 as a body are through faith in Christ, are now confirmed by the mention of 
 the origin of this relation ; and the ground on which the relation is based 
 is, that Christ is the Son of God.* —éco:] corresponding to the emphatic 
 mavrec in ver. 26. — eic Xpiorév] in relation to Christ,‘ so that ye who belong 
 to Christ through baptism become partakers in fellowship of life with Him. 
 — Xpiorov évedicache} laying aside the figure, according to the connection : 
 Ye have appropriated the same peculiar state of life, that is, the very same 
 specific relation to God, in which Christ stands ; consequently, as He is the 
 Son of God, ye have likewise entered into the sonship of God, namely by 
 means of the veda viobeciac received at baptism.’ Observe, besides, how 
 baptism necessarily presupposes the werdvora (Acts ii. 38) and faith.*° The 
 entrance on the state of being included in Christ, as Hofmann from the point 
 of view of civa év X. explains the expression, is likewise tantamount to the 
 obtaining a share in the sonship of God. The figure, derived from the 
 putting on of a characteristic dress,’ is familiar both to the Greek authors 
 
 {See Mark i, 15; Eph. i. 13; 1xex. Ps: 
 Ixxviii. 22; Jer. xii. 6; Clem. 1 Cor. 22: 7 ev 
 
 if you have put on Christ and Christ is the 
 Son of God, by the same garment you are 
 
 Xpiote miotis, Ignat. ad Philad. 8: év re 
 evayyeAlw ov TLTTEVW, 
 
 2 See Winer, p. 128; Fritzsche, ad Marc. 
 p. 63, a@ Rom. I. p. 195 f. Comp. Eph. i. 1, 
 15; Col. i.4; 1 Tim. iii. 13. 
 
 3 Comp. Chrysostom: et 0 Xpioros vids Tod 
 @eod, ov S€ adroy evdeducar Tov vior Exwy ev 
 EQUT® Kal Tpos aVTOY OmoLwOeEis Eis LLAY TUYyEr- 
 €lavkat play idéav nxOys, “‘ If Christ is the 
 Son of God and you have put on Him, hay- 
 ing the Son in himself, you also, being made 
 like Him, have been brought into one family 
 and one image.’’ Luther, 1519: “ Si autem 
 Christum induistis, Christus autem filius Dei, 
 et vos codem indumento filti Dei estis,” ‘But 
 
 sons of God.” 
 
 4 See on Rom. vi. 3. 
 
 5 iy. 5-7; Rom. viii. 15; 1 Cor, vi. 113 Wis, 
 iii. 5. 
 
 ® Comp. Neander, II. p. 778 f.; Messner, 
 Lehre der Ap. p. 279. 
 
 7 Looking at the very general occurrence 
 of the figure, and seeing that the context 
 contains no indication whatever of any 
 special reference, we must entirely reject 
 any historical or ritual references. See the 
 many discussions of the earlier expositors in 
 Wolf. By some the figure was looked upon 
 as referring to heathen customs (as Ben- 
 gel: ‘‘Christus nobis est,’ ‘* Christ is to us 
 
CHAP. III., 28. 157 
 
 and the Rabbins.’ In the latter passage the putting on of Christ is enjoined, 
 but it is here represented as having taken place; for in that passage it is con- 
 ceived under the ethical, but here under the primary dogmatic, point of 
 view.’ Usteri incorrectly desires to find in the évdtec@ar Xpiorév of our pas- 
 sage, not the entering into the sonship of God, but the putting on of the new 
 man (Col. iii. 9-11), having especial reference to the thought of the univer- 
 salistic, purely human element, in which all the religious differences which 
 have hitherto separated men from one another are done away. This view 
 is inconsistent with the word actually used (Xpiorév), and with the context 
 (viot Oeov, ver. 26). Nevertheless, Wieseler has in substance supported the 
 view of Usteri, objecting to our interpretation that viol Ocov expresses a son- 
 ship of God different from that of Christ, who was begotten of God. It is 
 true that Christians are the sons of God only by adoption (viofecia) ; but just 
 by means of this new relation entered upon in baptism, they have morally 
 and legally entered into the like state of life with the only-begotten Son, 
 and have become, although only His brethren by adoption, still His brethren. * 
 This is sufficient to justify the conception of having put on Christ, wherein 
 the metaphysical element of difference subsists, as a matter of course, but is 
 left out of view. On the legal aspect of the relation, comp. ver. 29 ; Rom. 
 vill. 17. — Moreover, that the formula év Xpior@ eivac is not to be explained 
 from the idea Xpiordv évdboaca, see in Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 82. Just 
 as little, however, is the converse course to be adopted (Hofmann), because 
 both elvac éy ta and évdtoacbai twa or te are frequently used in the N. T. 
 and out of it, without any correlation of the two ideas necessarily existing. 
 The two stand independently side by side, although in point of fact it is 
 correct that whosoever és év Xpior has put on Christ through baptism. 
 
 Ver. 28. After ye have thus put on Christ, the distinctions of your 
 various relations of: life apart from Christianity have vanished ; from the 
 standpoint of this new condition they have no further validity, any more 
 than if they were not in existence. — é] is an abbreviated form for éveort 
 (1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 11 ; Jas. i. 17), not the adverbially used preposition,‘ 
 as Winer, Usteri, Wieseler, and others assume, with the accent thrown 
 back. Against this view it is decisive, that very frequently é and év are 
 used together,® and yet there is no éori added, whereby the #1: shows that it 
 stands independently as a compound word = éveore or éveror.® Translate : 
 there is not, namely, in this state of things when ye have all put on Christ, 
 a Jew, ete. The iweic in vv. 28, 29 shows that the individualizing form of 
 
 the toga virilis’’), by others to Jewish cus- its emblematic representation. 
 
 toms (‘it applies to the putting on of the 1 Schoettgen, Hor. p. 572. See on Rom. 
 robes of the high priest at his appointment,” xiii. 14. 
 
 Deyling, Odss. III. p. 480, ed. 2), by others 2 Comp. Luther, 1538. 
 
 to Christian customs (‘it applies to the 3 Comp. Rom. viii. 29. 
 
 putting on of new—at a later time white— 4Hom. Od. vii. 96; Schaefer, ad Bos, 
 garments after baptism,” Beza). Thelatter p. 51; Kiihner, II. § 618. 
 
 idea is especially to be set aside, because 51 Cor. vi. 5, and frequently in Greek 
 
 the custom concerned cannot be shown to authors, as Xen. Anad. vy. 3. 11; Herod. vii. 
 have existed in apostolic times ; at any rate, 112. 
 
 it has only originated from the N. T. idea 6 Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 591. 
 
 of the putting on of the new man, and is 
 
158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 statement, applying to the readers, is still continued ; therefore Hofmann is 
 wrong, although consistent with his erroneous interpretation of the second 
 person in ver. 26 f., intaking éw as general: ‘‘in Christ,” or ‘now since 
 Jaith has come,” on the ground that év iviv is not added (which was obvious 
 of itself from the context).*—dpoev kai 6740] Comp. Matt. xix. 4. The re- 
 lation here is conceived otherwise than in the previous oik . . . ovda, namely : 
 there are not male and female, two sexes ; so that the negative is not to be 
 supplied after xai.* — mdvre¢ yap x.t.A.] Proof from the relation cancelling 
 these distinctions, which is now constituted : For ye all are one, ye form a 
 single moral person ; so that now those distinctions of individuals outside 
 of Christianity appear as non-existent, completely merged in that higher 
 unity to which ye are all raised in virtue of your fellowship of life with 
 Christ. This is the el¢ xawdc avOpwroc, Eph. ii. 15. Observe the emphatic 
 mavrec as in ver. 26, and éco. in ver. 27. — év Xpiot@ "Ijoov| Definition of eic¢ 
 éore. They are one, namely, not absolutely, but in the definite sense of their 
 relation as Christians, inasmuch as this unity is causally dependent on Christ, 
 to whom they all belong and live (ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 15f. ; Rom. xiv. 8). ° 
 Ver. 29. But by your thus belonging to Christ ye are also Abrahams 
 posterity : for Christ is indeed the orépua’AB, ‘‘ seed of Abraham” (ver. 16), 
 and, since ye have entered into the relation ef Christ, ye must consequently 
 have a share in the same state, and must likewise be Abraham’s orépua, 
 “seed ;” with which in conformity to the promise is combined the result, that 
 ye are heirs, that is, that ye, just like heirs who have come into the possession 
 of the property belonging to them, have as your own the salvation of the 
 Messianic kingdom promised to Abraham and his seed (the realization of 
 which is impending). — dé] drawing a further inference, so that, after the ex- 
 planation contained in ver. 28, i dé tuei¢ Xprorod in point of fact resumes the 
 Xpiordv évedioacbe of ver. 27. The emphatic ieic has as its background of 
 contrast the natural descendants of Abraham, who as such do not belong to 
 Christ and therefore are not Abraham’s ozépua.— ov ’ASp.] correlative to 
 Xpiorov, and emphatically prefixed. Ye are Abraham’s seed, because Christ is 
 so (ver. 16), whose position has become yours (ver. 27).*— Kaz’ érayy.]| for 
 
 
 
 TH ABp. éhpAOnoav ai emayyediae Kal TO oréppare avtov, ver. 16. It is 
 true that this orépya in ver. 16 is Christ: but Christians have put on Christ 
 (ver. 27), and are altogether one in Christ (ver. 28) ; thus the kar érayy. (in 
 ccnformity with promise) finds its justification. But the emphasis is laid, not 
 on car’ éxayy. as contrasted with kava véyor,* or with another order of heirs, ® 
 or with natural inheritance (Reithmayr), but on «Aypovduor, which forms the 
 link of connection with the matter that follows in ch. iv., and both here and 
 at iv. 7 constitutes the important key-stone of the argument. This KAypovdyor 
 is the triumph of the whole, accompanied with the seal of divine certainty by 
 means of kar’ érayy. ; the two together forming the final death-blow to the 
 Judaistic opponents, which comes in all the more forcibly without kai (see 
 
 1Astothe idea generally, comp. Col. iii. 4 Comp. Theodoret and Theophylact. 
 1a Roms xsi (Or cxale de. 5 Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Wieseler. 
 2 Bornemann, ad Act. xv. 1. 6 Hofmann. 
 
 3 See Col. iii. 11. 
 
NOTES. 159 
 
 critical notes). The alleged contrast was obvious of itself long before in 
 the words orépua tov ’ABp. (comp. ver. 18). The article was no more 
 requisite than in ver. 18. — KAnpovduor] The connection with the sequel 
 shows, that the sense of heir is intended here. Tov ’Ap. is not, however, 
 to be again supplied to «Ayporduor, as might be inferred from orépua ; but, 
 without supplying a genitive of the person inherited from, we have to think 
 of the kAypovouia of the Messianic salvation. Against the supplying of row 
 "ABp. we may decisively urge not only the sequel, in which nothing what- 
 ever is said of any inheriting from Abraham, but also kav’ éxrayy. For if 
 Paul had wished to express the idea that Christians as the children of 
 Abraham were also the heirs of Abraham, the kar’ érayy. would have been in- 
 appropriate ; because the promise (ver. 16) had announced the heirship of the 
 Messianic kingdom to Abraham and his seed, but had not announced this 
 heirship in the first instance to Abraham, and then announced to his seed in 
 their turn that they should be Abraham’s heirs. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XLIT. Ver. 1. év dpiv. 
 
 On the other hand, the interpretation of év tviv as ‘‘in your hearts,” is just 
 as inconsistent with kar’ 69%aAuovc, and there seems to be no satisfactory 
 ground for deserting the ordinary classical meaning of mpoypadew as palam 
 scribere (Sieffert). ‘‘Not only does this meaning harmonize best with the promi- 
 nent and purely local kar’ 6¢9aAudve (compare kar’ duuata, Soph. Antig. 756), 
 but also best illustrates the peculiar and suggestive é¢3dcxavev, which thus gains 
 great force and point, ‘who could have bewitched you by his gaze, when you 
 had only to fix your eyes on Christ to escape the fascination.” Comp. Numb. 
 xxi. 9’ (Ellicott). 
 
 XLII. Ver. 4. eiye. 
 
 Sieffert notes that the ciye may have either a positive or contingent force, 
 like the Latin siquidem, viz., either ‘‘as indeed” or ‘‘if indeed.’’ The connec- 
 tion (ver. 5) requires the latter, not as indicating a possibility of improvement, 
 but the possibility that the readers had not yet fully reached the dreaded 
 extreme. Eadie quotes the Syriac as: ‘“‘ And I would that it were vain.”’ 
 
 XLIV. Ver. 6. ehoyio9n ait ic dtxacoovvny. 
 
 “‘The apostle is speaking of faith, not as it is a quality inhering in us (for in 
 that respect it does not justify, since it is obedience to only one commandment, 
 is imperfect and long already due), but as it apprehends the redemption of 
 Christ. . . . Scripture not only asserts that faith is accounted to us for right- 
 eousness, but also that Christ ‘is our righteousness,’ Jer. xxiii. 6, xxxili. 16; 
 in Him ‘we have righteousness,’ Is. xlv. 24; ‘who of God is made unto us 
 righteousness,’ 1 Cor. i. 30; ‘in Him we are made the righteousness of God,’ 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. viii. 17. 
 
160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 2 Cor. vy. 21. Since, therefore, Christ and faith are said to be at the same time 
 our righteousness, the consequence is that faith is and is called our righteous- 
 ness, because if apprehends Christ’s righteousness and makes it ours” (Ger- 
 hard’s Loci Theologici, vii. 262). 
 
 XLY. Ver. 8. évevdoynfjoovrat. 
 
 Sieffert argues at length that Meyer’s statement, instead of identifying the 
 blessing with justification, should have simply named the latter as the neces- 
 sary precondition of the former, which with Bahr he regards as ‘‘ the life com- 
 municated by the spirit.” The two are, however, so closely joined that Meyer 
 really affirms no substantial error, 
 
 XLVI. Ver. 16. t@ oréppate. 
 
 Better Eadie: ‘‘The apostle’s argument is that the singular orépya signifies 
 what the plural orépuara could not have suggested. . . . It is true that orépua 
 may have a plural signification, as in Rom. iv. 18, ix.7. . . . In the promise 
 made to Abraham, however, the singular term is not a collective unity, but has 
 an impersonal sense which no plural form could have borne. The singular 
 form thus gives ground to the interpretation which he advances. The Septua- 
 gint had already given a similar personal meaning to orépwa — atc cov tHojoet 
 KedaAnv, Gen. 11.15. That seed is Christ—not Jesus in individual humanity, 
 but the Messiah so promised.’”’ Lightfoot : ‘*He is not laying stress on the 
 particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a col- 
 lective term is employed, where ra réxva or dv’ axéyova, for instance, might have 
 been substituted.” 
 
 XLVIL. Ver.19. rév rapaBacewv yup. 
 
 We see no inconsistency in such combination. The argument of the 
 apostle is: The law, far from being a means whereby the Spirit and His gracious 
 comfort are received (ver. 2), is, on the contrary, simply one whereby the abyss 
 of sin within man becomes manifest in outward acts. Man’s state is sin. The 
 law becomes the occasion for the expression of this state in transgression. So 
 the law is both the revealer of sin (original) and the oceasion for sin (actual). 
 Its influence is to bring the deep-seated corruption to the surface, and evoke 
 the symptoms that show its real nature. The rod held before the serpent at 
 once provokes its bite, and reveals its nature. This is hinted at even by the 
 remark of Meyer: ‘‘ Previously there were sins, but no transgressions.”’ 
 
 XLVIII. Ver. 19. de’ dyyé? ov. 
 
 Keil and Delitzsch (commentary on Deuteronomy), on the contrary, find this 
 in the Hebrew text: ‘‘The Lord came not only from Sinai, but from heaven, 
 ‘ out of holy myriads,’ i.e., out of the midst of the thousands of holy angels who 
 surround His throne (1 Kings xxii. 19; Job i.6; Dan. vii. 10), and who are 
 introduced in Gen. xxviii. 12 as His holy servants, and in Gen. xxxii. 2, 3, as 
 the hosts of God, and form the assembly of the holy ones around His throne 
 (Ps. Ixxxix. 6, 8; cf. Ps. lxviii. 18 ; Zech. xiv. 5; Matt. xxvi. 53; Heb. xii. 22 ; 
 Rey. v. 11, vii. 11).” 
 
NOTES. 161 
 
 XLIX. Ver. 19. év yeep? pecirov. 
 
 We cannot appreciate the distinction made by de Wette, Sieffert, and others 
 between the promise and the gospel, but recall the definition of Melanchthon 
 in the Apology : ‘‘The gospel, which is properly the promise of the remis- 
 sion of sins’’ (Mueller, p. 94, § 43). With this exception, we regard the argu- 
 ment conclusive that the apostle is actually setting forth the superiority of the 
 gospel or promise to the law. The ministration of angels, indeed, exhibited 
 the glory of the law, which is also made manifest by Heb. xii, 18-29, wherein 
 its inferiority is nevertheless set forth. Sieffert’s answer to Meyer is briefly : 
 1. With reference to the mention of angels, itis in general correct that all 
 manifestations and activity of angels are regarded as majestic and glorifying, 
 yet that this is only the case because purely natural occurrences and purely 
 natural modes of working form the antithesis, as contrasted with which the 
 appearance of angels is an indication of divine working. 2. The word peoirye, 
 applied, it is true, to Christ in 1 Tim, ii. 5, and which even in profane writers 
 varies greatly in its meaning, has not, when used with respect to Christ, the 
 specific force of one who interposes between two contracting parties. In this 
 connection, as not in 1 Tim. ii. 5, the weakness and not the glory of the law is 
 indicated by the peoiryc. The difference in Christ’s case is dependent on the 
 person that becomes the pesityc. 3. It is shown that this position is not 
 in violation of theargument. The entire passage, chap. iii. 6, iv. 7, is intended 
 to prove the incorrectness of the Jewish position that the law stands in direct 
 and positive relations to the divine plan of salvation, but, on the contrary, 
 that it has only a negative relation and preparatory validity, that it does not 
 correspond to the absolute, but only to the conditioned willof God. This is 
 what is stated in concise and pointed form in ver. 20. A glorying of the law 
 here would be highly out of place. 
 
 Lightfoot really solves the difficulty involved when he finds in the peoitn¢ 
 an argument for our Lord’s divinity, ‘‘ otherwise he would have been a media- 
 tor in the same sense as’’ (here) ‘‘ Moses was a mediator.” 
 
 L. Ver. 20. Entire verse. 
 
 The interpretation of Sieffert not only deserves attention, but seems very ap- 
 plicable: ‘‘ The law is inferior to the promise, as its mediator, Moses, belongs 
 not to God alone, but at the same time to Him and the people of Israel. Ac- 
 cording to the entire connection, this can mean only the same as already vv. 15- 
 18 was indicated, that the law as a contract made between God and the people, 
 whose validity depends upon what is done by the people of Israel, corresponds 
 only to the conditioned will of God, but cannot be, as the autonomously given 
 promise, an adequate expression of God’s absolute will, of His eternally valid 
 decree of salvation.” SoSanday: ‘‘ Therefore, the promise is not a contract ; 
 and resting on God it is indefeasible.” The argument of the succeeding verse 
 then becomes : “‘ If the law given through a mediator like this belongs not to 
 God alone, and is not an adequate expression of the absolute will of God to 
 save, is then perhaps the law contrary to the promises of God?” (Sieffert). 
 
 LI. Ver. 22. é000n vouoc. 
 
 Not “on account of faith in Christ,’’ wm des Glaubens an Christum willen, but 
 ‘fon account of Christ through faith,’’ um Christus willen durch den Glauben, 
 
 11 
 
162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 propter Christum perfidem (Augsburg Confession, Art. iv.), faith being only the 
 instrumental and Christ the meritorious cause. 
 
 LIT. Ver. 24. wardaywydc Ev ypiorov. 
 
 Yet even though this specific application be surrendered, the generic re- 
 mains, viz., that the care of the pedagogue ends when that of a higher power 
 begins. ‘‘ Horace notes asa peculiar advantage of his own, that his father 
 himself had taken the place of pedagogue to him, Sat., Lib. L., vi. 81, 82” 
 (Sanday). If, however, the application of reconciliation is by the teaching of 
 the gospel (Rom. x. 8, 9, 14), is there any inconsistency in regarding Christ in 
 this verse as both teacher and reconciler ? 
 
CHAP. IY. 163 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 6. jucr] Elz. has iuov, against 8 A BC D* F G, and many of the Fathers, 
 after the foregoing éoré.— Ver. 7. xAypovouoc] Elz. and Scholz add Ocov dca 
 Xpiorovd. There are many variations, among which kAyp. dca cov has most ex- 
 ternal attestation, viz., A B C* 8*, Copt. Vulg. Boern. Clem, Bas. Cyr. Didym. 
 Ambr. Ambrosiast. Pel. ; so Lachm., Schott, Tisch. The Recepta kAnp. Oc0t 
 da Xpicrov is defended by ©. F. :A. Fritzsche in Friteschiorum Opusce. p. 148, and 
 Reiche ; whilst Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 175, and Usteri, hold only xAyp. dia Xpuic- 
 vou as genuine, following Marian.** Jerome (238, lect. 19, have kAnp. dca 
 "Ijootv Xpicrov) ; Griesh. and Riick,, however, would read merely «Aypovoyoc (so 
 178 alone). Theophyl. Dial. c. Maced., and two min., have from Rom. viii. 17 
 kAnp. fev Ocov, ovykAnp. 6& Xptorov. Amidst this great diversity, the much pre- 
 ponderating attestation of xAnp. did Ocovd (in favor of which F G also range them- 
 selves with kAyp. dua Oedv) is decisive ; so that the Recepta must be regarded as 
 having arisen from a gloss, and the mere «Anpovduoc, which has almost no at- 
 testation, as resulting froma clerical omission of dvd Ocov.— Ver. 8. dices uy] So 
 ABC D* E 8, min., vss., Ath. Nyss. Bas. Cyr. Ambr. Jer. Approved by 
 Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. Matth. Scholz, Schott, 
 Reiche, have 27) dice. Opposed to this is the decisive weight of the evidence 
 just given, and the internal ground, that in toic yy dvcer ober Oeoic might easily 
 be found the entire non-existence of the heathen gods, which could not but be 
 more satisfactory than our reading, leaving as this does to the gods reality in 
 general, and only denying them actual divinity. The same cause probably in- 
 duced the omission of ¢icer in K, 117, Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Ambr. Ir. 
 Victorin. Ambrosiast.— Ver. 14. reipaoudy pov tov] So Elz. Matth. Scholz, 
 Tisch. [1859], Reiche, following D*** K L, many min., and a few vss. and 
 Fathers. But A B D* F G &*, 17, 39, 67*, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Jer. Aug. Am- 
 brosiast. Sedul., have we:paoyodv buov [C**, same, with addition of rév]. Recom- 
 mended by Mill. and Griesb., adopted by Lachm [Tisch. 1872]. And justly ; 
 vuov not being understood, was either expunged (so C*?, min., Syr. Erp. Arm. 
 Bas. Theophyl.; approved by Winer, Riick., Schott, Fritzsche), or amended by 
 pov Tov. Comp. Wieseler.—Ver. 15. ric otv] Grot., Lachm., Riick., Usteri, Ewald, 
 Hofm, [Tisch. 1872] read rot odv, which is indeed attested by ABCFG &, 
 min., Syr. Arr. Syr. p. (in the margin), Arm. Copt. Vulg. Boern. Dam. Jer. Pel., 
 but by the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia (7d otv tic évravfa avri 
 Tov TOV 6 wakap.), Theodoret, Theophyl., and Oecum., is pretty well shown to 
 be an ancient interpretation. — The 7» which follows is omitted inABCL®& 
 [P] min., Aeth. Damasc. Theophyl. Theodoret. ms. Expunged by Lachm. and 
 Scholz, also Tisch. Rightly. According as tic was understood either correctly 
 as expressing quality, or as equivalent to od, either 7v (DE K et al.) or éore (115, 
 Sedul. Jer.), or even viv (122, Erp.), was supplied. In Oecum. the reading jv 
 is combined with the explanation row by recourse to the gloss: viv yap ovy 6pa 
 avrév, — dv] before édux, [N** D** E K] is wanting in A BC D* FG 8, 17, 47, 
 
164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Dam. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. : a grammatical addition. — Ver. 17. é«- 
 kAeicar bude] Elz. has éxxA nude, whichis found only ina very few min., was intro- 
 duced into the text by Beza,! and must be looked upon as an unneces- 
 sary conjecture. — Ver. 18. 70 GjAovofa:] A C and four min., Damase. have 
 (nAovefac merely (so Lachm.), while BS, and 17, 23, 39, Aeth. Vulg. Jer. 
 Ambrosiast., read (7A0v00e. The latter is an ancient error in transcribing, which 
 involved the suppression of the article. The correct form ¢yAcicAa: was re- 
 stored, but the article, which seemed superfluous, was not recovered. — Ver. 21. 
 axoverte] DEF G, 10, 31, 80, Vuig. It. Sahid. Arm., and Fathers, have dva- 
 ywooxere. Anancient interpretation. — Ver. 24. dvo] Elz. has aj dito [according 
 to®* and min. ], against decisive testimony [8*** A BC D E F G, etc.]. — Ver. 
 25. “Ayap] is wantingin CFG 8, 17, 115, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Boern. Cyr. 
 Epiph. Damasc. Or. int. Ambrosiast. Jer. Aug. Pel. Sedul. Beda. Deleted by 
 Lachm. [Bentley, Bengel] and Wieseler, condemned also by Hofmann, who refers 
 [Fritzsche, Lightfoot and Tisch. 1872] "Ayap to the Syriac Church, although it 
 is attested by AB D EK LP, and most min., Chrys., and others. But instead 
 of yap, AB D E, 37, 73, 80, lect. 40, Copt. Cyr. (once), have dé. The juxtapo- 
 sition of yap "Ayap led to the omission sometimes of the “Ayap and sometimes of 
 the yap. After the latter was omitted, in a part of the witnesses the connection 
 that was wanting was restored by dé ; just as in the case of several, mostly more 
 recent authorities, instead of ydp after doviever, dé has crept in (so Elz.), be- 
 cause the argument of the apostle was not understood. — cvoroyei dé] D* F G, 
 Vulg. It. Goth., read 7 ovoro.yoica ; D*, however, not having the article. A 
 gloss, in order to exhibit the reference to “Ayap in ver. 24. — Ver. 26. judv] Elz. 
 reads ravtwv ynuov; Lachm. has bracketed zdavrwv. But it is wanting in 
 BC* DE FG &, some min, most vss., and many Fathers. Deleted by Tisch.; 
 defended by Reiche. Anamplifying addition [from Rom. iv. 16] involuntarily 
 occasioned by the recollection of iii. 26, 28, and the thought of the multitude of 
 the réava (ver. 27). — Ver. 28. jweic . . . éouév) Lachm. and Schott, also Tisch., 
 read jyeic éore, following B D* F G, some min., Sahid. Aeth. Iv. Victorin. Ambr. 
 Tychon. Ambrosiast. Justly ; the first person was introduced on account of vv. 
 26 and 31. — Ver. 30. «Anpovouhon] Lach. [Tisch. 1872] reads cAnpovounoe:, follow- 
 ing BD E 8& and Theophylact; from the LXX.— Ver. 31. dpa] A C, 23, 57, 
 Copt. Cyr. Damase. Jer. Aug., have jueic dé; B D* E 8, 67**, Cyr. Marcion, 
 read 6.6. The latter is (with Lachm. and Tisch.) to be preferred ; for ijueie dé 
 adeAdot is evidently a mechanical repetition of ver. 28 (Rec.), and apa is too 
 feebly attested (F G, Theodoret, have apa ody). 
 
 Contents.—Further discussion of the xAnpovéduovre eiva: (iii. 29), as a priv- 
 ilege which could not have been introduced before Christ, while the period 
 of nonage lasted, but was jirst introduced by means of Christ and Christian- 
 ity at the time appointed by God, when the earlier servile relation was 
 changed into that of sonship (vv. 1-7). After Paul has expressed his sur- 
 prise at the apostasy of his readers, and his anxiety lest he may have labored 
 among them in vain (vv. 8-11), he entreats them to become like to him, and 
 supports this entreaty by a sorrowful remembrance of the abounding love 
 which they had manifested to him on his first visit, but which appeared to 
 
 1 Beza himself allows that duas stands in Latin), but considers that the sense requires 
 all the codd. (in the fifth edition he adds: eas. 
 
GHAR + 0.5: 1, 165 
 have been converted into enmity (vv. 12-16). He warns them against the 
 selfish zeal with which the pseudo-apostles courted them (ver. 17), while at 
 the same time he reproves their fickleness (ver. 18), and expresses the wish 
 that he were now present with them, in order to regain, by an altered mode 
 of speaking to them, their lost confidence (vv. 18-20). Lastly, he refutes 
 the tendency to legalism from the law itself, namely, by an allegorical inter- 
 pretation of the account that Abraham had two sons, one by the bond- 
 woman, and one by the free woman (vy. 21-80), and then lays down the 
 proposition that Christians are children of the free woman, which forms the 
 groundwork of the exhortations and warnings that follow in ch. v. (ver. 31). 
 
 Ver. 1. Aéyw dé] Comp. ii. 17, v. 16; Rom. xv. 8; 1 Cor. 1.12: now T 
 mean, in reference to this «Aypovouta brought in through Christ, the idea of 
 which I have now more exactly to illustrate to you as for the first time real- 
 ized in Christ. This illustration is derived by Paul from a comparison of 
 the pre-Christian period to the period of the servile, slave-like child- 
 hood of the heir-apparent. — é@’ dcov ypdvov] As in Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. 
 Vii. 39. —6 kAypovduoc] The article as in 6 pecirye, iii. 20: the heir in any 
 given case. KAyp. is, however, to be conceived here, as in Matt. xxi. 38, as 
 the heir of the father’s goods, who is not yet in actual personal possession, 
 but de jure—the heir apparent, whose father is still alive. So Cameron, 
 Neubour (Bibl. Brem. v. p. 40), Wolf, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, and 
 many others, including Winer, Schott, Wieseler, Reithmayr. But Riickert, 
 Studer (in Usteri), Olshausen (undecided), Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the 
 older expositors, conceive the heir as one whose father is dead. Incorrectly, 
 on account of ver. 2 ; for the duration of the guardianship (in which sense 
 ind émitpdrove, ver. 2, must then be understood) could not have been 
 determined by the will of the father,’ but would have depended on the law.? 
 Hofmann thinks, indeed, that the point whether the father was bound by a 
 law of n.ajority is not taken into account, but only the fact, that it is the 
 father himself who has made arrangements respecting his heir. But in this 
 view the rpofecuia, as prescribed by the father, would be entirely illusory ; 
 the notice would be absurd, because the zpofesuia would be not rod rarpée, 
 but tov véuov. —vArwoc] still in boyhood.* ‘‘Imberbis juvenis tandem 
 custode remoto gaudet equis,” ‘‘ the beardless youth, his guardian at length 
 removed, delights in horses.” [Horace, Ars. Poetica, 161, 162], etc., Virg. 
 Aen. ix. 649. [See Note LIII., p. 212.] Quite in opposition to the context, 
 Chrysostom and Oecumenius refer it to mental immaturity. — oidév diagéper 
 dobdov| because he is not swt juris.’ — Kipioc ravtwv bv] although he is lord of 
 all, namely, de jure, in eventum, ‘‘by right,” ‘‘eventually,” as the heir- 
 
 1 Baumgarten-Crusius, indeed, appealsto the death of the father, dependent on the 
 
 the proof adduced by Géttling (Gesch. d. 
 Ron. Staatsverf. pp. 109, 517), that Gaius, I. 
 55. 65, 189, comp. Caes. Bell. Gall. vi. 19, 
 mentions the existence of a higher grade of 
 the patria potestas among the Galatians. 
 But in this way it is by no means shown 
 that the time of the majority was, after 
 
 settlement which he had previously made. 
 
 2 Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 121. 
 
 3 Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 
 
 4Rom. ii. 20; Hom. JZ. y. 406, xvi. 46, 
 et al. 
 
 5 Comp. Liban. in Chiis, p. 11 D, in Wet- 
 stein. 
 
166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 apparent of all the father’s goods. Consequently neither this nor the pre- 
 ceding point is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the father is still 
 alive.! Comp. Luke xvi. 31.— The kAypovduog vyrvo¢ represents, not the 
 people of Israel ; ® but, according to the connection with iii. 29 (comp. iv. 3), 
 the Christians as a body, regarded in their earlier pre-Christian condition. 
 Tn this condition, whether Jewish or Gentile, they were the heir-apparent, 
 according to the idea of the divine predestination (Rom. viii. 28 ff.; Eph. 
 i. 11; John xi. 52), in virtue of which they were ordained to be the Isracl 
 of God (vi. 16), the true orépua of Abraham. 
 
 Ver. 2. ’Exirporoc means here not guardian,* as it is explained by all who 
 look upon the father as dead,* but overseer, governor, and that without any 
 more special definition ;° it is neither therefore to be taken ° as synonymous 
 with oixovéuog (which would give a double designation without ground for 
 it), nor as equivalent to tadaywyd¢ (which would be an arbitrary limitation). 
 The term denotes any one, to whose governorship the boy is assigned by the 
 father in the arrangement which has been made of the family affairs ; and 
 from this category are then specially singled out the oixovéuor, the superior 
 slaves appointed as managers of the household and property (Luke xvi. 1), on 
 whom the vjziog was dependent in respect to money and other outward wants. 
 —aypt tHe xpobecuiac tov rarpéc| Until the appointed time of the father, until 
 the term, which the father has fixed upon for releasing his son from this 
 state of dependence. 7 zpofecuia, tempus praestitutum, does not occur else 
 where in the N. T., but is frequent in classical authors.” 
 
 Ver. 3. ‘Hueic] embraces Christians generally, the Jewish and Gentile 
 Christians together. In favor of this view we may decisively urge, (1) the 
 sense of ororyeia tov Kéouov (see below) ; (2) ver. 5, where the first: iva applies 
 to the Jewish Christians, but the second, reverting to the first person, applies 
 to Christians generally, because the address to the readers which follows in 
 ver. 6 represents these as a whole, and not merely the Jewish Christians 
 among them, as included in the preceding iva rv violeciav aroAaBaper ; 
 lastly, (8) that the ofxér: and zére, said of the Galatians in vv. 7 and 8, point 
 back to the state of slavery of the jueic in ver. 3. Therefore jueic is not to 
 be understood as referring either merely to the Jewish Christians ; ° or—as Hof- 
 mann in consistency with his erroneous reference of iii. 29 to the Gentile 
 readers holds—to ‘‘the Old Testament church of God, which has now passed 
 over into the New Testament church ;” or to the Jewish Christians pre-em- 
 inently ;° or, lastly, even to the Gentile Christians alone." — ére jjuev vgrcor] 
 characterizes, in terms of the prevailing comparison, the pre-Christian con- 
 
 1 As Hofmann and others have objected. 
 
 2 Wieseler. 
 
 3 dphavav éxitporos, Plat. Legg. p. 766 C; 
 Dem. 988. 2; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 40; 2 Mace. xi. 
 J, xiii. 2, xiv. 2; comp. also the rabbinical 
 DIDINVIDN in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 743 f. 
 
 4 See, however, on ver. 1. 
 
 5 Herod. i. 108; Pind. Ol. i. 171; Dem. 
 819.17: Xen. Oec. 21.9; and very frequent- 
 ly in classical authors. 
 
 6 Asin Matt. xx. 8; Luke viii. 3. 
 
 7See Wetstein; also Jacobs, Ach. Tat. 
 p. 440. 
 
 ® Chrysostom and most expositors, in- 
 cluding Grotius, Estius, Morus, Flatt, 
 Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette, Wieseler. 
 
 9 Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen. 
 10 Augustine. 
 
CHAP, IV., 3. 167 
 dition, which, in relation to the Christian condition of the same persons, 
 was their age of boyhood. Elsewhere Paul has represented the condition of 
 the Christians vefore the Parousia, in comparison with their state after the 
 Parousia, as a time of boyhood.’— io ra aroyeia tov Kéopov juev dedova. | 
 corresponds, as application, to the oidév dvagéper dobAov . . . aAAa bd EriTpé- 
 move éo7t Kal oikov. The word orovyetov—which denotes primarily a stake or 
 peg standing in a row, then a letter of the alphabet,’ then, like apyf, element* 
 —means here at all events element,* which signification has developed itself 
 from the idea of a letter, inasmuch as a word is a series of the letters which 
 form it.° In itself, however, it might be used either in the physical sense of 
 elementary substances, which Plato ° calls aiso yévy,* as it frequently occurs in 
 
 Greek authors applied to the so-called four elements,® or in the intellectual 
 
 sense of rudimenta, ‘‘ rudiments,” jirst principles.* In the latter sense the 
 verb ororyecovv was used to signify the instruction given to catechumens.” In 
 the physical sense—in which it is used by later Greek authors for designat- 
 ing the stars! —it was understood by most of the Fathers: either as by 
 Augustine,” who thought of the Gentile adoration of the heavenly bodies 
 and of other nature-worship ; or as by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, 
 Pelagius, who referred it to the Jewish observance of new moons, feasts, 
 and Sabbaths, which was regulated by the course of the moon and sun. 
 So, combining the Gentile and Jewish cultus, Hilgenfeld, p. 66,1? who 
 ascribes to the apostle the heterogeneous idea of ‘‘ sidereal powers of heaven,” 
 that is, of the stars as powerful animated beings ; '* and Caspari,'’® in whose 
 view Paul is supposed to have placed Mosaism in the category of star and 
 nature worship ; and likewise Reithmayr, although without such extrava- 
 
 gances. 
 
 1 See 1 Cor. xiii. 11; Eph. iv. 13. 
 
 2 Plat. Theaet. p. 202 E; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 
 1; Arist. Poet. 20.2; Lucian, Jud. voc. 12. 
 
 8 See Rudolph on OQcell. p. 402 ff. 
 
 4 A point on which almost all expositors 
 agree. Yet Luther, 1519, following the 
 precedent of Tertull. c. Marc. vy. 4, adopted 
 the signification of detters; ‘* pro ipsis literis 
 legis, quibus lex constat. . . . Mundi autem 
 vocat, quod sint de iis rebus, quae in mun- 
 do sunt,” ‘‘for the very letters of the law, 
 in which the law consists. . . Moreover, 
 he says ‘of the world,’ because they are of 
 the things which are in the world.”’ So also 
 in 1524, and at least to a similar effect in 
 1538. More recently Michaelis has also ex- 
 plained it as Zefters ; holding that the acts 
 of the Levitical law were intended, be- 
 cause, taken as a whole, they had preached 
 the gospel by anticipation. Similarly Nés- 
 selt, Opusc. II. p. 209, takes orotxyeta as 
 signs (Arist. Hecl. 652, where it is used for 
 the shadow of the plate on the sun-dial ; 
 comp. Lucian, Gall. 9, Cronos. 17), holding 
 that the Jewish ceremonies are thus named 
 because they prefigured the future Chris- 
 
 But because the expression is applicable neither merely to the cir- 
 
 tian worship. These views are all errone- 
 ous, because the expression ortovxeta rT. 
 kogpov applies also to Gentile habits. 
 
 5 Walz, Rhetor. VI. p. 110. i 
 
 6 Ruhnk. ad Tim p. 283. 
 
 72 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Wisd. vil. 17, xix. 18; 
 4Mace. xii. 13; Plat. Tim. p. 48 B, 56 B, Polit. 
 p. 278 C; Philo, de Opif. m. p. 7, 11, Cherub. 
 p. 162; Clem. Hom. x. 9. 
 
 § Comp. Suidas, s.v. 
 
 ®° Heb. v. 12; Plut. de pueror. educ. 163. 
 
 Isocr. p. 18 A; Nicol. ap. Stob. xiv. 7. 31; 
 see Wetstein. 
 
 10 Constitt. ap. vi. 18. 1, vii. 25.2. Comp. 
 our expression the A, B, C of an art or 
 science. Comp. generally, Schaubach, Com- 
 mentat. quid artorxeta Tod Koonov in N. T. 
 sibi velint, Meining. 1862. 
 
 11 Diog. L. vi. 102; Man. iv. 624; Eustath. 
 Od. p. 1671, 53. 
 
 12 De civ. D. iv. 11. 
 
 13 Comp. in his Zeitschr. 1858, p. 99 ; 1866,- 
 
 p. 314. 
 14 Comp. Baur and Holsten. 
 15 In the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff. 
 
168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUl, TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 cumstances of the heathen, nor merely to those of the Jewish, cultus (sec, on 
 the contrary, vv. 8-10),—to the latter of which it isin the physical sense not 
 at all suitable, for the Jewish celebrations of days and the like were by no 
 means a star-worship or other (possibly unconscious) worship of nature, 
 under which man would have been in bondage, but were an imperfect 
 worship of God—and because the context suggests nothing else than the 
 contrast between the imperfect and the perfect religion, as well as also on 
 account of the correlation to v#ro, the physical sense of orovyeiov is altogether 
 to be rejected.’ Besides, it would be difficult to perceive why Paul, if he 
 had thought of the stars, should not have written rov oipavod instead of row 
 «éouov. Hence Jerome,’ Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and most 
 of the later expositors, though with various modifications, have correctly 
 adhered to the sense rudimenta disciplinae, ‘‘ rudiments of discipline,” which 
 alone corresponds to the notion of the vyridéry¢ (for the age of childhood does 
 not get beyond jirst principles). The oroyeia tov xécpov are the elements of 
 non-Christian humanity (kécpog ; see 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 32, ef al.), that is, the 
 elementary things, the immature beginnings of religion, which occupy the 
 minds of those who are still without the pale of Christianity. Not having 
 attained to the perfect religion, the xécyoc has still to do with the religious 
 elementary state, to which it is in bondage, as in the position of a servant. 
 Rudiments of this sort are expressly mentioned in ver. 10 ; hence we must 
 understand the expression, not in a onesided fashion as the elementary 
 knowledge, the beginnings of religious perception in the non-Christian world *— 
 with which neither the idea of the relation as slavery, nor the inclusion of 
 the Jewish and Gentile worships under one category would harmonize—but 
 as the rudimenta ritualia, the ceremonial character of Judaism and heathenism,* 
 
 sensuous, perishable things, of which this 
 earthly koopos, as to its fundamental ele- 
 ments, consists. But why, then, the re- 
 striction ‘‘as to its fundamental elenents’’ ? 
 
 1 With strange arbitrariness Schulthess 
 (Engelwelt, pp. 118, 129) has recently antici- 
 pated Hilgenfeld in re-asserting this sense ; 
 holding that the sfars are meant, but that 
 
 Paulis glancing at the Jewish ministry of _ And the idea of perishableness is im- 
 angels (Job xxxviii.7(!)). Morethoroughly ported. Ewald understands by it the 
 
 Schneckenburger (in the ¢theol. Jahrb. 1848, 
 p. 445 ff.) has again defended the physical 
 reference (elements of the visible world). 
 Comp. Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 323. 
 In this interpretation the law must be ex- 
 cepted (as is done by Holsten) from the 
 orotxeta,—an exception which is forbidden 
 by the whole connection with ch. iii., and 
 is also inconsistent with the concrete in- 
 stances in vv. 8and 10; see above. Nean- 
 der also—who, however, introduces the 
 idea of the sensuous forms of religion—would 
 retain the physical reference, which is 
 decidedly assumed by Lipsius (Rechiferti- 
 gungsl. p. 83), who specially commends the 
 interpretation of Hilgenfeld ; whilst Mess- 
 ner (Lehre d. Ap. p. 226) agrees in substance 
 with Neander, holding that SeSovA. td Ta 
 oToLxeta Tov Koomov is “the dependence of 
 the religious consciousness on the earthly, 
 
 elements of the world, into the whole of 
 which life must be brought through the 
 spirit, and unity and meaning through 
 God; it comprehends the Jewish obsery- 
 ances as to meats and days, as well as the 
 heathen star-worship. Yet how unsuited 
 to popular apprehension (as pertaining to 
 natural philosophy) would the whole ex- 
 pression thus be ! an enigmatic designation 
 for the heathen worship, and an unsuitable 
 one for the Jewish cultus, which is based 
 on divine precept. As to the way in which 
 Hofmann understands the material ele- 
 ments of the world, see the sequel. 
 
 2 Also tuwvés in Theophylact, and Genna- 
 dius in Oecumenius, p. 747 D. 
 
 3 Comp. Kienlen, in the Strassb. Bettr. Tl. 
 p. 133 ff. 
 
 4 Comp. Schaubach, /.c. p. 9 ff. 
 
CHAP. IV., 3. 169 
 with which, however, is also combined the corresponding imperfection of 
 religious knowledge.’ Against the explanation, ‘‘ religiows elementary things 
 of the world,” the objection has been made, that this idea is suitable neither 
 to Judaism, in so far as the latter was a divine revelation, nor even to 
 heathenism, which, according to Paul, is something foreign to religion ; see 
 especially Neander. But the latter part of the objection is erroneous (Acts 
 Xvii. 22, 23); and the former part is disposed of when—in the light of the 
 pretensions put forth by the apostle’s opponents, which were chiefly based 
 on the ceremonial side of the law—we take into account the relative charac- 
 ter of the idea rwdimenta, ‘‘rudiments,” according to which Judaism, when 
 compared with Christianity as the absolute religion, may, although a 
 divine institution, yet be included under the notion of crovyeia, because 
 destined only for the v#ror and serving a transitory propaedeutic purpose.” 
 Most of the older expositors, as also Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette (with many various and mistaken interpretations of kécyoc ; see Wolf 
 and Riickert én loc.), have referred the expression merely to Judaism,* whilst 
 Koppe and Schott only allow the analogous nature of ethnicism to be included 
 incidentally ; but, besides what has been above remarked on jeic, these views 
 are at variance with the idea of rot xécyov. This idea is, at all events, too 
 wide to suit the law, which was given to the people of Israel only ; whether 
 it be taken as applying to mankind generally (de Wette, Wieseler), or to 
 the unbelieving portion of mankind, in contrast to the ayo: ina Christian 
 sense.* Certainly it might appear unwise (see especially Wieseler) that Paul 
 should have placed Judaism and heathenism in one category. But, in point 
 of fact, he has to deal with Judaistic seductions occurring in churches chiefly 
 Gentile-Christian : he might therefore, with the view of more effectually 
 warning them and putting them to shame, so designate the condition of 
 bondage to which by these seductions they were induced to revert, as to 
 comprehend it in the same category with the heathen cultus, from the 
 bondage of which they had been not long before liberated by Christianity. 
 According to Hofmann, the orovyeia r. kécov are contrasted with the promise 
 given to Abraham of the kAzpovouia kécuov, Rom. iv. 18. He supposes that 
 out of the destruction of the material elements of the present world (2 Pet. iii. 
 10) the oixovuuévy pé2AAod’ca (Heb. ii. 5) will arise, and that this will derive its 
 nature and character from the Spirit, the communication of which is the 
 beginning of the fulfilment of that promise. Israel, however, has been in 
 bondage under the material elements of which the present world is composed, 
 inasmuch as in what it did and what it left undone it was subject to stringent 
 
 1 Comp. Col. ii. 8, 20. 
 
 2Comp. Baur, Paulus, II. p. 222, ed. 2; 
 Weiss, 0161. Theol. p. 289; also Ritschl, ait- 
 kath. K. p. 73. 
 
 3 The /aw ‘‘as a means of training calcu- 
 
 trary expedient of taking the expression 
 to apply to the merely external and literal 
 way of apprehending the O. T., which con- 
 fines itself merely to the actions, without 
 considering the idea involved in them. 
 
 lated only for the age of childhood,” de 
 Wette, who is followed by Wieseler. 
 
 4 Olshausen, feeling the difficulty which 
 thé idea of «écuos puts in the way of the 
 reference to Judaism, hits upon the arbi- 
 
 ““This was the procedure of the Judaists, 
 and in this shape the Old Test. appeared 
 not merely as the beginning of divine life, 
 but also as given oyer to the world,” ete. 
 
170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 laws, which had reference to the world in its existing materiality ; it had to 
 conform itself to the things of this corporeal world, whilst the promise had 
 been made to it that it should be lord of all things. Apart from the errone- 
 ous application of ijueic (see above), every essential point in this interpreta- 
 tion is gratuitously introduced. In particular, the contrast on which it is 
 based—namely, that of the new world of the aiévy which is to come—is 
 utterly foreign not only to the whole context, but even to the words them- 
 selves ; for, if Paul had had this contrast in view, he must, in order not to 
 leave his readers wholly without a hint of it, have at least added a rotrov' 
 to rov xécuov.* It is, moreover, incorrect to discover in the ororyeia the op- 
 posite of the future world, so far as the latter has its nature from the Spirit. 
 The world of the aidv wéAAwv, as the new heaven and the new earth (2 Pet. 
 ili. 13), must likewise be corporeally material, and must have its crocyeia, 
 although the oyjua of the old world will have passed away.* — juev dedovdwm. | 
 may be taken either together, or separately ; the latter is to be preferred, 
 because it corresponds more emphatically to the ovdéy dradéper dodAov (ver. 1) 
 and the id éxitpérove éote (in ver. 2) : we were enslaved ones. 
 
 Ver. 4. "Ore dé 7AGe 70 rAHjpwua tov xpdvov] corresponds to the dype rig 
 mpoflecu. tov matp. (ver. 2). The time appointed by God, which was to 
 elapse until the appearance of Christ (6 ypévoc)—consequently the pre- 
 Messianic period—is conceived as a measure which was not yet full, so long 
 as this period had not wholly elapsed. Hence 1d tAgjpaya tov yxpdvov is : 
 that moment of time, through which the measure of time just mentioned became 
 Full.? — On what historical conditions Paul conceived that counsel as to the 
 fulness of time to depend ° cannot, after his view of the destination of the 
 law which intervened between the promise and its fulfilment (iii. 19, 24 ; 
 Rom. v. 20), remain doubtful. Theophylact takes in substance the right 
 The need had reached its height. Comp. Chrysostom, ad Eph. 1. 
 10: Gre padduota EueAAov ardAdvofa, TéTe diecdMycav, ‘*‘ when they were just 
 about to be destroyed, they were saved.” Without due ground Baur per- 
 ceives here’ the idea that Christianity proceeded from a principle inherent 
 in humanity, namely, from the advance of the mind to the freedom of self- 
 consciousness. — éfaréorevev| He sent forth from Himself. Ver. 6; Acts vii. 
 12, xi. 22, xvii. 14, e¢ al. ; Dem. 251. 5; Polyb. iii. 11. 1, iv. 26. 2, iv. 30. 
 1, and frequently. The expression presupposes the idea of the personal 
 pre-existence of Christ,* and therewith at the same time His personal divine 
 nature (Rom. viii. 3, 32 ; Phil. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9) ; so that in reality the 
 apostle’s idea coincides with the Johannean 6 2dyoc qv pode 7. Ocdv and Oed¢ 
 
 
 
 view. 
 
 11 Cor. vii. 31, 1. 20, iii. 19; Eph. ii. 2. 
 
 2? He does not add rovrov in Col. ii. 8, 20, 
 just because the contrast suggested by 
 Hofmann was far from his thoughts. 
 
 3 Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 31. 
 
 * Comp. Gen. xxix. 21; Marki. 15 ; Luke 
 Xxi. 24; John vii. 8; Joseph. Antz. vi. 4. 1, 
 et al. 
 
 5 Comp. on Eph. i. 10, and Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. II. p. 473. 
 
 ®Theophylact : ore mav etSos Kakias SucfeA- 
 
 Ootca H dicts 7 avOpwrivn edeiTo Oepazetas, 
 ““ when human nature, having experienced 
 every form of evil, needed medical treat- 
 ment.” Baur: ‘“ when mankind was ripe 
 for it;’ de Wette: ‘‘conditioned by the 
 need of certain preparations, or by the ne- 
 cessity of the religious development of man- 
 kind which had reached a certain point.” 
 
 7 See his newt. Theol. p. 173. 
 
 8 See Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 16; Lechler, 
 apost. Zeit. p. 50; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 316 ff. 
 
CHAP. IV., 4. 171 
 Hv 6 Adyoc, but is not to be reduced to the notion of ‘‘ the ideal first man,” ? 
 whose human birth, on account of His pre-existence, is conceived by Paul 
 as not without a certain Docetism.? This remark also applies against the 
 view of Beyschlag referring it to the pre-existent prototype of man,* in con- 
 nection with which the Messianic name of Son is supposed to be carried 
 back from the historical to the pre-historical sphere. This is at variance 
 with the express designation, as tpwrétoKkosg méone Kricewce (Col. 1. 15), 
 which likewise forbids us to say, with Hofmann : ‘‘ By the very fact, that 
 God has sent Him forth from Himself into the world, He is the Son of God.” 
 According to Col. i. 15, He is, even before the creation, in the relation of 
 Son to the Father, as begotten by Him,—a relation, therefore, which could 
 not be dependent on the subsequent sending forth, or given for the first 
 time along with the latter. —yevduevov éx yvvackdc| so that He was born of a 
 woman ; the relation of the aorist participle is the same as in Phil. ii. 7 f. 
 The reading yevvdéuevov—attested only by min., and otherwise feebly, al- 
 though recommended by Erasmus, adopted by Matthias, and defended by 
 Rinck—is a correct interpretation, which also occurs at Rom. i. 3, in Codd. 
 mentioned by Augustine. Who this yvv# was, every reader knew ; we must 
 not, however, say with Schott, following many of the older expositors, ‘‘ de 
 virgine sponsa dicitur,” ‘‘it is said ‘of the betrothed virgin ;’”° but comp. 
 Job xiv. 1; Matt. xi. 11. Noris anything peculiar to be found in é« ;° on the ° 
 contrary, é« is quite the wsual preposition to express the being born.” This 
 very fact, that Christ, although the Son of God, whom God had sent forth 
 from Himself, entered into this life as man (Rom. v. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21; 
 Acts xvii. 31) and—just as an ordinary man enters into temporal life—as 
 one born of woman, Paul wishes to bring into prominence as the mode of 
 carrying out the divine counsel.* The supernatural generation which pre- 
 ceded the natural birth was not here in question ; its mention would even 
 have been at variance with the connection which points to Christ’s humilia- 
 tion : it is not, however, anywhere else expressly mentioned by the apostle, 
 or certainly indicated as a consequence involved in his system (Weiss).° 
 Nor is it to be inferred from é£aréorevAev, in connection with the designation 
 of Him who was sent forth as the Son ;’° because, while it is assumed that as 
 the Son of God He was already, before His incarnation, with God (6 Aéyoc jv 
 mpoc Tov Gedv), the mode of His incarnation—how He was born xara capa é« 
 orépuatoc Aavid 1—is not defined — yevduevov bird véuov| Luther : ‘‘made 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Hilgenfeld. 
 
 2 See, on the contrary, Rom. i. 3; indeed, 
 Paul throughout is the very opposite of 
 Docetism. 
 
 3 Christol. d. N. T. p. 220 ff. 
 
 4 As to the meaning, but not as to the 
 tense ; see Phot. Qu. Amphil. 90. 
 
 5 Comp. Augustine, Serm.16 de temp. ; 
 Jerome, and others. 
 
 6 “ex semine mairis . .. non viri et mu- 
 lieris coitu,”’ ‘ of the seed of the mother. . .not 
 by the union of man and woman,” Calvin; 
 comp. Cornelius 4 Lapide, Estius, Calovius, 
 
 and others; Theophylact, following Basil, 
 Jerome, and others: &« ris ovclias avTys Toya 
 AaBovra, 
 
 7 John iii. 6; Matt. i. 16; 1 Pet. i. 22, et al.; 
 3 Esr. iv. 16; 4 Mace. xiv. 14; frequently 
 used also in classical authors with yy- 
 veobar, 
 
 8 Comp. Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7. 
 
 * Comp. on Rom. i. 3. 
 
 10 Hofmann, comp. also his Schrifibew. 
 II. 1, p. 84. 
 
 11 Rom. i. 
 Acts ii. 30. 
 
 S comp, 1X. oy) 2) ims ieee 
 
172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 under the law ;” and so most expositors : legi subjectum, ‘subject to the 
 law.” But it is arbitrary to take yevdu. here in another sense than before ;* and 
 the vivid emphasis of the twice-used yerdu. is thus lost. Hence Michaelis, 
 Koppe, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Lechler, rightly understand yevdu. as na- 
 tum. Thus also, in fact, ‘‘ the beginning of an eiva: bd véuov” (Hofmann) is 
 expressed, and expressed indeed more definitely. Paul desires to represent the 
 birth of the Son of God not merely as an ordinary human birth, but also as 
 an ordinary Jewish birth ;? and he therefore says : ‘* bern of a woman, born 
 under the law,” so that He was subjected to circumcision and to all other ordi- 
 nances of the law, like any other Jewish child. But God caused His Son 
 to be born as an ordinary man and as an ordinary Israelite, because other- 
 wise He could not have undergone death—either at all, or as One cursed by 
 the law (iii. 13), which did not apply to those who were not Jews (Rom. i. 
 12)—and could not have rendered the curse of the law of none effect as 
 regards those who were its subjects. or this reason, and not merely on 
 account of the contrast to rdv vidv airov,4 Paul has added yevdu. éx yuv., yev. 
 i7d véu., as a characteristic description of the humiliation into which God 
 allowed His Son to enter. See the sequel. — With respect, moreover, to 
 the perfect obedience of Christ to the law, it was a preliminary condition 
 necessary for the redeeming power of His death (because otherwise the 
 curse of the law would have affected Him even on His own account) ; but it 
 is not that which is imputed for righteousness; on the contrary, this is purely 
 faith in the itacthprov, ‘‘propitiation,” of His death.° The doctrine of 
 the Formula Concordiae as to the imputation of the obedientia Christi activa’ 
 is not borne out by the exegetical proof, of which our passage is alleged to 
 form part ; but the atoning death of Christ is the culminating point of His 
 obedience towards God (Rom. v. 19 ; Phil. ii. 8; 2 Cor. v. 21) [See Note 
 LIV., p. 212 seq.], without the perfection of which He could not have accom- 
 plished the atonement ; and the form which this obedicnce assumed in 
 Him, in so far as He was subject to the daw, must have been that of legal 
 obedience.’ 
 
 Ver. 5. The object for which God sent forth His Son, and sent Him in- 
 deed yevdu. éx yuvair., yevou. b7d véuov. — Tove bro vduov] The Israelites are 
 thus designated in systematic correspondence to the previous yerdu. ix véuov.® 
 — é£ayopdcy] Namely, as follows from rove id véuov, from the dominion of 
 the law, vv. 1-8 (in which its curse, iii. 11, is included), and that through 
 His death, iii. 13. Erasmus well says: ‘‘dato pretio assereret in liberta- 
 tem,” ‘‘ As the price had been given, he would claim for liberty.” — iva rip 
 viobec. at0Ad3.] The aim of this redemption ; for of this negative benefit the 
 viodecia was the immediate positive consequence. But Paul could not again 
 express himself in the third person, because the viofecia had been imparted to 
 
 
 
 1 Viewed by itself, yiver@ac td with the 3 Comp. Rom. viii. 3 f. ; Heb. iii. 14 f. 
 accusative, in the sense to be subject to, is, in a 4 Schott. 
 linguistic point of view, quite as correct 5 See on iii. 18; Rom. iv. 5, 24, v. 6 ff., 
 (1 Mace. x. 88; Thue. i. 110.1; Lucian. Addic. et al. 
 23) as with the dative (Herod. vii. 11; Xen. 6p. 685. 
 Anab. vii. 2. 3, vii. 7. 82; Thue. vil. 64. 2). 7 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 130. 
 
 2 Comp. Heb. il. 14-17. 8 Comp. iii. 25, iv. 21, v. 18; Rom. vi. 14. 
 
CHAP.. IV:,. 6% 173 
 
 the Gentiles also, whereas that redemption referred merely to the Jews ; but 
 now both, Jews and Gentiles, after having attained the viofecia no longer izd 
 Ta oToLxEla TOV KécuoV oav JedovdAwuévot (Ver. 3) : hence Paul, in the first person 
 of the second sentence of purpose, speaks from the consciousness of the com- 
 mon faith which embraced both the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the 
 Christian body, not merely from the Jewish-Christian consciousness, as Hof- 
 mann holds on account of éoré in ver. 6.’ —The viofecia is here, as it always is, 
 adoption* — a meaning which is wrongly denied by Usteri, as the signification 
 of the word allows no other interpretation, and the context requires no other. 
 Previously not different from slaves (vv. 1-3), as they were in the state of vyz- 
 téryc, believers have now entered into the entirely different legal relation to- 
 wards God of their being adopted by Him as children.* The divine begetting 
 (to which Hofmann refers) is a Johannean view ; see on John i. 12. In the 
 divine economy of salvation the gracious gift of the viofecia was needed in or- 
 der to attain the xAjpovouia ; while in the human economy, which serves as the 
 figure, the heir-apparent becomes at length heir as a matter of course. 
 Accordingly Paul has not given up (Wieseler) the figure on which ver. 1 ff. 
 was based—a view at variance with the express application in ver. 3, and 
 the uninterrupted continuation of the same in ver. 4 ; but he has merely 
 had recourse to such a free modification in the application, as was suggested 
 to him by the certainly partial difference between the real circumstances of 
 the case and the figure set forth in vv. 1, 2.*—azo/4f.] not : that we might 
 again receive, as is the meaning of azojau8. very often in Greek authors,°® 
 and in Luke xv. 27 ; for before Christ men never possessed the viofecia here 
 referred to (although the old theocratic adoption of the Jews was never lost, 
 Rom. ix. 4) : hence Augustine and others are in error when they look back 
 to the sonship that was lost in Adam. Nor must we assume® that, because 
 the viofecia is promised, it is denoted by aroAdB. as dgeviouévn,—a sense 
 which is often conveyed by the context in Greek authors and also in the 
 N.T.,” but not here, because it is not the vio#ecia expressly, but the «Aypovopia,® 
 which is the object of the promise. As little can we say, with Riickert and 
 Schott, that the sonship is designated as fruit (aro = inde) of the work of 
 redemption, or, with Wieseler, as fruit of the death of Jesus apprehended 
 by faith : for while it certainly 7s so in point of fact, the verb could not 
 lead to it without some more precise indication in the text than that given 
 by the mere éfayop. On the contrary, azo/a8. simply denotes: to take at 
 the hands of any one, to receive, as Luke xvi. 25 ; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 956 D, 
 and very frequently in Greek authors. 
 
 Ver. 6. A confirmation of the reality of this reception of sonship from the 
 experience of the readers ; for the éoré, which, after the foregoing more gen- 
 eral statement, now comes in with its individual application,’ does not refer 
 
 1 Comp. the change of persons in iii. 14. and others, including Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 2See on Eph. i.5; Rom. viii. 15; and Hofmann, and Reithmayr. 
 
 Fritzsche, in loc. 7 Luke vi. 34, xxiii. 41; Rom. i. 27; Col. 
 3 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 338 f. iii. 24; 2 John 8. 
 4 Comp. ver. 7. 8 iii. 29, iv. 7. 
 5 See especially Dem. 78. 3; 162. 17. *° Comp. iii. 26. 
 
 § With Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, 
 
174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 to the Galatians as Gentile Christians only,! any more than in ili. 26-29, — 
 ére] is taken by most expositors, following the Vulgate, as guoniam.? And 
 this interpretation*® is the most simple, natural, and correct ; the emphasis 
 is laid on vio/, which is therefore placed at the end : but because ye are sons, 
 God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son, etc. He would not have done this, 
 if ye had not (through the vioGecia) been vioi ; thus the reception of the Spir- 
 it is the experimental and practical divine testimony to the sonship. Jf not 
 sons of God, ye would not be the recipients of the Spirit of His Son. The 
 Spirit is the seal of the sonship, into which they had entered through faith— 
 the divine oyueiov attesting and confirming it ; comp. Rom. viii. 16.4 Others*® 
 take or as that, and treat it as an abbreviated mode of saying : ‘‘ But that 
 ye are sons, és certain by this, that God has sent forth,” etc. This is unneces- 
 sarily harsh, and without any similar instance in the N. T.; modes of 
 expression like those in Winer, p. 575 f. and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 
 p. 205, are different. Wieseler takes it as equivalent to eic éxeivo, bri: 7 
 “as concerns the reality (éoré is to have the emphasis) of your state as sons.” 
 But this would unnecessarily introduce into the vivid and direct character 
 of these short sentences an element of dialectic reflection, which also appears 
 in Matthias’ view. Hofmann handles this passage with extreme violence, 
 asserting that dre dé is an elliptical protasis,—the completion of which is to 
 be derived from the apodosis of the preceding period, from é£azéor. in ver. 
 4 onward,—that éor7é vioi is apodosis, and that the following éfaréor. x.7.2. 
 is the further result connected with it. In Hofmann’s view, Paul reminds 
 his (Gentile) readers that they are for this reason sons, because God has done 
 that act éaréoreAcv «.7.A. (ver. 4), and because He has done it in the way 
 and with the design stated in ver.4f. This interpretation is at variance 
 with linguistic usage, because the supposed elliptical use of érz dé does not 
 anywhere occur, and the analogies in the use of ei dé, etc., which Hofmann 
 adduces—some of them, however, only self-invented (as those from the epis- 
 tles of the apostle, 2 Cor. ii. 2, vii. 12)—are heterogeneous. And how 
 abruptly égaréor. 6 Ocd¢ «.7.A. would stand ! But, as regards the thought also, 
 the interpretation is unsuitable ; for they are sons, etc., not because God 
 has sent Christ, but because they have become believers in Him that was sent 
 (iii. 26 ; John i. 12); it is not that fact itself, but their faith in it, which is 
 the cause of their sonship and of their reception of the Spirit ; comp. ii. 14. 
 To refer the sending of the Spirit to the event of Pentecost (as Hofmann does), 
 by which God éaused His Spirit to initiate ‘‘a@ presence of a new kind” in the 
 world, is entirely foreign to the connection.* — é&aréoreidev 6 Ocd¢ x.7.A.] for 
 it is rd mvevua TO éx Ocov, 1 Cor. ii. 12. Observe the symmetry with éfaréor. 
 
 4 See also Weiss, Bid/. Theol. p. 340. 
 
 5 Theophylact, Ambrose, Pelagius, Koppe, 
 Flatt, Riickert, Schott. 
 
 6 Comp. iii. 11. 
 
 1 Hofmann. 
 
 2 Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Gro- 
 tius, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, 
 Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 
 de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, and 
 others. 
 
 3 On ort, because, at the beginning of the 
 sentence, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 15; John xx. 29, 
 xy. 19: 
 
 7 See on Mark xvi. 14; John ii. 18, ix. 17, 
 xi.51; xvi. 19 3.4) Cor: 1) 26eseiGormienlsy eae 
 10. 
 
 8 Comp., on the contrary, iii. 2, v. 14. 
 
CHAP. IV., 6. 175. 
 k.7.2. in ver. 4. The phrase conveys, in point of form, the solemn expres- 
 sion of the objective (ver. 4) and subjective (ver. 5) certainty of salvation, but, 
 in a dogmatic point of view, the like personal relation of the Spirit, whom 
 God has sent forth from Himself as He sent forth Christ. — 7d rvevya row 
 viov aitov] So Paul designates the Holy Spirit, because he represents the re- 
 ception of the Spirit as the proof of sonship ; for the Spirit of the Son can- 
 not be given to any, who are of a different nature and are not also vioi Oeov.* 
 But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, inasmuch as He is the divine 
 principle of Christ’s self-communication, by whose dwelling and ruling in 
 the heart Christ Himself? dwells and rules livingly, really, and efficaciously 
 (ii. 20) in the children of God.* Comp. the Johannean discourses as to the 
 self-revelation and the coming of Christ in the Paraclete. [See Note LV., 
 p. 213. ]— 7juév] The change of persons arose involuntarily from the apostle’s 
 own lively, experimental consciousness of this blessedness.*— xpdfov] The 
 strong word expresses the matter as it was : with crying the deep fervor ex- 
 cited by the Spirit broke forth into appeal to the Father.° The Spirit 
 Himself is here represented as crying (it is different in Rom. /.c.), because 
 the Spirit. is so completely the active author of the Abba-invocation, that 
 the man who invokes appears only as the organ of the Spirit. Comp. the 
 analogy of the opposite case—the crying of the unclean spirits (Mark i. 26, 
 ix. 26). —’A{Ga 6 ratgp] The usual view taken by modern expositors,°® fol- 
 lowing Erasmus and Beza, in this passage, as in Rom. viii. 15 and in Mark 
 xiv. 36, is, that 6 xarjp is appended as an explanation of the Aramaic Abhi 
 for Greek readers ;7 along with which stress is laid on the ‘‘ childlike sound” 
 of the expression, so foreign to the Greek readers.* But see, against this 
 view, on Rom. vill. 15. No; ’A@Ba, the address of Christ the Son of God 
 to His Father, which had been heard times without number by the apostles 
 and the first believers, had become so established and sacred in Christian pray- 
 er that it had assumed the nature of a proper name, so that the deep and lively 
 emotion of the consciousness of sonship could now superadd the appella- 
 tive 6 raz ; and the use of the two in conjunction had gradually become so 
 habitual,® that in Mark xiv. 36, by an hysteron proteron, they are placed even 
 in the mouth of Christ. In opposition to this view, which is adopted by 
 Hilgenfeld and Matthias, it has been objected by Fritzsche,” that 6 rarjp 
 expresses exactly the same as the Aramaic 838, and that, if S38 had assumed 
 the nature of a proper name, this name would very often have occurred 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. viii. 9. 
 
 2 Comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 17. 
 
 3 See on Rom. viii. 9, 14. 
 
 4 Comp. Rom. vii. 4. 
 
 5 Comp. Rom. viii. 15; also Ps. xxii. 3, 
 RV keKo.: Baruch iii. J; iv. 20: 
 
 6 See the usual view of the ancient ex- 
 positors, following Augustine, in Luther: 
 “ Abba pater cur geminarit, cum grammat- 
 ica ratio non appareat, placet vulgata ra- 
 tio mysterii, quod idem Spiritus fidei sit Ju- 
 daeorum et gentium, duorum populorum 
 unius Dei,” ‘‘ As to why he cries ‘ Abba, 
 
 Father,’ since a grammatical reason is 
 not apparent, the ordinarily received ex- 
 planation of the mystery is satisfactory, 
 viz., that the spirit of faith of Jews and 
 Gentiles is of the one God of two peoples, is 
 the same.’? Comp. Calyin and Bengel. 
 
 7So0 Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Rickert, Us- 
 teri, Schott. 
 
 § Hofmann. 
 
 ® Bengel appropriately remarks, ‘‘haec 
 tessera filiorum in Novo Testamento,” “‘ this 
 pledge of sons in the New Testament.” 
 
 10 @@ Rom. Il. p, 140. 
 
176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 in the N. T. and afterwards instead of Oed¢ ; and people would not have 
 said constantly ’ABBa 6 ratyp, but also ’ABBa 6 Oedc. But these objections 
 would only avail to confute our view, if it were maintained that ’ABBa had 
 become in general a proper name of God (as was 17 in the O. T. and the 
 other names of God), so that it would have been used at every kind of men- 
 tion of God. The word is, however, to be regarded merely as a name used 
 in prayer: only he who prayed addressed God by this name ; and just be- 
 cause he was aware that this name was an original appellative and expressed 
 the paternal character of God, he added the purely appellative correspond- 
 ing term 6 rargp, and in doing so satisfied the fervor of his feeling of sonship. 
 This remark applies also to Wieseler’s objection, that ’Afa could only have 
 continued to be used as an appellative. It might become a name just as well 
 as, for instance, Adonai, but with the consciousness still remaining of its 
 appellative origin and import. Moreover, that the address in prayer ’ABBa 
 6 xatip took its rise among the Greek Jewish-Christians, and first became 
 habitual among them, is clear of itself on account of the Hebrew Abba. It 
 is to be remarked also, that, according to the Rabbins, analogous emotional 
 combinations of a Hebrew and a Greek address, which mean quite the same 
 thing, were in use.’ Fritzsche’s view is, that the ’A8fa of prayer, which 
 had through Christ’s use of it become sacred and habitual, was so frequent- 
 ly explained on the part of the teachers of the Gentile Christians, as of Paul, 
 by the addition of 6 rarjp, that it had become a dabit with these teachers to 
 say, ABBa 6 xatyp. But this would be a mechanical explanation which, at 
 least in the case of Paul, is @ priort not probable, and can least of all be as- 
 sumed in a case where the fervid emotion of prayer? is exhibited. Paul 
 would have very improperly allowed himself to be ruled by the custom. 
 Wieseler contents himself with the strengthening of the idea by two synony- 
 mous expressions, but this still fails to explain why rarep, marep,* or watep 
 6 rat jyov,' is not said, just as Kipve, kipve, and the like. — On the nomina- 
 tive with the article, as in apposition to the vocative, see Kriiger, § 45. 2. 7. 
 Ver. 7. "Qore] Inference from vv. 5 and 6,—otxér.] no longer as in the 
 pre-Christian condition, when thou wast in bondage to the crovyeia tov 
 xdouwov. — i] The language, addressing every reader, not merely the Gentile 
 readers (Hofmann), advances in its individualizing application.®— ei dé 
 vide, kai KAnpovopoc| But if thou art ason (and not a slave, who does not in- 
 herit from his master), thou art also an heir, as future possessor of the Mes- 
 sianic salvation, and art so (not in any way through the law, but) through 
 God (dia @cod ; see the critical notes), who, as a consequence of His adoption 
 of thee as a son, has made thee also His heir. To Him thou art indebted 
 for this ultimate blessing, to be attained by means of sonship. This dca 
 Gcov cannot also apply to vid¢ (Hofmann), so that 4/7’ should include all the 
 
 
 
 1 See Hrub. f. 58. 2: °VD VD (mi domine, 
 mi xvpte, ““ my Lord’). Comp. Schemoth 
 rabo. f. 140.2: “AN 77) YP: See Schoett- 
 gen, Hor. p. 252. 
 
 2 And let it be noticed, that in al the 
 three passages where ’ABfa 0 wat7p occurs 
 
 (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv.6; Mark xiv. 86), the 
 most fervid tone of prayer prevails. 
 
 3 Comp. Soph. O. @. 1101. 
 
 4 Comp. «vpte 6 KUptos Hav, PS. Vili. 2. 
 
 5 Ver. 5, awoAdBwpev; ver. 6, €ore; ver. 7, 
 ei. Comp. y. 26, vi. 1. 
 
CHAPS 1V., %. aur 
 rest of the verse in one sentence. With ei dé a new sentence begins. Other- 
 wise Paul must have written : aA2’ vidc, vide J2 Ov Kai KAnpovduoc. Riickert 
 
 unjustly blames the apostle for having, in «i dé vidc, cai KAnp., departed from 
 the right track of his thoughts, because in ver. 1 he had started at once 
 from the idea of xAypovduoc. But in ver. 1 the apostle, in fact, has not 
 started from the Messianic idea of KAnpovduoc, but from its lower analogue in 
 civil life. With respect to the legal aspect of the conclusion itself, ei dé vide, 
 kai KAyp.'—in which, by the way, the father is conceived as dividing the in- 
 heritance during his lifetime,—the idea is not based on the Jewish law of 
 inheritance,” according to which the (legitimately born) sons alone,* if there 
 were such, —the first-born among these taking, according to Deut. xxi. 17, 
 a double portion,—were, as a rule, intestate heirs. The apostle’s idea is 
 founded on the intestate succession of the Roman law, with which Paul as 
 a Roman citizen was acquainted, as in fact it was well known in the prov- 
 inces and applied there as regarded Roman citizens.* According to the 
 Roman law sons and daughters, whether born in marriage or adopted chil- 
 dren (and Paul conceives Christians as belonging to the latter class), were 
 intestate heirs. It is evident in itself, and from ili. 28, that vidc, which 
 Paul used here on account of its correlation with dovjoc, does not, in ‘the 
 popular mode of expression, exclude the female sex.° To assume a mere 
 allusion to general human laws of succession (Wieseler) is not sufficient ; for 
 Paul has very distinctly and clearly conceived and designated the vidryc¢ of 
 the Christian as a relation of adoption, which presupposes for his conclusion 
 as to the heirship a special legal reference, and not merely the general and 
 vague correlation of the ideas of childship and heirship. The clear precision 
 of his thought vouches for this, and it ought not to be evaded by declaring 
 such a legal question even foolish (Hofmann),—a dogmatical judgment 
 which is all the more precipitate, as the specific Johannean idea of the di- 
 vine begetting of the children of God’? can by no means be found in the 
 Pauline rvevua viofeciac.* Besides, viofecia is, and after all remains, nothing 
 else than the quite definite legal idea of adoption, which separates the vioi 
 eloxointoi OY Oeroi ® from those begotten or yvyacoi. 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. viii. 17. 
 
 2 So Grotius, who says: “‘Jure Hebr. filii 
 tantum haeredes, sed sub illo nomine indi- 
 eantur omnes fideles cujusque sint sexus,”’ 
 ‘““By the Hebrew law only the sons are 
 
 jure aestimanda sit, in Fritzschior. Opusc. 
 p. 143 ff. 
 
 7 Comp. Weiss, dibl. Theol. p. 717 ff. 
 
 ® The adoption into the state of children 
 takes place on God’s part along with justi- 
 
 heirs ; but under this name all believers, 
 whatever be their sex, are indicated.”” The 
 fact that Christians are the adopted children 
 of God, is decidedly opposed to this. 
 
 3In Proy. xvii. 2 nothing is said of 
 adoption. 
 
 4See Keil, Archdol. II. § 142; Ewald, Al- 
 terth. p. 238 f ; Saalschiitz, . R. p. 820f. 
 
 5 Comp. also Fritzsche, Tholuck, and van 
 Hengel, on Rom. viii. 17. ; 
 
 6 On the whole of this subject, see C. F. A. 
 Fritzsche, utrum Pauli argumentatio Rom. 
 Vili. 17 ef Gal. iv. 7, Hebraeo an Romano 
 
 by 
 
 fication, and is on man’s part certain to the 
 believing self-consciousness, to which the 
 mvevma viodecias also attests it. Beyschlag 
 (Christol. p. 222) wrongly holds that the 
 communication of the Spirit is itself the 
 viobecia, No, those who receive the Spirit 
 are already believing, justified, and thereby 
 vidderor, and obtain through the Spirit the 
 testimony that they are vioc,—a testimony 
 which agrees with that of their own con- 
 sciousness, ouvpzpaptupet, Rom. viii. 16. See 
 on Rom. viii. 15. 
 
 9 Pollux, iii. 21. 
 
178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Ver. 8. ’A2Ad] Nevertheless, how fearfully at variance is your present ret- 
 rograde attitude with the fact of this divine deliverance from your previous 
 lost condition ! This topic is dealt with down to ver. 11. Observe that 
 az2a introduces the two corresponding relations rére wév and viv dé in con- 
 junetion.' — rére] then ; reminds the reader of the past time, in which they 
 were still dotAor (ver. 7). —ovx eiddrec Oedv] Cause of the édovreboate which 
 follows. In the non-knowledge of God (for oix eidér. forms one idea) lies the 
 fundamental essence of the heathenism, to which the apostle’s readers had 
 mostly belonged.” As to the relation of the thought to Rom. i. 20 f., see 
 on that passage. — édovdeboare] The aorist simply designates the state of 
 bondage then existing as now at an end, without looking at its duration or de- 
 velopment. * —- roic gicer uy odor Oeoic| to the gods, who by nature, however, are not 
 so! For, in the apostle’s view, the realities which were worshipped by the 
 heathen as gods, were not gods, but demons.‘ In his view, therefore, their 
 nature was not divine, but at the same time not of mere mundane matter ;> it 
 was demoniac,—a point which must have been well known to the Galatians 
 from his oral instruction. — The negation denies subjectively, from the apos- 
 tle’s view.® [See Note LVL. p. 213.] 
 
 Ver. 9. Trdvrec Odv] After ye have known God through the preaching of 
 the gospel. Olshausen’s opinion, that ¢eidére¢ denotes more the merely 
 external knowledge that God is, while j7évre¢ signifies the inward essential 
 cognition, is shown to be an arbitrary fancy by passages such as John vii. 
 37, vill. 55 ; 2 Cor. v. 16. [See Note LVII., p. 213.] — uaArov dé] imo vero, a 
 corrective climax," in order to give more startling prominence to the following 
 zOc érotpépere K.7.A., aS Indicating not a mere falling away from the knowl- 
 edge of God, but rather a guilty opposition to Him. — yrwobévrec id Ocoi] 
 ajier ye have been known by God. This is the saving knowledge, of which on 
 God’s part men become the objects, when He interests Himself on their be- 
 half to deliver them. Into the erperience of having been thus graciously 
 known by God the Galatians were brought by means of the divine work 
 which had taken place in them, anticipating their own volition and endea- 
 vor—the work of their calling, enlightenment, and conversion® [see Note 
 LVIII., p. 214] ; so that they therefore, when they knew God, became in that 
 very knowledge aware of their being known by God,—the one being implied in 
 the other—through their divinely bestowed admission into the fellowship of 
 Christ.° Hofmann desires the condition of the acceptance of grace to be men- 
 
 
 
 1 But so, that the thought introduced by 
 6é (ver. 9) is the main thought. Comp. 
 Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 168. 
 
 * Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5; Acts xvii. 23, 30, 
 td. 
 
 3 See Kiihner, II. p. 73 f. 
 
 4 See on 1 Cor. x. 20. 
 
 (following Chrysostom) rightly explains* 
 tmpoaAnpbevtes Ud Ocod, “taken hold of by 
 God.” Because of God’s knowing them 
 they have known God; consequently not, 
 “proprio Marte vel acumine sui ingenii 
 vel industria, sed guia Deus misericordia 
 sua eos praevenerit, quum nihil minus quam 
 
 5 Ewald, comp. Wisd. xiii. 1 ff. 
 
 § Comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 9: éyévero eis iepéa 
 TO LY OvTL Oca, 
 
 7 Rom. viii. 34; Eph. v. 11; Jacobs, ad 
 Ach. Tat. Tl. p. 955; Kiihner, ad@ Xen. Mem. 
 ili. 13 6; Grimm, on Wisd. viii. 19. 
 
 *Hence in point of fact Theophylact 
 
 de ipso cogitarent,”’ ‘‘ by their own effort or 
 the acuteness of their genius or by their 
 industry, but because God by His mercy has 
 anticipated them, while they were thinking 
 less of nothing than of Him,”’ Calvin. 
 
 ® Comp. Ignat. ad@ Magnes. interpol, 1: &’ 
 ov (through Christ) éyywre Oedv, waddAov dé bx" 
 
CIES EVs. Oe abi) 
 
 tally supplied ; but this is arbitrary in itself,and is also incorrect, because those, 
 who are the objects of God’s gracious knowledge, are already known to Him 
 by means of His zpéyvwore as the credituri, ‘‘ those who are to believe,” and are 
 ordained by Him to salvation (see on Rom. viii. 29f.). But the /iteral sense 
 cognoscere is not to be altered either into approbare, amare,’ or into agnoscere 
 suos ;® nor is it to be understood in the sense of Hophal : brought to the knowl!- 
 edge ;* nor can we, with Olshausen, turn it into the being penetrated with 
 the love wrought by God, which only follows upon the being known by 
 God, 1 Cor. viii. 3. Lastly, there has been introduced, in a way entirely 
 un-Pauline, the idea of the self-recognition of the Divine Spirit in us,‘ 
 or of the consciousness of the identity of the human and the divine 
 knowing (Hilgenfeld). On the deliberate change from the active to the 
 passive, yvévrec, yvoobévrec, comp. Phil. ili. 12. Luther, moreover, appropri- 
 ately remarks, ‘‘non zdeo cognoscuntur guia cognoscunt, sed contra quia 
 cogniti sunt, ideo cognoscunt,” ‘‘It is not because they know that they are 
 known ; but, on the contrary, they know because they have been known.” 
 —réc] ‘‘interrogatio admirabunda,” ‘‘ wonderful question” (Bengel), as in 
 ii, 12.— raw] does not mean backwards,’ as in Homer,® —a rendering 
 opposed to the usage of the N. T. generally, and here in particular to the 
 mraAw dveobev which follows ; it means iterwm, and refers to the fact that the 
 readers had previously been already in bondage to the crayeia, namely, 
 most of them as heathen. Now they turn indeed (ériorpégere, present tense, 
 as in i. 6) to the Jewish ordinances ; but the heathen and Jewish elements’ 
 are both included in the category of the crovyeia tov Kéopov,® so that Paul is 
 logically correct in using the rad ; and the hypothesis of Nésselt,® that the 
 greater part of the readers had been previously proselytes of the gate, is 
 entirely superfluous, and indeed at variance with the description of the pre- 
 Christian condition of the Galatians given in ver. 8; for according to ver. 
 8, the great mass of them must have been purely heathen before their con- 
 version, because there is no mention of any intermediate condition between 
 tére and viv. According to Wieseler,” rd/uy is intended to point back to their 
 conversion to Christ, so that the turning to the crovyeia is designated as 
 a second renewed conversion (ériatpédere), namely, in pejus. This would 
 yield an ironical contrast, but is rendered impossible by the words oi¢ raAw 
 Wieseler is driven to adopt so artificial an explanation, 
 because he understands the orovyeia as referring to the law only ; and this 
 compels him afterwards to give an incorrect explanation of oi¢. — acdev7 x. 
 
 
 
 avobev dovaA. OéAete. 
 
 avrTod eyvéabnte, ‘through whom we knew 
 God, or rather were known of Him.’’ Simi- 
 larly, in an opposite sense, ad Smyrn. 5: ov 
 Twes ayvoovvTes apvovvTar (abnegant), wadAov 
 be npvyOncav (abnegati sunt) vn’ avtovd (by 
 Christ), ‘“‘whom some ignorantly deny, or 
 rather were denied of Him.’’ See on 1 Cor. 
 Vili. 3, xiii. 12; also Matt. vii. 23. 
 
 1 Grotius and others. 
 
 2 Wetstein, Vater, Winer, Riickert, Usteri, 
 Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others. 
 
 3 Beza, Er. Schmidt, Cornelius & Lapide, 
 
 Wolf, Noésselt, Koppe, Flatt, and others. 
 
 4 Matthies. 
 
 5 Flatt, Hofmann. 
 
 6 See Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 886; Na- 
 gelsbach 2. Jias, p. 34, ed. 3. 
 
 7 On the latter, see Heb. vii. 18 f. 
 
 8 See on ver. 3. 
 
 ® Opusc. I. p. 293 ff.; comp. Mynster in his 
 kl. theol. Schr. p. %6; Credner, Hini., and 
 Olshausen. 
 
 10 Comp. also Reithmayr. 
 
180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 mrwya| because they cannot effect and bestow, what God by the sending of 
 His Son has effected and bestowed (ver. 5).'— rddvv dvwev| for those revert- 
 ing to Judaism desired to begin again from the commencement the slave-service 
 of the orosyeia, which they had abandoned.? Not a pleonasm, as rdAw éx 
 devtépov (Matt. xxvi. 42), maduv aitic (Hom. 1.1. 59), or devrepov aidic (Hom. 
 Tl. i. 513) ; but the repetition is represented as a new commencement of the 
 matter, as é« véac aifuc apyyc, ‘‘ again from a new beginning,” and raj é&€ 
 apy, ‘again from the beginning.” * It is just the same in the instances in 
 Wetstein. The oic is, however, the simple dative as in ver. 8 and usually with 
 Sovaeiew ; it is not equivalent to év oi¢ (Wieseler), with dova. used absolutely. 
 — fléaete] ye desire, ye have the wish and the longing for, this servitude! ® 
 Ver. 10. Facts which vouch for the émvorpéoere maduv x.7.2. just expressed. 
 — The interrogative view, which Griesbach, Koppe, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 Hilgenfeld, following Battier,* take, has been again abandoned by Usteri, 
 Schott, and Wieseler ; and Hofmann prefers the sense of sorrowful exela- 
 mation. But the continuance of the reproachful interrogative form (ver. 9) 
 corresponds better to the increasing pitch of surprise and amazement, and 
 makes ver. 11 come in with greater weight. — raparnpeicfe] Do ye already 
 so far realize your @éAere 2 Ye take care, sedulo vobis observatis, ‘ solicitously 
 observe,” namely, to neglect nothing which is prescribed in the law for 
 certain days and seasons.” The idea superstitiose, ‘‘ of superstitiously,” ° is not 
 implied in xapa, nor the praeter fidem, ‘‘ beside faith,” which Bengel finds in 
 it. — juépac| Sabbaths, fast and feast days. Comp. Rom. xiv. 5, 6 [Col. ii. 
 16]. — pjvac] is usually referred to the new moons. But these, the feast-days 
 at the beginning of each month, come under the previous category of jujpac. 
 In keeping with the other points, raparnpeicba: ujvac must be the observance 
 of certain months as pre-eminently sacred months. Thus the seventh month 
 (Tisri), as the proper sabbatical month, was specially sacred ; ° and the fourth, 
 fifth, seventh, and tenth months were distinguished by special fasts. — 
 karpovc|] DIY, Lev. xxiii. 4. The holy festal seasons, such as those of the 
 Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, are meant ; ‘‘ quibus hoc 
 aut illud fas erat aut nefas,” ‘‘ whereon this or that was lawful or unlawful,” 
 Erasmus.—éviavrotc] applies to the sabbatical years,” which occurred every 
 seventh year, but not to the jubilee years, which had, at least after the time 
 of Solomon, fallen into abeyance." But that the Galatians were at that 
 time in some way actually celebrating a sabbatical year (Wieseler), cannot 
 be certainly inferred from évavr., which has in reality its due warrant as 
 belonging to the consistency and completeness of the theory. Onthe whole 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. viii. 3, x. 12; Heb. vii. 18. 
 
 2apxais mpotépats éemduevor, ** proceeding 
 upon their former beginnings.’’ Pind. OJ. 
 x. 94. Comp. Wisd. xix. 6. 
 
 3 Pint. solert. anim. p. 959. 
 
 4 Barnab. Zp. 16. 
 
 5 Comp. ver. 21. 
 
 8 Bibl. Brem. VI. p. 104. 
 
 7 Comp. Joseph. Antéé. iii. 5. 5: maparnpecv 
 Tas éBdouddas, ‘to earefully observe the 
 
 seventh days ;’’ also Dio Cass. liii. 10 (of the 
 observance of a law). 
 
 8 Winer, Bretschneider, Olshausen, and 
 others. 
 
 9See Ewald, Alterth. p. 469 f.; 
 Archdol. I. p. 368 ff. 
 
 10 See, as to these, Ewald, p. 488 ff. ; Keil, 
 p. 371 ff. 
 
 11 Ewald, p. 501. 
 
 Keil, 
 
CHAP 0Vs., Lis 12: 181 
 passage, comp. Col. ii. 16, and Philo, de septenar. p. 286.—From our 
 passage, moreover, we see how far, and within what limits, the Galatians 
 had already been led astray.’ They had not yet adopted circumcision, but 
 were only in danger of being brought to it (v. 2, 3, 12, vi. 12, 13). Nothing 
 at all is said in the epistle as to any distinction of meats (comp. Col. 1.c.), 
 except so far as it was implied in the observance of days, etc. Usteri 
 (comp. Riickert) is of opinion that Paul did not mention circumcision and 
 the distinction of meats, because he desired to represent the present religious 
 attitude of his readers as analogous to their heathen condition. But, accord- 
 ing to the comprehensive idea of the oroyeia tov xéowov, even the mention 
 of circumcision and the distinctions of meats would have been in no way in- 
 appropriate to the ra/v dvebev. Olshausen quite arbitrarily asserts that the 
 usages mentioned stand by synecdoche for all. 
 
 Ver. 11. b0Boiuar buac, pazwc x.7.A.| not attraction,? because, if this had 
 been the case, tueic must have been the subject of wyrwe «.7.4.2 On the con- 
 trary, goBovwa: duac is to be taken by itself, and pyro x.t.A. as a more pre- 
 cise definition of it : ‘‘ lam afraid about you, lest perhaps I,” etc.‘ It is not 
 without cause that Paul has added tac, but in the consciousness that his 
 apprehension had reference not to his own interests (his possibly fruitless la- 
 bor, taken by itself), but to his readers ; they themselves were the object of 
 his anxiety, their deliverance, their salvation.® — eixy] without saving result 
 (iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 2), because ye are in the course of falling away from the 
 life of Christian faith, which through my labors was instituted among you. 
 —kexoriaxa] Perfect indicative ; for the thought was before the apostle’s 
 mind, that this case had actually occurred.* —ei¢ iuac] for you ; sic denotes 
 the reference of the toilsome labor which he had undergone ¢o the Galatians. 
 Comp. Rom. xvi. 6. — Luther (1524), moreover, aptly remarks on ver. 11 : 
 “¢ Lacrymas Pauli haec verba spirant,” ‘‘these words of Paul breathe tears.” 
 
 Ver. 12.7 After this expression of anxiety, now follows the exhortation 
 to return, and with what cordiality of affection ! ‘‘Subito. . 
 argumenta conciliantia et moventia admovet,” ‘‘ He suddenly employs ap- 
 
 . 707 Kai 7aOn, 
 
 1De Wette very arbitrarily considers gma ot didor... doBovvta, “such a body 
 
 that the present tense denotes, not the 
 reality then present, but only the necessary 
 consequence of the emartp. and Sova. @€AerTe, 
 conceived as being already present. 
 
 2 Winer, Usteri, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, 
 Wieseler, Buttmann. 
 
 3 Plat. Legg. x. p. 886 A: hoBodmat ye Tovs 
 MoxOypol’s .. . Ky THs VuaY KaTadpovicwarr, 
 “T fear the knaves, that perchance they 
 may despise you.” Phaedr. p. 232 C, do- 
 Bovpevor tovs wev ovoiav KexTyuevous, “NH 
 XPNMacw avTo’s UmepBadrwvra, ‘ Fearing 
 those having acquired property, that they 
 might exceed them in wealth.” Diod. Sic. 
 iv. 40; Thue. iv. 1.1; Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 18, 
 vii. 1.2; Soph. Trach. 547. See the passages 
 in Winer, p. 581 ff. ; Kriiger, gramm. Unters. 
 II. p. 162 ff.; Kiihner, IT. p. 611. 
 
 4Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 D: rovodrov 
 
 the friends fear” (are apprehensive about 
 it). Soph. O. R. 767: SéSocx’ guavtrov .. . 
 LH TOAN’ aya cipnuev’ y mor, “I was alarmed 
 about myself that too many things had been 
 spoken by me.” 
 
 5The mode of expression is analogous 
 also in a hostile sense, ¢.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 3.18: 
 epoBovvto Tov Onpamevynv, wn TUppvElyoay mpos 
 avroy ot moAttar, ‘* They feared Theramenes, 
 lest the citizens might pass over to him.” 
 Thue. iv. 8.5: tyv 6€ vacov TavTnv poBovpevor, 
 wy e& avtns Tov mOAcHOV odict ToL@vTaL, “‘hay- 
 ing feared this island, lest from it they 
 might make war on them.” 
 
 6 Hermann, ad Hur. Med. 310, Elmsl. ; 
 Winer, p. 469; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. 
 p. 84 E. 
 
 7 As tovy. 12-20, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, in 
 Fritzschior. Opuse. p. 231 ff. 
 
182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 peals to win their favor and move their sympathy,” Bengel. — yiveode d¢ 
 éyd, bre Kayo O¢ tueic] is explained in two ways,—either as a summons to 
 give up Judaistic habits, or as a summons to love. The correct interpreta- 
 tion is: ‘‘ Become as I, become free from Judaism as I am, for I also have 
 become as you ; for I also, when I abandoned Judaism, thereby became as a 
 Gentile (ii. 14 ; Phil. iii. 7 f.), and placed myself on the same footing with 
 you who were then Gentiles, by non-subjection to the Mosaic law. Now 
 render to me the reciprocum, ‘reciprocity,’ to which love has a claim.” ? 
 This interpretation is not only in the highest degree suitable to the thought- 
 ful delicacy of the apostle—who might justly (in opposition to Wicseler’s 
 objection) represent his former secession from Judaism as a service rendered 
 to his readers (as Gentiles), because he had in fact seceded to be a con- 
 verter of the Gentiles—but is the only explanation in harmony with the words 
 and the context. ’Eyevéu7v must be supplied in the second clause, and to 
 take it from yiveo6e is just as allowable as in 1 Cor. xi. 1 (in opposition to 
 Hofmann).? As to «ayé, comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 1. Following Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret and Theophylact, Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Vatablus, Sem- 
 ler, and others, also Matthies, interpret : ‘‘ Become as I, abandon Judaism ; 
 for I also was once a zealous adherent of it like you, but have undergone a 
 change.” But as éyevéuyv isthe only supplement which suggests itself in 
 harmony with the context, Paul must have written the jv, which on this 
 view requires to be supplied,* and this jv would in that case have con- 
 veyed the main element of the motive.* But as Paul has written, the point 
 of the passage lies in his desire that his readers should become like unto 
 him, as he also had become like to the readers. Schott ° correctly supplies 
 éyevounv, but he again supplies éyevécHe with ipeic : ‘‘ siquidem ego quoque 
 factus sum, quales vos facti estis, cum Jesu Christo nomen daretis, abjeci 
 studia pristina Judaismi pariter atque vos olim abjecistis,” ‘Since I also 
 became, as ye became when ye enlisted with Jesus Christ ; I rejected the 
 former pursuits of Judaism, in like manner as ye formerly rejected them.” 
 Incorrectly, because this would presuppose that Paul was speaking to Jewish 
 Christians, and because the motive, thus understood, could only have been 
 of real avail as a motive in the event of Paul having been converted later 
 than the Galatians. Jerome, Erasmus,* Cornelius 3 Lapide, Estius, Mi- 
 chaelis, Riickert, interpret : ‘‘ Become as I, lay aside Judaism, jor I also have 
 lovingly accommodated myself to you ;” comp. Wieseler : ‘‘ Because I also, when 
 I brought the gospel to you, from a loving regard toward you Gentiles put aside 
 Jewish habits” (ii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 21).7 Against this view it may be urged, 
 5 Comp. Rosenmiiller and Flatt. 
 
 1 So Koppe, Winer, Usteri, Neander, 
 
 Fritzsche, de Wette, Hilgenfeld. 
 
 2 Comp. Phil. ii. 5; and see generally, 
 Kriiger, § lxii. 4. 1; Winer, p. 541 f.; Xen. 
 Anab. Vii. 7. 13: mpoepav azep avTa, 
 
 3As Justin. ad Graec. ii. p. 40. ed. Col. 
 yiveobe ws ey, OTL Kayo HUNV ws VMELs, “* be- 
 come as I, because I also was as ye.” 
 
 4 Fui, nec amplius sum, *“‘ Iwas, but am no 
 longer.” 
 
 6 In his Annotationes. 
 
 7 So also in substance Olshausen, Ellicott, 
 Reithmayr, and others ; similarly also Hof- 
 mann. According to Hofmann, Paul says 
 of himself that he places himself on an equal- 
 ity with his Gentile readers (inasmuch as, 
 where his vocation requires it, he lives 
 among the Gentiles asif he were not a Jew), 
 and, on the other hand, requires of them 
 
CHAPS DYs, 0122 183 
 that, in Paul’s working as an apostle to the Gentiles, his non-Judaistic atti- 
 tude was a matter of principle, and not a matter of considerate accommodation, 
 and that long before he preached to the Galatians. Besides, the result would 
 be adissimilar relation between the two members ; for Paul cannot require 
 the putting away of Jewish habits asa matter of affectionate consideration, 
 but only as a Christian necessity. [See Note LIX., p. 214.] The reciprocity 
 of what is to be done under this aspect is the point of the demand. Ac- 
 cording to Ewald, Paul says, ‘‘ As Christians, follow ye entirely my ex- 
 ample, because I too am a-simple Christian and, strictly speaking, not more 
 than you.” But thus the very idea that was most essential, that of ‘‘ a simple 
 Christian ” would not be expressed. Others, including Luther, Beza, Cal- 
 vin, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, and Morus, find the sense : 
 “* Tove me, as [love you.” But how could the reader discover this in the words 
 since Paul has not yet said a word as to any deficiency of love to him ? 
 Beza and Grotius wrongly appeal to the mode of designating one who is 
 beloved as an alter ego, an idea which é¢ éyé and dc iueic do not at all con- 
 vey. — adeddoi, déoxartipuov| The language of softened and deeply moved love. 
 The words are to be referred not to the sequel,' in which there is nothing 
 besought, but to the previous summons, with which he beseeches them to 
 comply. —ovdév ue qdiKyoare| suggests a motive for granting his entreaty 
 yiveode wc éya, by recalling their relation to him, as it had stood at the time 
 when he first preached the gospel to them : ‘‘ How should ye not grant me 
 this entreaty, since ye have done no injury to me (and certainly therefore 
 in this point just asked for, will not vex me by non-compliance) ; but ye 
 know,” etc. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, Pelagius, 
 Luther, Calvin, Estius, Windischmann, and others, including Winer, the 
 words are intended to give an assurance that the previous severe language 
 had not flowed from displeasure and irritation against his readers. But 
 Paul has in fact already changed, immediately before, to the tone of love ; 
 hence such an assurance here would come in too late and inappropriately. 
 Nor would the oidév ve 7duxqoare, Which on account of the connection with 
 ver. 13 evidently applies to the period of his first visit, necessarily exclude 
 a subsequent offence ; so that the ‘‘igitur non habui, quod vobis irascerer,” 
 ‘*T have, therefore, had no reason to be incensed with you” (Winer), which 
 has been discovered in these words, is not necessarily implied in them. The 
 temporal reference of the oidév ye gdikgoare, Which is definitely and necessa- 
 rily given by ver. 13, excludes also the view of Beza, Bengel, Riickert, 
 
 that they shail place themselves on an equality 
 with him (and therefore shall not live after 
 the Jewish manner, but shallshare his free- 
 dom from the law, after he has accommo- 
 dated himself to their position aloof from 
 the law). Hofmann insists, namely, on the 
 supplying of yivouac (present), which, as 
 well as yiver@e, he understands in the sense 
 of behaving and conducting themselves. 
 This sense, however, is not suitable, since 
 the readers are really to become different, and 
 not merely to accommodate themselves to 
 
 another line of conduct ; the yivec8ar would 
 not therefore retain the same sense in the 
 two halves of the verse. See also, in oppo- 
 sition to this view, Méller onde Wette. The 
 use of yiveodar in the sense of se nraestare 
 is, however, in itself linguistically admis- 
 sible (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), but 
 not in conformity with the proofs adduced 
 by Hofmann; as to which Dissen, ad Dem. 
 d. Cor. p. 239 f., takes the correct view. 
 1 Luther, Zeger, Koppe, and others. 
 
184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Ewald, and others, that Paul represents the vexation occasioned to him by 
 the relapse of his readers as having not occurred,’ in order to cncourage 
 them by this mezosis to a compliance with the yiveole dc éyé. Lastly, those 
 interpretations are incorrect, which, in spite of the enclitie we, lay an anti- 
 thetic emphasis on the latter ; as that of Grotius (‘‘ me privatim,” ‘‘me per- 
 sonally”), that of Rettig? (not me, but God and Christ), and that of Schott 
 (nihil mihi nocuistis, vobis tantum, ‘* you have injured me nothing, but only 
 yourselves”). Nor is Hofmann’s view more correct : that Paul, taking oc- 
 casion by a passage in the (alleged) epistle of his readers, desired only to 
 say to them that the ovdév ve jdixgo. was not enough ; instead of having merely 
 experienced nothing unbecoming from them, he could not but expect more 2 
 
 their hands, for which reason they ought to recall what their attitude to 
 him had been at his first visit to them. In this view what is supposed to 
 form the train of thought is a purely gratuitous importation, with the fiction 
 of a letter written by the Galatians superadded ; and the assumed strong 
 contrast to the sequel must have been marked by a yév after oddév,? or by 
 aAAa instead of dé, in order to be intelligible. — On advceiy with accusative of 
 the person and of the thing, comp. Acts xxv. 10 ; Philem. 18 ; Wolf, Lept. 
 p. 348 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 6. 7. 
 
 Vv. 18, 14. Contrast to the preceding oidév ye 7duk. Comp. Chrysostom : 
 ‘‘Ye have done nothing to injure me ; but ye doubtless know, that I on 
 account of weakness of the flesh preached the gospel to you the former time, 
 and that ye,” etc. —dv aofévevavy tH¢ capxéc] The only correct explanation, 
 because the only one agreeable to linguistic usage, is that adopted by Flatt, 
 Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and others, also by Winer, Gramm. p. 378, 
 on account of weakness of the flesh: +4 so that it is clear, that on Paul’s first 
 journey through Galatia (Acts xvi. 6) he was compelled by reason of 
 bodily weakness to make a stay there, which properly did not form a part 
 of his plan ; and that during this sojourn, forced on him by necessity, he 
 preached the gospel to the Galatians. How he suffered, and from what cause, 
 whether from natural sickness,° or from ill-treatment which he had previ- 
 
 1“ All was forgotten and forgiven,” 
 Ewald. 
 
 2 In the Stud. u. AKrit. 1830, p. 109. 
 
 SAs to Plat. Rep. p. 398 A, Hartung, 
 Partik. 1. p. 168, forms a right judgment. 
 
 4 Bengel also translates correctly : ‘* prop- 
 ter infirmitatem,” *‘ because of weakness,”’ 
 but erroneously explains that the weakness 
 was not indeed “causa praedicationis ipsius,”’ 
 “the cause of his preaching,” but ‘‘ adju- 
 mentum, cur P. eficacius praedicaret, cum 
 Galatae facilius rejicere posse viderentur,”’ 
 “an aid whereby Paul preached the more 
 efficaciously, although the Galatians might 
 seem to be able to reject him the more 
 readily.”? Similarly, but still more incor- 
 rectly, Schott, who detects an ‘‘ acumen 
 singulare” in Paul’s saying: ‘‘ per ipsam 
 aegritudinem carnis doctrinam divinam 
 vobis tradidi,” ‘‘through very weakness of 
 
 the flesh, I delivered to you the divine 
 doctrine ;” for the fact that Paul, although 
 sick, had preached very zealously, had been 
 of great influence in making his preaching 
 more successful. In this interpretation 
 everything is mistaken: for é.¢ must have 
 been used with the genitive; the “ ipsam,” 
 “very,” and the thought of swecessful preach- 
 ing are quite gratuitously imported; and 
 the whole of the alleged ‘‘ acumen” would 
 be completely out of place here, where Paul 
 wishes to remind his readers of their love 
 then shown to him, and no of the eflicacy 
 of his preaching. 
 
 > Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7. In respect to 2 Cor. 
 Z.c., Holsten, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 
 1861, p. 250 f., conceives it to refer to epi- 
 leptical disturbances of the circulatory and 
 nervous system, such as occur among vision- 
 aries. Comp. his Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 13, 14. 185 
 
 ously endured on account of the gospel,! we do not know. The mention 
 of an involuntary or rather quite unpremeditated working among the Gala- 
 tians is not opposed to the apostle’s aim,? but favorable to it ; because the 
 love which received him so heartily and joyfully must have been all the 
 greater, the less it depended on the duty of befitting gratitude for a benefit 
 previously destined for the recipients, and for exertions made expressly on 
 their account. Many others have understood dia as denoting the apostle’s 
 condition : ‘‘ amidst bodily weakness,” which is then referred by some, and 
 indeed most expositors, following Chrysostom and Luther, to persecutions 
 and sufferings, by others to his insignificant appearance,* by others to sickness, * 
 and by others even to embarrassment and perplexity on account of the strange 
 circumstances.® But in this case dca must have been used with the genitive ;° 
 for expressions such as dia daua, dia vinta, dia ordua, dv aifépa, K.T.A., in 
 which 6:4 denotes stretching through, are merely poetical.’ We should be 
 obliged to think of the occasioning state (as in dia TovTO, did TOAAG, K.7.A.), 
 which would just bring us back to our interpretation. Hence we must 
 reject also the explanation of Grotius: ‘per varios casus, per mille 
 pericula rerum perrexi, ut vos instituerem,” ‘* through various calamities, 
 through a thousand dangers, I proceeded to establish you.” Others still have 
 gone so far as to refer J? ao#. t7%¢ capxéc to Weakness of the Galatians, to 
 which Paul accommodated himself. So Jerome, Estius, Hug, and Rettig /.e. 
 p. 108 ff. : ‘‘ I have preached to you on account of the weakness of your flesh,” 
 which is supposed to mean: ‘‘I have in my preaching had respect to the 
 infirmity of your flesh.” Utterly mistaken : because Paul must necessarily 
 have added a modal definition to etyyy. (even if it had only been an oitwe), 
 or must have written kav’ ao#. instead of 6” aof. ; moreover, év TH capKi jov in 
 ver. 14 shows that Paul meant the acfévera ti¢ capKécg to apply to himself. — 
 TO mpdérepov| may mean cither : earlier, at an earlier time, so that it would be 
 said from the standpoint of the present,® which in relation to the past is the 
 later time (John vi. 62, vii. 51, ix. 8; 2 Cor. i. 15 ; 1 Tim. i. 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 
 iweb. x. 32; LXX. Deut. 11. 12 3-1 Chron, ix: 2’; 1 Macc. xi. 27) ; or 
 the former time, so that the same fact (the preaching) took place twice 
 (Heb. iv. 6, vii. 27). It is interpreted in the former sense by Usteri and 
 Fritzsche, and in the latter by Koppe, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Baumgar- 
 ten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, and 
 others.* The latter is the correct view, so that 1d zpdrepov presupposes a 
 second sojourn of the apostle among the Galatians. For if he had preached 
 
 1 Comp. Gal. vi. 17. 6€ Kadunida ynv Kadovnevny, ‘the country 
 2 As Riickert objects. now called Boeotia, but at an earlier time 
 8 Calvin. Cadmeis,” Isocr. de pace, § 121 and Bremi 
 ' 4Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald ; in loc. 
 comp. also in Jerome. 9 The older expositors, translating it jam 
 5 Baumgarten-Crusius. pridem (Vulgate), or privs (Erasmus, Beza, 
 ® See Matthiae, p. 1853; Fritzsche, ad@ Calvin), or antea (Castalio), do not for the 
 Rom. I. p. 138. most part attempt any more precise expla- 
 7™See Schaefer, ad Mosch. 4. 91; Bern- nation. Luther: ‘for the first time.” Chry- 
 hardy, p. 236 f.; Kiihner, IT. p. 282. sostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact do not 
 
 8 Thuc. i. 12.2: thy viv Bowrtiav, mporepov give any explanation of 70 mpor. 
 
186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 among them only once, 7d rpétepov would have been quite an idle, superfiu- 
 ous addition. But Paul adds it just in order to denote quite distinctly his 
 Jirst visit, during which he founded the churches (Acts xvi. 6) : at his seeond 
 visit (Acts xviii. 23), the happy experiences which he had enjoyed 7d rpére- 
 po? were not repeated in such full measure ; the churches were already tainted 
 by Judaism. Comp. Introd. § 2, 3. Fritzsche, indeed, maintains that vv. 
 18, 19 imply that Paul before the composition of the epistle had only once 
 visited the Galatians ; but see on ver. 19. 
 
 Ver. 14. Still dependent on dr, as is logically required by the contrast to 
 ovdév pe 701x., Which is introduced by oidare dé, 671. — Tov retpacpdy budy év 
 Th capKi wou x.7.A.| As to the reading iuér, see the critical notes. The sense 
 is : that ye were put to the proof as respected my bodily weakness (namely, as to 
 your receiving and accepting my announcements, demands, etc., notwith- 
 standing this my suffering and impotent appearance ; see the antithesis, 
 GA Oc K.t.4.) 3 this proof ye have not rejected with disdain and aversion, but on 
 the contrary have submitted yourselves to it so excellently, that ye received me as 
 an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. The kai is not and yet,’ but the simple 
 and, continuing the address (oidate, 6ru k.7.4.). —év TH capi ov] is the more 
 precise definition of rov recpaou. iuov, specifying wherein the readers had to 
 undergo a trial,—namely, in the fact of Paul’s having then preached to them 
 in such bodily weakness.* Hence év rj capxi did not require the connecting 
 article, as it is in reality blended with rdv recpacudv dudv so as to form one 
 idea. And the definition of the sense of év rij capxe wov is derived from 6’ 
 acbéverav tHe capkéc in ver. 18. Fritzsche, l.c. p. 245, objects to the sense 
 which is given by the reading tuav : 1. sententiam ab h. 1. abhorrere, ‘* The 
 sense is inconsistent with the connection.”” But how aptly does the negative as- 
 sertion, that the Galatians, when they were put to the trial by the apostle’s 
 sickness, did not despise and reject this trial, correspond with the positive 
 idea, that, on the contrary, they have received him as an angel of God ! 
 And how suitable are the two ideas together to the previous oidév ye 7dcK7- 
 cate! 2. Sententiam verbis parum aptis conceptam esse; expectaras Kahac 
 imeweivare, ‘* The sense is inadequately expressed by the words ; and that we 
 should expect xaroc ireueivate.”” But this xara ireueivare is in fact most ex- 
 haustively represented by the negative and positive testimony taken together ; 
 the negative testimony expresses the acceptance, and the positive the stand- 
 ing, of the reipacudc. 8. The sense does not suit the following aan” . . . &dé- 
 facbé we. But even with the adoption of the reading tov the rejection 
 of the apostle is in point of fact negatived ; hence rév reipacuov iwov.. . 
 é€ertioare cannot be inappropriate to the édéfacbé we which follows. Lach- 
 mann‘ makes «ai rov wecpaou. iu. év T. o. uw. Gependent on oidare (placing a 
 colon after év 77 capki ov), whereby the flow of the discourse is quite unnec- 
 essarily broken. [See Note LX., p. 214.]— é&erricare] expresses the sense of 
 
 1 Koppe, Winer, Matthies. Bacavicerda ev, ‘ put to the test,” Plat. Pol. 
 2 Comp. Plat. Phil. p. 21 A: év coi meipw- vi. p. 503 A. 
 
 peda, upon thee we would make the trial. 3 See on iii. 26. 
 
 Hom. J/. xix. 384, meipydyn. .. ev evrect, 4Comp. Buttmann in Stud. u. Krit. 1860, 
 
 “was tried in the harness.” Comp. also  p. 379. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 15: 187 
 éfov0. figuratively and by way of climax, adding the idea of detestation.' 
 So forcible an expression of the negative serves to give the greater promi- 
 nence to the positive counterpart which follows.? This deviation from the 
 Greek usage should be acknowledged, and must be considered as caused by 
 éfov0., as in fact Paul is fond of repeating, not without emphasis, com- 
 pounds presenting the same preposition (ii. 4, 13 ; Rom. ii. 18, xi. 7, e¢ al.). 
 — &¢ Xpiordv "Iyoovv] a climax added asyndetically in the excitement of feel- 
 ing, and presenting to a still greater extent than o¢ dyyed. Ocov (Heb. i. 4 ; 
 Phil. ii. 10 ; Col. i. 16) the high reverence and love with which he had 
 been received by them, and that as a divine messenger.’ Comp. Matt. x. 40 ; 
 John xiii. 20. Observe also, that even among the Galatians Paul doubtless 
 preached in the first instance to the Jews (whose loving behavior towards 
 the apostle was then shared in by the Gentiles also) ; hence the comparison 
 with an angel and with Christ in our passage is in keeping with the apos- 
 tle’s historical recollection, and does not render it at all necessary to assume 
 an iorepov mpérepov in the representation, which would thus anticipate the 
 already Christian view. 
 
 Note.—According to the Recepta tr. metp. wov Tov év T. o. u., OF, as the first pov 
 has special evidence against it, according to the reading tov mevp. Tov év T. o. M., 
 the explanation must be: ‘‘ My bodily temptation ye have not despised or disdain- 
 fully rejected,” that is, ‘* Ye have not on account of my sickness, by which I 
 have been tried of God, rejected me, as the bodily impotence in which it ex- 
 hibited me to you might have induced you to do.’’ Taken by itself, this sense, 
 and the mode of expressing it, would be suitable enough,* even without the hy- 
 pothesis, based on éSexr., of some nauseous sickness.+ [See Note LXI., p. 214. ] 
 
 Ver. 15. Of what nature, then, was your self-congratulation ? A sorrowful 
 question ! for the earnestness with which the Galatians had then congratu- 
 lated themselves on the apostle’s account, contrasting so sadly with their 
 present circumstances, compelled him to infer that that congratulation was 
 nothing but an effervescent, fleeting, and fickle excitement. Hence the 
 reading ov ody (see the critical notes) is a gloss in substance correct ; comp. 
 Rom. iii. 27. Others explain it: On what was your self-congratulation 
 grounded ? Why did you pronounce yourselves so happy ?° In this case 
 qualis would have to be taken in the peculiar sense : how caused, which, 
 however, would require to be distinctly suggested by the context. Others 
 
 1 Comp. Rev. iii. 16, and the Latin des 
 puere, respuere. 
 
 2JIn the other Greek writers, besides the 
 simple mrvevy (Soph. Ant. 649. 1217), there 
 occur Only katamtveww TiW6s, amomrvew TLVA 
 (4 Mace. iii. 18; Eur. 7road. 668, Hec. 1265; 
 Hes. €py. 724), and Scamtvew twa (in Philo 
 also mapamrvevv) in this metaphorical sense 
 (Kypke, IT. p. 280; Ruhnk. ip. crit. p. 149; 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17); but éexmrvew 
 is always used in the proper sense (Hom. Od. 
 v. 822; Aristoph. Vesp. 792; Anthol. Theo- 
 dorid. 2; Apoll. Rhod. 478), as also éumrvev 
 twt (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17). Even in the 
 
 passage quoted by Kypke, Plut. de fort. vel 
 virt. Alex. I. p. 328, it is used in the proper 
 sense, because womep xaduvov stands beside 
 it. 
 
 3 In opposition to Wieseler. 
 
 4 In opposition to Fritzsche. 
 
 5 So Bengel, Koppe, Winer, Matthias, and 
 Schott. Schott, in opposition to the con- 
 text, and all the more strangely seeing that 
 he does not even read jv, but merely sup- 
 plies it, lays stress upon this jv: illo tem- 
 pore, nune non item, *“‘at that time, not 
 now in like manner ;’’ comp. Oecumenius. 
 
188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 still, as Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, and including 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Reiche, Wieseler, interpret : ‘‘ How great 
 (comp. Eph. i. 14) therefore was your congratulation ! how very happy you 
 pronounced yourselves !” But then the dove in ver. 16 would be deprived 
 of its logical reference, which, according to our interpretation, is contained 
 And the words would, in fact, contain merely a su- 
 perfluous and feeble exclamation, —The paxapicudc (comp. Rom. iv. 6, 9), 
 with which ivov stands as the genitive of the swbject,! and not as the geni- 
 tive of the object,?—for the object is obvious of itself, —refers to the circum- 
 stance that they had congratulated themselves, not that they had been con- 
 gratulated by Paul and others,? or even that they (the Galatians) had con- 
 gratulated the apostle.4 See the sequel. The word, synonymous with 
 evdarmovicuéc, IS never equivalent to paKapidtyc.® — paptepO yap ipiv K.T.A.] 
 justification of the expression just used, 6 paKapropoc budv. — rode od¢fadApore 
 x.t.4.] A description of the overwhelming love, which was ready for any 
 sacrifice. Such proverbial modes of expression, based upon the high value 
 and indispensableness of the eyes (Prov. vii. 2; Ps. xvii. 8 ; Zech. ii. 8; 
 Matt. xviii. 9 ; and comp. Vulpius and Doering, ad Catull. i. 3. 5), are 
 Nevertheless, Lomler,* Riickert, and Schott 
 have explained the passage quite literally: that Paul had some malady of 
 the eyes, and here states that, if it had been possible, the Galatians would 
 have given him their own sound eyes. But considering the currency of the 
 proverbial sense, how arbitrarily is this view hazarded, seeing that nowhere 
 else do we find a trace of any malady of the eyes in the apostle !" Riickert 
 and Schott, indeed, found specially on e dvvarév, and maintain that, to ex- 
 press the meaning of the ordinary view, Paul must have written: ‘‘if it 
 had been necessary.” But in any case the idea was a purely imaginary one, 
 and as a matter of fact practically impossible (adtvarov) ; if Paul, therefore, 
 had said : ‘‘if it had been necessary,” he would at any rate have expressed 
 himself wnswitably. Besides, ci dvvarév expresses the self-sacrificing love in 
 a yet far stronger degree. And, if Paul had not spoken proverbially, the 
 whole assurance would have been so hyperbolical, that he certainly could 
 not have stood sponsor for it with the earnest paprupo ipiv. [See Note 
 LXII., p. 214 seq. | —é£opig.] the standing word for the extirpation of the 
 eyes.*— éddxaré yor] namely, as property, as a love-pledge of the most joyful 
 
 = ‘ 7 t e 
 IN Tic ovv O paKap. VEL. 
 
 current in all languages. 
 
 1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 590 D. 
 
 2 Matthias. 
 
 3 Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecu- 
 menius. 
 
 4 Estius, Locke, Michaelis. 
 
 5 Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Homberg, 
 Calovius, comp. Olsh. 
 
 6 In the Annal. d. gesammt. theol. Lit. 1831, 
 p. 276. 
 
 7™Lomler and Schott trace back the al- 
 leged disease of the eyes to the blindness 
 at Damascus, and identify it with the cxoAow 
 (2 Cor. xii. 7). The latter idea is just as 
 mistaken as the former. For the cxodow 
 
 was, in the apostle’s view, an operation 
 of Satan, whereas the blindness at Damas- 
 cus arose from the effulgence of the celes- 
 tial Christ. And this blindness, as it had 
 arisen supernaturally, was also supernat- 
 urally removed (Acts ix. 17, 18). That a 
 chronic malady of the eyes should have 
 been left behind, would be entirely op- 
 posed to the analogy of the N. T. miracles 
 of healing, of which a complete cure was 
 always the characteristic. 
 
 ® See Judg. xvi. 21; 1 Sam. xi. 2; Herod. 
 viii. 116 ; Joseph. Antt. vi. 5.1; Wetstein, 
 in loc. 
 
CHAP. EY.5, 26: 189 
 self-sacrificing devotedness, not for wse (Hofmann, following older expositors), 
 —a view which, if we do not explain it of a disease of the eyes in the apos- 
 tle’s case, leads to a monstrous idea. Without dv (see the critical notes) the 
 matter is expressed as more indubitable, the condition contained in the 
 protasis being rhetorically disregarded.’ 
 
 Ver. 16. "Qore] Accordingly ; the actual state of things which, to judge 
 from the cooling down—which that painful question (ric obv 6 paxapiopoc 
 iuov ;) bewails—in the self-sacrificing love depicted in vv. 14, 15, must 
 have superseded this love, and must now subsist.2, The words contain a pro- 
 foundly melancholy exclamation : ‘‘ Accordingly, that is my position ; I am 
 become your enemy !” etc. So great a change has the relation, previously 
 so rich and happy in confidence and love, experienced by the fact that it 
 is my business to speak the truth to you (mark the present participle aAyfebwv). 
 This conduct which I pursue towards you, instead of confirming your 
 inclination towards me and confidence in me, has taken them away ; I 
 have become your enemy! To place (with Matthias) a note of interrogation 
 after yéyova, and then to take aA7@. tuiv as an exclamation (an enemy, who 
 tells you the truth!), breaks up the passage without adequate ground. 
 Utterly groundless, illogical, and unprecedented (for the ore of an infer- 
 ential sentence always follows the sentence which governs it) is the inver- 
 sion forced upon the apostle by Hofmann, who makes out that dore «.7.. is 
 dependent on (yAovow tuac: ‘¢so that I am now your enemy, if I tell you 
 truth, they court you ;” it is the result of these courtings, that, when the 
 apostle agreeably to the truth tells his converts (as ini. 8 f.) what is to be 
 thought about the teaching of his opponents (?), he thereby comes to stand 
 as their enemy. In this interpretation the special reference of a/7Qebuv ipiv 
 is purely gratuitous. To explain the dare consecutivum with the indicative, 
 the simple rule is quite sufficient, that it is used de re facta; and the 
 emphasis of the relation which it introduces lies in its indicating the 
 quality of the preceding, to which the consecutivwm refers.* Hofmann 
 increases the arbitrary character of his artificial exposition by subse- 
 quently, in ver. 17, separating ot kaZdc¢ from CyAoiew iuac, and looking 
 upon these words as an opinion placed alongside of Gore éyOp. by. yéy.; 
 respecting this mode of courting. His interpretation thus presents at once 
 a violent combination and a violent separation. — éy@pic iuov] The context 
 permits either the passive sense : hated by you,‘ or the active: your ene- 
 
 1 See Hermann, ad Soph. El. 902; de part. 
 av, p. 70 ff.; Bremi, ad Lys. Exe. IV. p. 439 
 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 198 ©; 
 Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 490. 
 But Ellendt (Lex. Soph. I. p. 125) well re- 
 marks, ‘‘Sed cavendum, ne in discrimine 
 utriusque generis, quod pertenue est, con- 
 stituendo argutemur,” ‘‘ But care must be 
 taken, lest in maintaining the distinction 
 between the two classes, we prate about 
 what is excessively subtile.”’ 
 
 2 Bote cannot specify a reason, as Wieseler 
 thinks, who, anticipating ver. 17, explains : 
 
 “For no other reason than because ye pro- 
 nounced yourselves so happy on my account, 
 am I (according to the representation of the 
 Jalse teachers) become your enemy,” ete. 
 Wieseler therefore takes wove, as if it had 
 been 61a tovTo. 
 
 3 Comp. Ellendt, Zex. Soph. II. p. 1012: 
 “Rem qualis sit, addita vei consequentis sig- 
 nificatione definit,’’ ‘‘ It defines a subject as 
 to its nature, by adding the meaning of 
 that which results.”’ : 
 
 4De Wette, Windischmann, and older 
 expositors, 
 
190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 my ;! the latter, however, so taken that éy@p. ivev yéyova is said in accord- 
 ance with the (altered) opinion of the readers. This active interpretation is 
 to be preferred, because the usage among Greek authors (and throughout the 
 N. T. also) in respect to the substantive éy@péc with the genitive is decisive 
 in its favor.?. From the time of Homer, éyfpéc means hated only with the 
 dative,’ which either stands beside it or is to be mentally supplied.4 — 
 yéyova] To what time does this change (having become), which by the perfect 
 is marked as continuing, refer? It did not occur in consequence of the 
 present epistle,® for the Galatians had not as yet read it ; nor at the jirst visit, 
 for he had then experienced nothing but abundant love. It must therefore 
 have taken place at the second visit,® when Paul found the Galatian churches 
 already inclined to Judaism, and in conformity with the truth could no 
 longer praise them (for only éxawérye¢ Tov dixalov aAnbever, ‘* a commender of 
 what is just speaks the truth,” Plat. Pol. ix. p. 589 C), but was compelled 
 to blame their aberrations. — aAyOebwv ipiv]) For ‘‘veritas odiwm parit,” 
 ‘‘truth begets hatred,” 7 and épyiGovta: amavtec Tolc peta mappyoiacg 7 aAnOy 
 2éyovor, ‘* All are provoked with those who frankly speak the truth.’”* As to 
 adnbevev, to speak the truth, see on Eph. iv. 15. 
 
 Ver. 17. The self-seeking conduct of the Judaizing teachers (i. 7), so en- 
 tirely opposed to the aAnfebwv iuiv. The fact that they are not named is quite 
 in keeping with the emotion and irritation of the moment ; ‘‘ nam solemus 
 suppresso nomine de iis loqui, quos nominare piget ac taedet,” ‘‘ For those 
 whom it disgusts and offends us to mention we generally refer to with a 
 suppression of the name,” Calvin. — tyAovew duac| that is, they exert them- 
 selves urgently to win you over to their side ; they pay their court to you 
 zealously.? For the contrast to the behavior of the apostle harmonizes well 
 with this sense ; which is also accordant with linguistic usage, since (7/Adw 
 with the accusative means to be zealous about a person or thing, and obtains in 
 each case the more precise definition of its import from the context.? Next 
 to this interpretation comes that of Calvin, Beza, and others, including 
 Riickert : 1! they are jealous of you (2 Cor. xi. 2; Ecclus. ix. 1). Taking it so, 
 it would not be necessary to conceive of Paul and his opponents under the 
 figure of wooers of the bride,'® of which nothing is suggested by the context ; 
 but it may be urged against this explanation, that iva avrove CyAoire is not 
 appropriate in the same sense. This remark also applies to the interpretation 
 of Koppe and Reithmayr: !3 ‘‘ they envy you (Acts vii. 9), are full of an envious 
 
 1 Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, and many 
 others; also Rickert, Matthies, Schott, 
 Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann. 
 
 ° So, correctly, Erasmus, Castalio, Er. 
 Schmid, Michaelis, and others, including 
 Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, 
 
 2Dem. 4389. 19. 1121. 12: Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 
 5, de venat. 13. 12; Soph. Aj. 554. 
 
 3 Xen. Cyrop. v. 4.50; Dem. 241. 12. 245. 
 16; Lucian, Sacrif. 1; Herodian. iii. 10. 6. 
 
 4 Rom. v. 10, xi. 28; Col. i. 21. 
 
 5 Jerome, Luther, Koppe, 
 others. 
 
 6 Acts xviii. 23. 
 
 7 Terent. Andr. i. 1. 40. 
 
 ® Lucian, Abdie. 7. 
 
 Flatt, and 
 
 Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Wieseler, and Hofmann. 
 
 10Dem. 1402. 20. 500. 2.; Prov. xxiv. 13 
 Wisd. i. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 31; and see Wetstein. 
 
 11 Comp. Vulgate: aemulantur. 
 
 12 The bridegroom being Christ ; see on 
 2 Cor. xi. 2. 
 
 13 Following Ambrose, Jerome, and The- 
 odoret. 
 
CHAP IVs. Liv. 191 
 jealousy of your freedom ;” and to that of Chrysostom and Theophylact : 
 they viewith you.’ The factitive explanation : they make you to be zealous 
 (Matthias), is opposed to linguistic usage, which only sanctions rapalyAdo], 
 and not the simple verb, in this sense. — ot xatdc¢] not in a morally fair, hon- 
 orable way, as would have been the case, if it had been done for your real good. 
 —ixxdacioa:| To exclude ;* they desire to debar you ; in this lies the wickedness 
 of their ¢720c. The question which arises here, and cannot be set aside 
 (as Hofmann thinks) : Exclude from what? is answered by the emphatic 
 avtovg Which follows, namely, from other teachers, who do not belong to their 
 clique.* These ‘‘other teachers” are naturally those of anti-Judaizing 
 views, and consequently Paul himself and his followers ; but the hypothesis 
 that Paul only is referred to* is the less feasible, as the very idea of 
 ixxAeioa: in itself most naturally points to a plurality, to an association. Since 
 the avrov¢ which follows applies to the false teachers as teachers, we must 
 not conceive the exclusion’ as from the whole body of Christians, nor ° as fron 
 all Christians thinking differently ; comp. Hilgenfeld : ‘‘from the Pauline 
 church-union.”’ It is arbitrarily taken by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo- 
 phylact, as exclusion from the state of true knowledge ; by Erasmus and Cor- 
 nelius & Lapide, from Christian jfreedom; by Luther (1519), a@ Christo et 
 Jiducia ejus, ‘‘ from Christ and confidenceinhim ;” by Matthies, from the hing- 
 dom of truth ;7 by Wieseler and Reithmayr, from the kingdom of heaven ; by 
 Matthias, from salvation by faith. All interpretations of this nature would 
 have needed some more precise definition. Koppe falls into a peculiar 
 error : ‘‘aconsuetudine et familiaritate swa arcere vos volunt,” ‘‘ They would 
 preclude you from their companionship and intimacy” (ii. 12). — iva aitoic¢ 
 CyAovre] AS twa is used here with the present indicative, it cannot mean 
 in order that ;° but must be the particle of place, ubi.2 This ubi may, how- 
 ever, mean either : ix which position of things ye are zealous for them ; '° or, in 
 
 its purely local sense : ‘* they wish to debar you there, where you are zealous 
 
 1 Comp. Borger ; ¢nAos pev éotiy ayados oTav 
 Tis apeTHVY intact Tivos, SHAos dé ov KaAds, 
 
 Christianos in quos competat haec Pauii 
 querimonia !” ‘‘ Would that to-day there 
 
 OTay Tis oTEVvoH CxBadeiy THS apEeTHS TOY KaTOP- 
 dovvta, ‘ Zeal is good when one imitates the 
 excellence of another; but it is not good 
 when one is eager to reject, because of 
 his virtue, one who is successful ’? (The- 
 ophylact). 
 
 2 Syr. translatesincludere, and consequent- 
 ly read é€yxActoar. This would mean: they de- 
 sire toinclude youin their circle, so that ye 
 should not get free from them and come to 
 associate with other teachers. Thus, in 
 point of fact, the same sense would result 
 as in the case of ékxAetoa, only regarded 
 from a different point of view. Fritzsche’s 
 reference of éyxaA. to the legis Mos. carcerem 
 is not suggested by the context. The read- 
 ing is altogether so weakly attested, that it 
 can only be looked upon as an ancient er- 
 ror of transcription. 
 
 3 The wish expressed by Erasmus in his 
 Annott.; ‘‘Utinam hodie nulli sint apud 
 
 were none to whom this complaint of Paul 
 were not pertinent!” is still but too applica- 
 ble to the present day. 
 
 4** A me meique communione,” ‘“ from 
 me and fellowship with me,’ Winer; so 
 also Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke, 
 Michaelis, Riickert, Olshausen, Reiche, and 
 others. 
 
 > With Borger and Flatt. 
 
 6 With Schott. 
 
 7 Comp. Ewald: from genuine Christian- 
 ity. 
 
 8 gyAovre is not the Attic future (Jatho). 
 See Winer, p. 72; Buttmann, p. 33. In Thue. 
 ii. 8. 3. and iii. 58. 4, éAevOepodar and épynoire 
 are presents ; see Kriiger in loc. 
 
 ® Valckenaer, ad Herod. ix. 27 
 K.T.A. 
 
 10 My former explanation, as in 1 Cor. iv. 6; 
 see on that passage, and Ellendt, Zea. Soph. 
 I. p. 839. 
 
 : twa Soxeéet 
 
192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 
 
 Sor them,”—namely, in the Judaistic cirele, in which it is they themselves who 
 are zealously courted by you, whose favor you have to seek, etc. The latter 
 view, as the simplest, is to be preferred. On the usual explanation of iva 
 as aparticle of design, recourse is had to the assumption of an abnormal con- 
 struction of degenerate Greek ;' or of amistake on the part of the author or 
 of the transcriber ;? or, with Fritzsche, to the reading ¢//ére.* But all these 
 expedients are quite as arbitrary as the assumption of a faulty formation of 
 mood.* The interpretation of iva as ubi is based not on an ‘“ exaggerated 
 philological preicison,”® but on a linguistic necessity, to which the cus- 
 tomary interpretation, yielding certainly a sense appropriate enough in itself, 
 must give way, because the latter absolutely requires the subjunctive mood. 
 [See Note LXIIT., p. 215. ] 
 
 Ver. 18. Paul knew that the state of things mentioned in ver. 17 was but 
 too assuredly based upon reality. So long as he had been with them (on 
 the first occasion, and still even during his short second visit), the Galatians 
 had shown zeal in that which was good, viz., in the actual case: zeal for their 
 apostle and his true gospel, as was their duty (consequently what was morally 
 right and good). But after his departure this zeal veered round in favor of 
 the Judaizing teachers and their doctrine. Hence the apostle continues, ' 
 giving a gentle reproof, and for that reason expressing the first half of the 
 sentence merely in a general form : ‘‘ Good, however, is the becoming zealous 
 in a good thing always, and not merely during my presence with you ;” that is, 
 ‘Tt is good when zealous endeavors are continuously applied ina good cause, 
 and not merely,” etc. The chief emphasis rests on this révrore with its an- 
 tithesis. The special form, in which Paul has clothed his thought, arises 
 from his inclination for deliberately using the same word in a modified shade 
 of meaning.® But the very point of this mode of expression requires that 
 Cnrovofae should not be taken in a sense essentially different from the correct 
 view of it in ver. 17 ; consequently, neither as invidiose tractari, ‘‘to be en- 
 viously treated” (Koppe), nor as to endure envy (Riickert), which, besides, 
 cannot be conveyed by the simple passive. In Usteri’s view Paul intends 
 to say, ‘‘How much was I not the object of your ¢7A0¢ (zeal and interest), 
 when I was with you! But if it should cease again so soon after my de- 
 parture from you, it must have lost much of its value.” But the very kat py 
 povov év T Tapeivat pe xpdc tuac plainly shows that Paul did not conceive 
 himself as the object of the ¢Aovefa ; in order to be understood, he must 
 
 1 Winer, Olshausen. Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
 Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. 
 
 2 Schott. 
 
 8 Which only 113 and 219** have. 
 
 4 Riickert, Matthies. 
 
 5 As Hilgenfeld thinks, who appeals in 
 favor of iva, wf, with the indicative to 
 Clem. Hom. xi. 16: (va pydév tav mpooKvvov- 
 This is certainly not ‘‘ philo- 
 logical precision,” but inattention to lin- 
 guistic fact ; forin this Clementine passage 
 the quite customary iva, wf, is used with 
 the indicative of the preterite, ‘‘quod tum 
 
 Mévov UTIPXEV. 
 
 fit, quando ponitur aliquid, quod erat 
 futurum, si aliud quid factum esset, sed 
 jam non est factum,”’ ‘‘ which occurs when 
 anything which was to be is stated, if any- 
 thing else was to have been done, but now 
 has not been done.” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
 630 f.; Herm. ad Viger. p. 850 f.; Kiihner, 
 II. § 778. With regard to the respective 
 passages from Barnabas and Ignatius, in 
 support of iva with the present indicative, 
 see on 1 Cor. iv. 6. 
 
 6 Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. iii. 17, e¢ al. ; comp. 
 Wilke, Rhetor. p. 348 f. 
 
CHAP! Ty.) 18: 193 
 have added this ye to fyioicAa, since there was no previous mention of 
 himself as the object of the ¢jA0c. This objection also applies to the view 
 of Reiche, although the latter takes it more distinctly and sharply : ‘‘ Bo- 
 num, honestum et salutare (vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Thess. v. 21), vero est 
 expeti aliorum studio et amore, modo et consilia honesto, év caro (conf. 2 Cor. xi. 
 23 Oe0d CHAw), idque continuo ae semper xavrore, nec tantum praesente me inter 
 vos,” ‘* It is indeed good, becoming, and advantageous (vi. 9 ; 1 Cor. vii-1 ; 
 1 Thes. v. 21) to be sought after by the devotion and love of others, in an hon- 
 orable way and from an honorable purpose (conf. 2 Cor. ii. 2), and that con- 
 tinually and always, nor only when I am present among you.” But év «aag" 
 cannot mean ‘‘ modo et consilio honesto” (this is expressed by xaAa¢ in ver. 
 17) ; it denotes the object of the CyActobar, and that conceived of as the sphere 
 in which the (yAo1cGa: takes place. Schott interprets, unsuitably to the «ai 
 uy wévov x.7.2. Which follows : ‘‘ Laudabile est, guovis tempore appeti vel trahi 
 ad partes alicujus, si agitur de bono et honesto colendo,” ‘It is praise- 
 worthy at any time to be eager for or to be drawn to the interest of one, 
 provided it be done for the purpose of cultivating the good and honorable.” 
 So also, in substance, de Wette, with relation to the passive demeanor of the 
 Galatians, and with an extension of the idea of the verb : ‘‘ /¢ is, however, 
 beautiful to be the object of zealous attention in what is good,” by which are in- 
 dicated the qualities and advantages on account of which people are ad- 
 mired, loved, and courted.? Similarly Ewald : ‘‘It is beautiful to be the 
 object of zealous love in what is beautiful,” CyAoverw and SyAovre in ver. 17 being 
 understood in a corresponding sense. But this interpretation also does not 
 harmonize with the kai uy povov x.7.2. which follows; and hence Ewald 
 changes the idea of ¢7AovcOa into that of being worthy of love, and conse- 
 quently into the sense of CyAwrdv elvac. Hofmann over-refines and obscures 
 the correct apprehension of the passage, by bringing ver. 18, in consequence 
 of his erroneous reference of Gore éyfpoc x.7.A2. (see on ver. 16), into connec- 
 tion with this sentence, considering the idea to be : ‘‘ Just as his person had 
 formerly been the object of their affection, it ought to have remained so, 
 instead of his now being their enemy in consequence of the self-seeking 
 solicitude with which his opponents take pains about them if he speaks to 
 them the truth. For in his case the morally good had been the ground, on 
 account of which he had been the object of their loving exertion,” etc. The 
 earlier expositors,*® as also Olshausen and Matthias (the latter in keeping 
 
 1°Ev cad, used adverbially, means either 
 at the fit time (Plat. Pol. ix. p. 571 B; Xen. 
 Tell. iv. 3. 5), or at the suitable place (Xen. 
 TTell. ii. 1. 25), and in general, jitly (see Sturz, 
 Lex. Xen. U1. p. 643), but does not occur in 
 the N. T. 
 
 2Theophylact (comp. also Chrysostom 
 and Theodoret) has evidently understood 
 the passage substantively, just as de Wette: 
 TOUTO aiviTTeTaL, WSs apa GyAwTol Hoav wacLy ext 
 7H TeAccoTntt, “This suggests that, there- 
 fore, they were enviable as to their per- 
 fection.” Linguistically unobjectionable. 
 
 13 
 
 Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 19: ématvopevous x. 
 CnAoup.evous UTO TY adAwy, “praised and 
 esteemed happy by the rest.’? Sympos. 4. 
 45; Hiero, 1. 9; Eur. Alc. 903; Soph. #7. 
 1016; Aesch. Pers. 698; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 C, 
 CnAwros OY Kat cidarporiGopnevos, ‘* being envi- 
 able and accounted happy.’? See gener- 
 ally, Blomf. Gloss. Aesch. Prom. 338 ; Pier- 
 son, ad Moer. p. 169. 
 
 ’ Not all. The learned Grotius has evi- 
 dently understood it passively; ‘Rectum 
 erat, ut semper operam daretis, ut ego a 
 vobis amari expeterem; est enim hoc 
 
194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 with his factitive interpretation of the active), mostly take {yAvicfa: as 
 middle, in sense equivalent to ¢j4ovv, with very different definitions of the 
 meaning,! but inconsistently with the wsws loguendi. 
 
 Ver. 19. This verse is not be attached to the preceding,’ —a construc- 
 tion which makes this earnest, touching address appear awkward and dis- 
 similar in character to what is previously said,—but the words are to be 
 separated from what precedes by a full stop, and to be joined with what 
 follows, the tender affection of which is quite in harmony with this loving 
 address. Difficulty has been felt as to dé in ver. 20 ;* but only from inat- 
 tention to the Greek use of dé after the address, when the writer turns to a 
 new thought, and does so with a tacit anthithesis, which is to be recognized 
 from the context. It is found so not merely with questions,‘ but also in 
 other instances.® Here the slight antithetic reference lies, as the very repe- 
 tition of rapeivac rpdoc iuac indicates, in his glancing back to cai py udvov 
 «.7.2., namely : ‘“Although zeal in a good cause ought not to be restricted 
 merely to my presence with you, I yet would wish to be now present with 
 you,” ete. The dé of the apodosis, which Wieseler here assumes, is not suit- 
 able, because #@eAov dé x.7.2. does not stand in any kind of antithesis to rexp. 
 ov ob¢ Tad. Gdive k.T.A.; and besides, no connected construction would result 
 from it ; for the idea : ‘‘ Because ye are my children . . . I would wish,” does 
 
 amari honestum,” “It was right for you 
 always to take pains that I might aspire 
 to be loved of you; for it is good to 
 _be loved.” Also Michaelis (comp. Er. 
 Sehmidt): “It is good when others court 
 our favor.’ Both interpretations come 
 very near to that of Usteri. 
 
 1 Erasmus, Paraphr., ‘ Vidistis me legis 
 ceremonias negligere, nihil praedicare prae- 
 ter Christum, aemulabamini praesentem. 
 Si id rectum erat, cur nune absente me 
 vultis alios aemulare in lis, quae recta non 
 sunt?’ ‘You saw that I neglected the 
 ceremonies of the law, that I preached 
 nothing but Christ, and you emulated me 
 when I waspresent. If this was right, why, 
 now, inmy absence do you wish to emulate 
 others in such things as are not right.”’ Lu- 
 ther, 1524: ‘‘ Bonum quidem est aemulari et 
 imitari alios, sed hoe praestate in re bona 
 semper, nunquam in mala, non tantum me 
 praesente, sed etiam absente,” ‘It is 
 good indeed to emulate and imitate others, 
 but do'this always in a good matter, never 
 in an evil, not only in my presence, but 
 also in my absence ” Comp. Calvin * ‘t Imi- 
 tari vel eniti ad alterius virtutem,” ‘‘To 
 imitate or strive after the virtue of an- 
 other.”” Beza: “ At noster amor longe est 
 alius; vos enim bonam ob causam non ad 
 tempus, sed semper, non solum praesens, 
 sed etiam absens absentes vehementissime 
 complector,’”? “But our love is far differ- 
 ent; forina good cause J most ardently 
 
 embrace you, not for a time, but always; 
 not only when [I am present, but also when 
 J am absent, do I embrace you absent.” 
 Locke (ev cade masculine): ‘‘ Vos amabatis 
 me praesentem tanquam bonum, fas itaque 
 est idem facere in absentem,” *‘ You loved 
 me when present as a good ; therefore it is 
 right to do the same towards Ine absent.”’ 
 Bengel: ‘‘Zelo zelum aeccendere, zelare 
 inter se,’ ‘““To kindle zeal by zeal, to be 
 mutually zealous.’? Morus: ‘ Laudabile 
 autem est, sectari praeceptorem in re bona 
 semper, neque solum,”’ ete., “It is, more- 
 over, praiseworthy always in agood matter 
 to follow a teacher, nor only,” ete. ; sub- 
 stantially, therefore, as Erasmus. Others in- 
 terpret in various ways. Olshausen: “‘ Paul 
 desires to make known that he finds the zeal 
 of the Galatians in itself very praiseworthy, 
 and certainly would not damp it; and he 
 therefore says, that the being zealous is 
 good if it takes place on account of a good 
 cause, and is maintained not merely in his 
 presence, but also in his absence.” So 
 already Calovius and others. 
 
 2 Bos, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, Riick- 
 ert, Usteri, Schott, Ewald, Hofmann. 
 
 3 Which therefore is omitted in Chrysos- 
 tom and some min. 
 
 4Hom. J. xv. 244; Plat. Legg. x. p. 890 
 E; Xen. Mem. i. 3. 13, ii. 1. 26; Soph. O. ¢. 
 823. 1459. 
 
 5 Herod. i. 115; Xen. Anabd, v. 5. 13, vi. 6. 
 
 12. 
 
CHAP, EV., 19% 195 
 not correspond with the words. According to Hilgenfeld, that which the 
 address is intended to introduce (viz., to move the readers to return) is wholly 
 suppressed, and is supposed to be thereby the more strikingly suggested.’ 
 But the affectionate tenor of the wish which follows in ver. 20 harmonizes 
 so fully with the tender address in ver. 19, that that hypothesis, which 
 Calvin also entertained (‘‘ hic quasi moerore exanimatus in medio sententiae 
 tractu deficit,” ‘‘here as though stupefied by grief, he loses courage right in 
 the midst of the delivering of his judgment”), does not seem warranted. 
 Nevertheless Buttmann also? assumes an anacoluthon. —rexvia pov] The 
 word rexvia, so frequent in John, is not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. 
 But Lachmann and Usteri ought not to have adopted (following B F G &*) 
 the reading réxva, since it is just in this passage, where Paul compares him- 
 self to a mother in childbirth, that the phrase ‘‘my Jittle children” finds a 
 more special motive and warrant than in any other passage where he uses 
 réxva.*— odc] The well-known constructio kata civeow, ‘‘ construction accord- 
 ing to sense.” 4— réAw ddive] whom I once more travail with. Paul repre- 
 sents himself, not, as elsewhere (1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Philem. 10), asa father, but 
 in the special emotion of his love, as a mother who is in travail, and whose 
 labor is not brought to an end (by the actual final birth) until nothing further 
 is requisite for the full and mature formation of the rexviov. So long as this 
 object is not attained, according to the figurative representation, the ddivew 
 still continues.* Bengel remarks very correctly : ‘‘ Loquitur ut res fert, 
 nam in partu naturali formatio est ante dolores partus,” ‘‘ He speaks as the 
 case demands, for in natural birth formation precedes the pains of birth.” 
 The point of comparison is the loving exertion, which perseveres amidst trouble 
 and pain in the effort to bring about the new Christian life. This metaphor- 
 ical odiver had been on the first occasion easy and joyful, ver. 13 ff. 
 (although it had not had the full and lasting result ; see afterwards, on 
 ayplc ov k..A.); but on this second occasion it was severe and painful, and 
 on this account the word ddivw is chosen (and not rixtw or yevvo), which, 
 however, is also appropriate to the earlier act of bearing intimated in ra2, 
 since the idea of pains is essential to the conception of a birth, however 
 slight and short they may be. The sense, when stripped of figure, is: ‘‘ My 
 beloved disciples ! at whose conversion I am laboring for the second time 
 with painful and loving exertion, until ye shall have become maturely- 
 formed Christians.” This continuous of¢ rd ddivw is to be conceived as 
 begun, so soon as Paul had learned the apostasy of his readers and had com- 
 menced to counteract it ; so that his operations during his second visit ° are 
 thus also included : hence we cannot’ consider vy. 18, 19 as intimating 
 
 1 Comp. also Reithmayr. 
 
 2 Neut. Gr. p. 331. 
 
 31 Cor. iv. 14; 2 Cor. vi. 18: comp. also 
 Heimat AS.32 Cim. i. 1; 
 
 4 Winer, p. 133. 
 
 ® Heinsius, Grotius, Koppe, Riickert, and 
 others, erroneously hold that ééiverw here 
 means ¢o be pregnant, which it never does, 
 not even in the LXX., Isa. xxvi. 17 ; Ps. vii. 
 
 15; Song of Sol. viii.5; Philo, gvod Deus 
 immut. p. 313 B; Plat. Theaet. p. 148 C, 210 
 B. On diver with the accusative of the 
 person, comp. parturire aliquem, Isa. li. 2; 
 Song of Sol. viii. 5; Eur. Zph. A. 1234. 
 
 8 Comp adntevmr vuctv, ver. 16. 
 
 7 With Fritzsche (Zc. p. 244) and Ulrich 
 (in the Stvd. u. Kvrit. 1836, p. 459). 
 
196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 that Paul had only once visited Galatia. According to Wieseler, radu odirw 
 is intended to express the idea of the radvyyevecia, ‘‘ regeneration,” Tit. iii. 
 5 ; Paul had regenerated his readers already at their conversion, and here 
 says that he is still continuously occupied in their regeneration, until they 
 should have attained the goal of perfection on the part of the Christian — 
 similarity with Christ. This is incorrect, because zd/ must necessarily 
 denote a second act of travail on the part of Paul. Paul certainly effected 
 the regeneration of his readers on occasion of the first ddivery, which is pre- 
 supposed by wddw ; but because they had relapsed (i. 6, ili. 1, iv. 9f., e 
 al.), he must be for the second time in travail with them, and not merely still 
 continuously (an idea which is not expressed) their regenerator, so that the 
 idea of the rad, the repetition, would be on the part of the readers. The- 
 ophylact! aptly defines the sense of raAw Odivw not as that of a continued 
 avayévenowc, ‘new birth,” but as that of rdAcv érépac avayervgoewc, ‘again 
 another new birth.” The sense, ‘‘ whose regeneration I am continuing,” 
 would have been expressed by Paul in some such form as of¢ ob ravomat 
 avayevvav, ‘‘ whom I do not cease to beget anew,” or oi¢ érc kai viv avayevva, 
 ‘whom even now I am begetting anew.” — aypic ov popdwth Xpioroc év ipiv] 
 A shadow is thus thrown on the result of the jist conversion (birth), which 
 had undergone so sudden a change (i. 6). The reiterated labor of birth is 
 not to cease until, etc. This meaning, and along with it the emphasis of 
 the ayprc ot x.7.2., has been missed by Hofmann, who, instead of referring 
 radaw to adirw only, extends it also to dypic ot «.7.2. In connection with the 
 general scope of the passage, however, the stress is on popdofy: ‘until 
 Christ shall have been formed, shall have attained His due conformation, 
 in you,” that is, wntil ye shall have attained to the fully-formed inner life of 
 the Christian. For the state of ‘‘ Christ having been formed in man” is by 
 no means realized ‘‘ so soon as a man becomes a Christian,” * but, as clearly ap- 
 pears from the notion of the aypic ot, is the goal of development which the 
 process of becoming Christian has to reach. When this goal is attained, 
 the Christian is he in whom Christ lives (comp. on i. 20) ; as, for 
 instance, on Paul himself the specific form of life of his Master was 
 distinctly stamped. So long, therefore, as the Galatians were not yet de- 
 veloped and morally shaped into this complete inward frame, they were 
 still like to an immature embryo, the internal parts of which have not yet ac- 
 quired their normal shape, and which cannot therefore as yet come to the 
 birth and so put an end to the ddiverv. In the Christian, Christ is to inhabit 
 the heart (Eph. iii. 17) : in him there is to be the vowc, ‘‘ mind,” of Christ 
 (1 Cor. ii. 16), the rveiua, ‘‘ spirit,” of Christ (Rom. viii. 9), the oxAdyyva, 
 ‘‘bowels,” of Christ (Phil. i. 8) ; and the body and its members are to be 
 the body and members of Christ (1 Cor. vi. 13,15). All this, which is com- 
 prehended in the idea Xpvoroc év iyiv, is in our passage rendered intelligible 
 by the representation that Christ is to be formed in us, or to become present 
 in the life-form corresponding to His nature. This view is not different in 
 reality, although it is so in the mode of representation, from that of spirit- 
 
 1 Comp. Chrysostom. 2 Hofmann. 
 
CHAP PVs 20% 197 
 ual transformation after the image of Christ (2 Cor. iii. 18); for, according 
 to our passage, Christ Himself is in Christians the subject of the specific de- 
 velopment. Bengel, moreover, well remarks: ‘‘ Christus non Paulus, in 
 Galatis formandus,” ‘‘ Christ, not Paul, is to be formed in the Galatians.” — 
 pop¢dw] occurs here only in the N. T.; but see LXX. Isa. xliv. 13 (ed. 
 Breit.) ; Symmachus, Ps. xxxiv. 1; Arat. Phaen. 375 ; Lucian, Prom. 3 ; 
 Plut. de anim. generat. p. 1018 ; Theophr. ¢. pl. v. 6, 7.7 
 
 Ver. 20. As to the connection of thought of the dé with ver. 18, see on 
 ver. 18, —jfeAov] namely, if the thing were possible.*— dpi] just now, 
 presently (see on i. 9), has the emphasis. — aAadgar tiv goviv wov| The em- 
 phasis is on a#Adga. But in harmony with the context (see vv. 16, 18, and 
 the foregoing dprv), this changing can only refer to the second visit of the 
 apostle to the Galatians, not to the language now employed in his letter, as 
 many expositors think.’ Erroneously, therefore—and how sharply in oppo- 
 sition to the previous affectionate address !—Ambrosius, Pelagius, Wet- 
 stein, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, take the 
 sense to be: to assume a stern language of reproof. Hofmann also erro- 
 neously holds that Paul means the (in oral expression) move chastened tone of 
 a didactie statement—aiming at the bringing the readers back from their 
 error—after the strongly excited style in which, since the word @avuafo in 
 i. 6, he had urged his readers, as one who had already been almost deprived 
 of the fruit of his labors. As if Paul had not previously, and especially 
 
 ‘from iii. 6 to iv. 7, written didactically enough ; and as if he had not also 
 in the sequel (see immediately, ver. 21, and chap. v. and vi. down to the 
 abrupt dismissal at the end) urged his readers with excitement enough ! 
 The supposition, however, which Hofmann entertains, that Paul has hitherto 
 been answering a /etter of the Galatians, and has just at this point come 
 to the end of it, is nothing but a groundless hypothesis, for there is no trace 
 of such a letter to be found in the epistle. No; when Paul was for the 
 second time in Galatia, he had spoken sharply and sternly, and this had 
 made his readers suspect him, as if he had become their enemy (ver. 16) : 
 hence he wishes to be now with them, and to speak to them with a voice differ- 
 ent from what he had then used, that is, to speak to them in a soft and gentle 
 tone.* By this, of course, he means not any deviation in the substance of 
 his teaching from the aA7fetve (ver. 16), but a manner of language betoken- 
 ing tender, mother-like love. A wish of self-denying affection, which is 
 
 
 
 1 See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 345. 
 
 2 Comp. Rom. ix. 3; Acts xxv.22. See 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 235 ; Kiihner, 
 II. p. 68; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 245. 
 
 3So also Zachariae (who is followed by 
 Flatt) : ‘‘to lay aside my present mournful 
 language, and to adopt that of tenderness 
 and contentment.’’ In this case Paul must 
 haye used Svvacda ; for unless his readers 
 had improved in their conduct, it would 
 have been impossible for him to speak con- 
 tentedly. Bengel, in opposition to the idea 
 of adAcEar; ‘‘ molliter scribit, sed mollius 
 
 loqui vellet,” ‘‘ He writes mildly ; but he 
 would wish to speak still more mildly.” 
 Jerome explained the passage as referring 
 to the exchange of the vow epistolica, ** epis- 
 tolic utterance,” for the vivus sermo, ** liv- 
 ing speech,’? of actual presence, which 
 might have more effect in bringing them 
 back ad veritatem, ‘* to the truth.” 
 
 4Not exactly weeping, as Chrysostom 
 thinks : movjoar Kat Saxpva Kai mavta eis 
 dpovov emgracacVa, ‘‘to shed tears, and to 
 turn all things to lamentation.” 
 
198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ready and willing, in the service of the cause and for the salvation of the 
 persons concerned, to change form and tone, although retaining ¢evav 
 wpevdéwv ayveoordor, ‘‘a voice unexperienced in falsehoods.” * The latter was 
 a matter of course in the case of a Paul, willingly though he became alj 
 things to all men ; comp. on 1 Cor. ix. 22. Many other expositors® under- 
 stand it as : to speak according to the circumstances of each case, with tenderness 
 and affection to one, with severity and censure to another. Comp. Corn. & 
 Lapide : ‘‘ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc ob- 
 secrarem, nunc objurgarem vos,” ‘‘namely, that, as a mother now I might 
 caress, now sigh over, now beseech and now chide you.” But this cannot be 
 expressed by the mere aAAdéac tr. ¢., Which without addition means nothing 
 more than to change the voice,* that is, to assume another voice, to let 
 oneself be heard otherwise, not differently. Paul must have added either 
 a more precise definition, such as ei¢ roddove tpdrovc, cic popoa¢g mAeiovac, 
 ‘‘into many ways, various forms,”® or at least some such expression 
 as mpoc tyv ypeiav (Acts xxvili. 10), mpdc 7rd ovudépov (1 Cor. xii. 7), 
 mpo¢c d1akptow Kadov te Kai kaxov (Heb. v. 14). Fritzsche incorrectly in- 
 terprets it : to adopt some other voice, so that ye may believe that ye are 
 listening to some other teacher, and not to the hated Paul. What a strange, 
 unseemly idea, not at all in keeping with the thoughtful manner of 
 the apostle !_ According to Wieseler, the sense intended is : to exchange my 
 speaking with you ; that is, to enter into mutual discourse with you, in order 
 most surely to learn and to obviate your counter-arguments. But in this 
 view ‘‘with you” is a pure interpolation, although it would be essentially 
 requisite to the definition of the sense; and aAAdccevy Aéyouc, to say nothing of 
 adn. dwviv, is never so used. What Wieseler means is expressed by ayeiSeobai 
 tiva Adyote, ‘to answer one in words,” ° mpocd:adréyecbat ti, *‘ to answer one in 
 conversation,” 7 ovtyreiv tivt, Or rpdc¢ Teva, ‘‘ to dispute with one,” ® Adyoue avr- 
 BaArew mpdc, ‘to have communication with,” ° 
 ‘to give and to receive an account” (Plat. Rep. p. 531 E). — ére aropoimac 
 év buiv] justifies the wish of aA2deac tiv dwr. wov. The usual interpretation is 
 the correct one: Tam perplered about you ; év wuiv is to be taken as in 
 the phrase fappa év iviv, ‘‘ I have confidence in you,” 2 Cor. vii. 16, so that 
 the perplexity is conceived as inherent in the readers, dependent on their 
 condition as its cause (comp. also i. 24). The perplexity consists in this, 
 that he at the time knows no certain ways and means by which he shall 
 effect their re-conversion (ver. 19); and this instils the wish (é7v) that he 
 could now be present with them, and, in place of the severe tone which at 
 the preceding visit had had no good effect (ver. 16), could try the experi- 
 
 dovvai Te Kal arodéEaolat Adyor, 
 
 1 Pind. Ol. vi. 112. lix. p. 575, in Wetstein. Comp. Rom. i. 23 ; 
 2 As Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wisd. iv. 11, xii. 10; frequently in the 
 Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, ENXEXG 
 
 Koppe, Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, 5 Lucian, Vit. Auct. 5. 
 
 de Wette. 6 Hom. Qd. iii. 148, et al. 4 
 3 Comp. adAdAartey xwpav, Plat. Parm. p. 139 7 Plat. Theaet. p. 161 B. 
 
 A; ios, Eur. Bacch. 53; xp®na, Eur. Phoen. 8 Acts vi. 9; Luke xxii. 23. 
 
 1252 ; oroAds, Gen. XXXV. 2. ® Luke xxiv. 17. 
 
 4 See Artem. ii. 20, iv. 56; Dio Chrysostom, 
 
CHAP: 1V., 21, 15) 
 ment of an altered and milder tone. The form azopoiyua: is, moreover, to be 
 taken passively (as a middle form with a passive signification), so that the 
 state of the azopeiv is conceived of as produced on the subject, passively.’ 
 Fritzsche, l.c. p. 257, holds the sense to be : ‘‘ Nam haeretis, quo me loco ha- 
 beatis, nam sum vobis suspectus,” ‘‘For ye are embarrassed in what place to 
 have me, since I am suspected of you.” Thus év éuiv would be among you, and 
 axopovua : I am an object of perplexity, according to the well-known Greek 
 use of the personal passive of intransitive verbs.? But the sense : ‘‘sum 
 vobis suspectus” is interpolated, and there is no ground for deviating from 
 the use of dzopovua throughout the N.T.;* as, indeed, the idea ‘‘ swm vobis 
 suspectus,” ‘I am suspected of you, ” cannot give any suitable motive for 
 the wish of the aAAdtae tHv dwr7v, unless we adopt Fritzsche’s erroneous 
 interpretation of aAAaga:. To disconnect ® év duiv from aropovya, and attach 
 it to GAAdE. Tr. dwvyv wov, would yield an addition entirely superfluous after 
 mapetvar rpoc tuac, and leave aropovua: without any more precise definition of 
 its bearing. And the proposal to attach 6rz azop. év iuiv as protasis to the 
 following Aéyeré or ° would have the effect of giving to the 2éy. wor, which 
 stands forth sternly and peremptorily, an enfeebling background. 
 
 Vv. 21-30. Now, at the conclusion of the theoretical portion of his epistle, 
 Paul adds a quite peculiar antinomistic disquisition,—a learned Rabbinico-al- 
 legorical argument derived from the law itsel7,—calculated to annihilate the in- 
 fluence of the pseudo-apostles with their own weapons, and to root them 
 out on their own ground. 
 
 Ver. 21, without any connecting link, leads most energetically’ at once in 
 mediam rem. On the iéyeré yor, SO earnestly intensifying the question, comp. 
 Bergler, ad Aristoph. Acharn. 318. —oi ind véuov x.t.A.] Ye who wish to be 
 under the law. This refers to the Judaistically inclined readers, who, partly 
 Gentiles and partly Jewish Christians, led astray by the false teachers (i. 7), 
 supposed that in faith they had not enough for salvation, and desired to be 
 subject to the law (ver. 9), towards which they had already made a con- 
 siderable beginning (ver. 10).° — rdv véuov ovK axotete ;| Hear ye not the law ? 
 Is it not read in your hearing? ° The public reading of the venerated divine 
 Scriptures of the law and the prophets, after the manner of the synagogues,’ 
 took place in the assemblies for worship of the Christian churches both of 
 Jewish and of Gentile origin: they contained, in fact, the revelation of 
 God, of which Christianity is the fulfilment, and an acquaintance with them 
 was justly considered as a source of the Christian knowledge of salvation ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. aropyteis, Dem. 830. 2, and amo- 
 pydynoerar, Ecclus. xviii. 7. 
 
 2Schoemann, ad Isaeum, p. 192. 
 
 8 Bernhardy, p. 341 ; Kiihner, II. p. 34 f. 
 Comp. Xen. de rep. Lac. xiii. 7: wote tov 
 Seomevwv ytyveotar ovdév amopeitar, Plat. 
 Soph. p. 243 B, Legg. vii. p. 799 C. 
 
 42 Cor. iv. 8; Luke xxiv. 4; Acts xxy. 
 20; John xiii. 22. 
 
 5 With Hofmann. 
 
 ° Matthias, 
 
 T déyeré wor: ‘urget quasi praesens,”’ ‘‘ he 
 urges as though present,” Bengel. 
 
 8 Chrysostom aptly remarks : Kadds eirev: 
 ot deAovTEs, OV yap THS THY TpayuaTwY akoAoV- 
 tlas, aAAa THs ExelvwY akalpov PiAoverktas TO 
 ““Well does he say: ye who 
 wish, for the subject was not of the suc- 
 cession of things, but of their unseasonable 
 contentiousness.”’ 
 
 ® Comp. John xii. 34 ; 2Cor. ili. 14. 
 
 10 Rom. ii. 15; Acts xv. 21; Luke iy. 16. 
 
 Toayna HV, 
 
200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 for its articles of faith (1 Cor. xv. 3 f.) and rules of life (Rom. xiii. 8-10, xv. 
 4) were to be xara tac ypaddc, ‘‘ according to the Scriptures.” Now the hear- 
 ing of the law must necessarily have taught the Galatians how much they 
 were in error. [See Note LXIV., p. 215.] Hence this question, expressive 
 of astonishment,’ which is all the stronger and consequently all the more 
 appropriate, the more simply we allow axotere to retain its primary literal 
 signification. Hence we must neither explain it? as audisse, i.e., nosse, notum 
 habere, ‘‘to have heard, i.e., to know, to be acquainted with ;”* nor, with 
 Jerome and many others, including Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, 
 Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, as to wnderstand,* which Paul conceives as the hear- 
 ing of the rvevua speaking behind the ypayua ;° nor, with Erasmus, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, as akotevy tivoc, to give attention, that is, to bestow 
 moral consideration. ® —véuoc is used here in a twofold sense :’ it means, in 
 the first place, the institute of thelaw ; and secondly, the Pentateuch, accord- 
 ing to the division of the Old Test. into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa.® 
 The repetition of the word gives emphasis. 
 
 Ver. 22. Tap] now gives the explanation of and warrant for that question, 
 by citing the history, narrated in the law, of Ishmael and Isaac, the two sons 
 of the ancestor of the theocratic people.° —éx rie mavdioxne] by the (well- 
 known) bondswoman, Hagar.” As to the word itself (which might also de- 
 note a free maiden), see Wetstein, I. p. 526 f. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 259 f. 
 — éx tic édevd.| Sarah. 
 
 Ver. 23 presents the relation of diversity between the two, in contrast to 
 the previously mentioned relation of similarity, according to which they 
 both were sons of Abraham. — xara capxa] according to the flesh, so that the 
 birth was the result of a natural carnal intercourse. Differently in Rom. i. 
 3, ix. 5. —yeyévyyra:] is born ; the perfect realizes the historically existing 
 relation as present. — dud tie érayyediac] through the (well-known) promise, 
 Gen. xvii. 16, 19, xviii. 10; Rom. ix. 9. This must not, however, be ra- 
 tionalized (with Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others) into ‘‘ per eam vim ex- 
 traordinariam, quam Deus promiserat,” ‘‘ by that extraordinary power 
 which God had promised,” which does violence to the history in Gen- 
 esis, as above ; nor, with Hofmann, to the effect that the promise, with 
 which Abraham had been called, was realized in the procreation itself ; 
 but it is to be definitely explained in accordance with the tenor of the words 
 and with Gen. xxi. 1: ‘‘by virtue of the promise he is born,” so that in his 
 procreation (Matt. i. 2 ; Luke iii. 34) the divine promise made to his parents, 
 
 
 
 1 Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 3 See Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 503 C ; Ast, 
 2, p. 57) deals with our passage in an un- ad Plat. Legg. i. p.9 3 Spohn, Lectt. Theoer. 
 warrantable and intolerably violent man- 7) 034 135}, 
 ner by writing ot (as relative), but makes 4 Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 2. 
 the summons (ell me, ye who, wishing to be 5 So Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
 under the law, do not hear the law) to be only p. 382. 
 prepared for by ver. 22 ff., and that which 6 Rather, to have an ear for, as 1 Cor. Xiv. 
 Paul had in view in the Aéyeré poe of ver. 21 2; Matt. x. 14; John viii. 47. 
 to follow at length in ver. 30. The address 7 Comp. Rom. iii. 19. 
 runs on simply and appropriately, and af- § See on Luke xxiv. 44. 
 fords no occasion for any such intricacy. 9 See Gen. xvi. 15 f., xxi. 2 f. 
 
 2 With Winer; comp. Matthies. 10'See Gen. Xvi. 3. 
 
CHAP. IV., 24. 201 
 
 which had assured them of the birth of a son, was the procuring cause of 
 the result, which would not have occurred without such an operation of the 
 power of the divine promise (Gen. xvii. 14), seeing that the two parents 
 were in themselves incapable of the procreation of Isaac ; for Sarah was 
 barren, and both were already too old (Gen. xviii. 11 ; Rom. iv. 19).? 
 
 Ver. 24. "Arwa] quippe quae, quae quidem, ‘‘ Surely which things, or which 
 things indeed,” taking up the recorded facts under the point of view of a 
 special quality. —éorw adAdAnyopobmeva| are of allegorical import. The word 
 adAnyopeiv, not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., means dAdo ayopetery, so to 
 speak (to set forth, to relate), that another sense is expressed than the words 
 convey ; which further meaning lies concealed behind the immediate meaning 
 of what issaid.? In the passive: to have an allegorical meaning,* Schol. Soph. 
 Aj. 186 ; Porph. Pyth. p. 185 ; Philo, de Cherub. I. p. 148 ; and see gener- 
 ally, Wetstein.4 The understanding of the O. T. history in an allegoric 
 sense was, as is well known, extremely prevalent among the later Jews.° 
 But on account of the Rabbinical training in which Paul had been brought 
 up,°® and on account of his truthful character, nothing else can be assumed 
 than that he himself was convinced that what he related contained, in addi- 
 tion to its historical sense, the allegorical import set forth by him ; so that 
 he did not intend to give a mere argumentum kar’ dvopwror, ‘ad hominem,” 
 but ascribed to his allegory the cogency of objective proof. [See Note LXYV., 
 p- 215.] Hence he has raised it into the keystone of his whole antinomistic 
 reasoning, and has so earnestly introduced (ver. 21) and carried it out, that 
 we cannot hold (with Schott) that it was intended to be an argumentum 
 secundarium, quod insuper accederet, ‘‘a secondary argument to be added 
 besides.” But in the view of a faith not associated with Rabbinical train- 
 ing, the argument wholly falls to the ground asa real proof (Luther says 
 that it is ‘‘too weak to staid the test”) ;" while the thing proved is none the 
 
 1 Comp. Chrysostom. every obscure or veiled discourse (Herod. y. 
 
 2 Hesychius: aAdAnyopia aAAo te mapa To 
 akovoy.evav Umoderkvuavea, “ An allegory indi- 
 cating something else than what is heard.” 
 Comp. Quinctil. viii. 6; see Plut. Mor. p. 363 
 D, Athen. ii. p. 69 C3; Philo, de migr. Abr. 
 p. 420 B; Joseph. Antt. prooem. 4 
 
 3 Not: to be the object of allegorical con- 
 ception (Hofmann). The allegorical sense 
 is @ priori contained and given in the facts 
 which stand recorded ; they have, contained 
 in them, the allegorical import which is only 
 exhibited by the explanation. If éoriv addny. 
 were to be taken, not in the sense of being 
 expressed, but in that of being conceived as 
 such, which is certainly found in Plutarch, 
 Synesius, and elsewhere, Paul must have 
 written adAdAnyopetrar, or the verbal adjective 
 ahAnyopyteos. Moreover, adAnyopecy is relat- 
 ed to aivitrec@ar as species to genus; but 
 Hofmann arbitrarily asserts that the da/ter 
 requires for its interpretation wif, the for- 
 mer understanding. Atvittesdac includes 
 
 56; Plat. Rep. p. 332 B, and frequently; 
 Soph. Aj. 1137; Eur. Zon. 480; Lucian, V. 7. 
 i. 2), whether it be in an allegorical form or 
 not, and whether it require wit or not., 
 
 4 Jn the older Greek, allegory was termed 
 umovora (see Plut. de aud. poet. p. 19 EB), 
 Plato, de Rep. p. 878 D; Xen. Symp. 3. 6; 
 Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 200 f.). 
 
 5 Synops. Sohar. p. 25.1: ‘*‘ Quicunque di- 
 cit narrationes legis alium non habere 
 sensum, quam illius tantum historiae, istius 
 crepet spiritus,’’ ‘‘ Whoever says that the 
 narratives of the law have no other sense, 
 than only of that history, let his spirit 
 prate.” See generally, Dépke, Hermencut. 
 I. p. 104 ff.; Gfrérer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. 
 I. i. p. 68 ff. 
 
 ® Comp. Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, 
 p. 369 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 295 f. 
 
 7 We must be on our guard against con- 
 founding the idea of the allegory with that 
 of the type (1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Rom. y. 14; 
 
202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 less established independent of the allegory, and is merely illustrated by it. 
 ‘‘Nothing can be more preposterous than the endeavors of interpreters to 
 vindicate the argument of the apostle as one objectively true.” '— airac] 
 namely, Hagar and Sarah ; for see afterwards #ric éoriv “Ayap. Hence not 
 equivalent to rata, sc. ta GAAnyopobueva, ‘*The things allegorized,”? as is 
 assumed, in order not to admit here an eivac onwavtixév. — cio] namely, alle- 
 gorically, and so far = signify.* — dbo drabijxar| two covenants, not: institutions, 
 declarations of will,* or generally ‘* arrangements connected with the history 
 of salvation’ (Hofmann), any more than in iii. 15. The characteristic of 
 a covenant, that there must be two parties, existed actually in the case of 
 the dvatjxac (God and the men, who were subject to the law,—God and the 
 men, who believe in Christ).° — pia pév axd dpovc Suva] One proceeding from 
 Mount Sinai, which was instituted on Mount Sinai, and therefore issues 
 from it. Instead of ad, the mere genitive might have been used,° but the 
 former is more definite and descriptive. The pév is without any correspond- 
 ing dé,’ for in none of the cases where dé subsequently occurs is it correlative 
 
 to this pév. 
 
 comp. Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. ili. 21), as Calvin 
 and many others have done: “a familia 
 ’ Abrahae similitudo ducitur ad ecclesiam ; 
 quemadmodum enim Abrahae domus tune 
 fuit vera ecclesia, ita minime dubium est, 
 quin praecipui et prae aliis memorabiles 
 eventus, qui in ea nobis contigerunt, nobis 
 totidem sint fypi,” ‘‘From Abraham’s 
 family the comparison is applied to the 
 church ; for as the household of Abraham 
 was then the true church, so there is no 
 doubt that the events that are chief and 
 notable above others which have happened 
 tous init are types tous.” Also Tholuck 
 (d. A.T.im N.T. p. 39, ed. 6) and Wieseler 
 understand daddAnyopovpeva as equivalent to 
 But even Philo, de opif. m. 
 I. p. 38. 10, puts the type not as equivalent, 
 but only as similar to the allegory; and 
 Josephus, Antt. prooem. 4, speaks of Moses 
 as speaking ina partly allegorical sense, 
 without intimating that he intended his- 
 torical types. The allegory and the type 
 are contrasted on the one hand with that 
 which is only tAdcpata pidwv, ‘ figments 
 of myths,” and on the other hand with 
 that which is said é& evdetas (directly, 
 expressly). But neither does a type ne- 
 cessarily rest on allegorical interpreta- 
 tion, nor does the allegory necessarily pre- 
 suppose that what is so interpreted is a 
 type; the two may be independent one 
 of the other. Thus, ¢.g., the allegory of 
 the name of Hagar, in Philo, Aleg. I. 
 p. 185. 29, is anything but typology. See 
 the passages themselves in Wetstein. At 
 any rate, the allegory has a much freer 
 scope, and may be handled very differently 
 
 TUTLKw@S Acyomeva, 
 
 In point of fact the contrast anticipated in pia pév certainly 
 
 by different people ; ‘‘ potest alius aliud et 
 argutius fingere et veri cum similitudine 
 suspicari, potest aliud tertius, potest aliud 
 quartus, atque ut se tulerint ingeniorum 
 opinantium qualitates, ita singulae res 
 possunt infinitis interpretationibus expli- 
 cari,” ‘‘one can represent more skilfully 
 one thing, and another, another, and re- 
 gard it as a figure of the truth. A third, 
 another; a fourth, another; and as the 
 qualities of the mind’s thinking are dis- 
 posed, so each subject can be explained 
 with infinite interpretations,’ Arnobius. 
 The type is a real divine preformation of a 
 N. T. fact in the O. T. history. Comp. on 
 Rom. v. 14; also Tholuck, /.c. p. 47 ff. But 
 one fact signifies another alegorically, when 
 the ideal character of the latter is shown 
 as figuratively presenting itself in the 
 former; in which case the significant 
 fact needs not to be derived from the 
 O. T., and the interpretations may be very 
 various. Comp. Kleinschmidt in the Meck- 
 lend. theol. Zeitschr. 1861, p. 859. Matthias, 
 in the interpretation of our passage, abides 
 by the wider idea of “figure, but this 
 does not satisfy the strict idea of the ale- 
 gorica, so faras this is the expression of an 
 inner, deeper significance, —of an €eTépws 
 Voovmevov, 
 
 1 Baur, Paulus, II. p. 312, ed. 2. 
 
 2 Calovius and others. 
 
 3 Comp. Matt. xiii. 20, 388, e¢ al. 
 
 4 Usteri. 
 
 5 Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25. 
 
 6 Bernhardy, p. 223. 
 
 7 Kiihner, II. p. 480, 
 
CHAP, IV.,, 20. 203 
 
 follows in ver. 26, but not in conjunction with pév ; see what is said on 
 ver, 26. — eric doviciay ytvvdca] bringing forth unto bondage, that is, placing 
 those who belong to this covenant, by means of their so belonging, in a 
 state of bondage, namely, through subjection to the Mosaic law.* The notion 
 of a mother has caused the retention of the jigurative expression yevvdca. — 
 qttg éotiv “Ayap| Frc, quippe quae, ‘‘which indeed,” is neither predicate * 
 nor attributive definition,® as if it were written “Ayap oica, ‘‘ being Hagar ;” 
 but it is the swhject, just as dra and avira, and also 7c in ver. 26. The 
 name, not as yet expressed, is now emphatically added. The Sinaitic cove- 
 nant is that which Hagar is in the history referred to—is allegorically iden- 
 tical with Hagar. 
 
 Ver. 25. The 7ri¢ éoriv “Ayap, just said, has now a reason assigned for it, 
 Srom the identity of the name ‘' Hagar” with that of Mount Sinai. To yap 
 “Ayap . . . ’ApaBia, however, is not to be placed in a parenthesis, because 
 neither in the construction nor in a logical point of view does any inter- 
 ruption occur ; but with ovoroyei dé a new sentence is to be commenced. 
 ‘* This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history—a fact which is con- 
 JSirmed by the similarity of the name of this woman with the Arabian designation 
 of Mount Sinai. Not of a different nature, however,—to indicate now the cor- 
 responding relation, according to which no characteristic dissimilarity may ex- 
 ist between this woman and the communitybelonging to the Sinaitic covenant, 
 because otherwise that yric éoriv “Ayap would be destitute of inner truth— 
 not of a different nature, however, but of a similar nature is Hagar with the 
 present Jerusalem, that is, with the Jewish state; because the latter is, as 
 Hagar once was, in slavery together with those who belong to it.” This para- 
 phrase at the same time shows what importance belongs to the position of 
 ovatoyer at the head of the sentence. — 7d yap *Ayap Suva dpoc éotw év FT. 
 "AoaZ.| That the name Hagar* accorded with the Arabic name of Sinai, 
 could not but be a fact welcome to the allegorizing Paul in support of his 
 iT éotiv “Ayap.°-—He now writes Suva dpoc, and not époc Suva as in ver. 24, be- 
 cause *Ayap and Yuva are intended to stand in juxtaposition on account of the 
 
 Srr 
 
 coincidence of the two names. In Arabic > means lapis, ‘‘a stone ;” 
 We 
 
 and although no further ancient evidence is preserved that the Arabs called 
 Sinai xar’ éo0yfv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the stone,® yet Chrysostom in his day says 
 that in their native tongue the name Sinai was thus interpreted ; and in- 
 deed Biisching ’ quotes the testimony of Harant the traveller,® that the Arabs 
 still give the name IHuadschar to Mount Sinai,—a statement not supported 
 
 1 See ver. 1 ff. 
 
 2 Bengel. 
 
 3 As that Siadjnn, which Hagar is; so Hof- 
 mann. 
 
 470 "Ayap denotes this; see Eph. iy. 9; 
 Kiuhner,. II. p. 137. 
 
 5 Comp. John ix. 6. 
 
 6 We may add that = occurs else- 
 
 where as a geographical proper name in 
 Arabia Petraea. Thus the Chald. Paraphr. 
 
 always gives the name 873M to the wil- 
 derness called in the Hebr.}¥W As to the 
 
 town SS » which is, however, to be pro- 
 
 nounced Hidschr and not Hadschr, and, on 
 account of its too remote site, cannot come 
 into consideration here (in opposition to 
 Grotius and others), see Ewald, p. 493 f., 
 and Jahrb. VIII. p. 290. 
 
 7 Prdbeschr. V. p. 535. 
 
 ® [Who in 1598 was at Sinai, Sieffert.] 
 
204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 by the evidence of any other travellers. Perhaps it was (and is) merely a 
 provincial name current in the vicinity of the meuntain, easily explained 
 from the granitic nature of the peaks,’ with which also the probable sig- 
 nification of the Hebrew "3°D, the pointed,* harmonizes,* and which became 
 known to the apostle, if not through some other channel previously, by 
 means of his sojourn in Arabia (i. 17).4 It is true that the name of Hagar (139) 
 
 does not properly correspond with the word = (14), but with Fos Sugit, 
 
 *¢ flees ;”” but the allegorizing interpretation of names is too little bound to 
 literal strictness not to find the very similarity of the word and the sub- 
 stantial resemblance of sound enough for its purpose, of which we have 
 still stronger and bolder examples in Matt. ii. 28, John ix. 6. Beza, Cal- 
 vin, Castalio, Estius, Wolf, and others, interpret, ‘‘for Hagar is a type of 
 Mount Sinaiin Arabia ;”*° but against this view the neuter 7d *Ayap is decisive. 
 [See Note LXVI., p. 215 seq. ]— év ’ApaBia] not in Arabia situm, ‘‘ situated 
 in Arabia” °—for how idle would be this topographical remark’ in the 
 case of a mountain so universally known !—nor equivalent to apauori, so 
 that ’ApaB. would be an adjective and duadéxtw would have to be supplied ;° 
 but : in Arabia the name Hagar signifies the Mount Sinai.° So Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact, Luther (‘‘for Agar means in Arabia the Mount Sinai’), 
 Morus, Koppe, Reiche, Reithmayr, and others. —ovoroyei| The subject is, as 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly has it, Hagar, not Mount Sinai °—a view 
 which runs entirely counter to the context, according to which the two 
 women are the subjects of the allegorical interpretation, while 76 yap “Ayap 
 
 
 
 1 Robinson, I. p. 170 f. 
 
 2 See Knobel on Hx. p. 190. 
 
 3 Asto the mineralogical beauty of the 
 mountain, see Fraas, Aus d. Orient geolog. 
 Beobacht. 1867. 
 
 4 Comp. also Ewald, p. 495 ; Reiche, p. 63. 
 
 5 At the same time Calvin and others re- 
 mark on év “ApaBia : ‘‘ hoe est extra limites 
 terra sanctae, quae symbolum est aeternae 
 haereditatis,” ‘‘ This is outside the limits 
 of the Holy Land, which is the symbol of 
 the eternal inheritance.” Thisreference is 
 also discovered by Wieseler, who, with 
 Lachmann, reads only To y. Suwa pos éoriv 
 ev tT. ApaB., “for the Sinai mountain dies 
 beyond the Holy Land, and indeed in Arabia, 
 where also the alien Hagar is at home.”’ In 
 his view, Paul meant to say that, through 
 their alien nature, the Sinaitic é:a3y«n and 
 Hagar showed themselves to answer to 
 each other, —namely, as intervenient ele- 
 ments in the history of salvation. But this 
 Paul has not said; the substance of it 
 would have to be read between the lines. 
 How very natural it would have been for 
 him at least to have written, instead of or 
 in addition to év r. ’ApaB., €&w (Or paxpav aro) 
 THs yns Xavady, in order thus at least to give 
 some intimation that the alien character was 
 the point’ This also applies against the 
 view of Hofmann (comp. also his Schri/t- 
 
 bew. II. 2, p. 70 f.), who likewise follows the 
 reading, omitting “Ayap, and agrees in sub- 
 stance with Wieseler’s explanation, taking 
 Mount Sinai as contrast to Sion, and Arabia 
 as contrast to the land of promise. Comp. 
 also, in opposition to this exposition, which 
 imports elements wholly gratuitous, Ewald, 
 Jahrb. X. p. 239. 
 
 ® Schott and older expositors. . 
 
 7 Which is not (with Bengel) to be brought 
 into an antithetical relation to ova7otyet 
 6ێ (the Mount Sinai is indeed situated in Ara- 
 bia, but corresponds, etc.), as if it were ac- 
 companied by a ev (and with the adop- 
 tion of Lachmann’s reading); for in this 
 ease the allegorical signification of the 
 Hagar would not be based on any ground. 
 
 8 Matthias. i 
 
 ® Observe that the apostle does not at all 
 wish to say that Hagar is in the Arabic lan- 
 guage generally the name of Sinai; but, on 
 the contrary, by ev ty “ApaBia he character- 
 izes that nameasa name used inthe country, 
 provincial. Hofmann unjustly finds in the 
 words according to our reading “‘ abswrd- 
 ity.” 
 
 10 Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysos- 
 tom, and his followers, Thomas, Erasmus, 
 Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and 
 others; also Hofmann now. 
 
CHAP. IV., 20d. 205 
 
 Luva bpo¢e éotwv év 7H ’ApaB. was merely a collateral remark by way of con- 
 firmation. Incorrectly-also Studer and Usteri, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius,! Windischmann, Reithmayr, hold that the subject is still uia pév. 
 amo dpove Suva, ‘‘one from Mount Sinai,” the Sinaitie constitution. In this 
 way there would be brought out no comparison at all between the subject 
 of cvorovyei and the present Jerusalem ; and yet such, according to the sig- 
 nification of cvorovyeiv (see afterwards), there must necessarily be, so that in 
 dovdever yap x.t.A. lies the tertium comparationis, ‘‘third object of compar- 
 ison.” The Sinaitic dvajxn is not of a similar nature with the present Jeru- 
 salem, but is itself the constitution of it ; on that very account, however, 
 according to the allegorical comparison Hagar corresponds to the present 
 Jerusalem. ovoro.yeiv means to stand in the same row,® that is, here, to 
 stand in the same category,* to be of the same nature and species, cictoryov 
 elvat.4 Consequently : Hagar belongs to the same category with the present 
 Jerusalem, is of a like nature with it,*° hasin common with it the same 
 characteristic relation, in so far namely that, as agar was a bondwoman, 
 the present Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage.® Thus ovor. ex- 
 presses the correspondence. _ But it is incorrect to take it as : she confronts as 
 parallel.’ This must have been expressed by avtvoroyei.2 Many of those 
 who regard Sinai as the subject (see above) interpret : ‘‘ it extends as far as 
 Jerusalem.” ° This would have to be more exactly defined with Genebrardus, 
 ad Ps. cxxxiii. 3, following out the literal meaning of the word ocvatoiyei : 
 ““nerpetuo dorso sese versus Sionis montes exporrigit,” ‘it extends in an un- 
 broken ridge to the mountains of Zion.” But even granting the geograph- 
 ical reality of the description, and setting aside the fact that Sinai is not 
 the subject, Paul must have named, instead of 77 viv ‘Iepovc., Mount Zion. 
 Hofmann, in reference to the position of Sinai in Arabia and of Jerusalem 
 in the land of promise, interprets the expression Jocally indeed, but as in- 
 dicative of the non-local relation, that the present Jerusalem belongs to the 
 same category with the mountain although Arabian, which has it side by 
 side on the same line in the order of the history of salvation. An artificial 
 consequence of the geographical contrast introduced as regards év ’Apaj3., as 
 well as of the erroneous assumption that Mount Sinai is the subject. At 
 the same time a turn is given to the interpretation, as if Paul had written 
 ovoToiyel Jé avT@ 7) viv ‘Iepovc. — TH viv "IepovoaAyju| does not stand in contrast 
 to the former Salem,’ but in Paul’s view means the present Jerusalem 
 
 1 Also Hofmann formerly. 
 
 2 See Polyb. x. 21. 7, and Wetstein. 
 
 3 avototxia, Aristot. Metaph. i. 5, pp. 986, 
 1004. 
 
 4 Theophr. ¢c. pl. vi. 4.2; Arist. Meteor.i.3; 
 Lucian, ¢. hist. conscr. 43. 
 
 5 Comp. Polyb. xiii. 8. 1: 6fova Kai cvorouxa. 
 
 6 See below. 
 
 7 Riickert, Winer. Comp. also Wieseler: 
 “ corresponds toit ; not, however, ata dike, 
 but at a different stage,” whereby the idea 
 of a type is expressed. This view is not to 
 be supported by Polyb. x. 21. 7, where 
 
 ougvyovrtTas Kal cvoToLyovr Tas Stapévery MEANS 
 to remain in rank and file (*‘servare ordines 
 secundum wapaotatas et emiBatas,”’? Schweig- 
 hiuser), so that as well the ovévyovv7es as 
 the cvotorxodvtes always form one row with 
 one another. 
 
 8 Xen. Symp. 2. 20, Anab. v. 4. 12; comp. 
 avtiototxos, Eur. And. 746, and av7eotorxia, 
 Plut. Mor. p. 474 A. 
 
 ® Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, and 
 others, 
 
 10 Rrasmus, Michaelis. 
 
206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 belonging to the pre-Messianic period, as opposed to 7 ave ‘Iepove. (ver. 26), 
 which after the rapovoia will take its place. See on ver. 26. Moreover, 
 the present Jerusalem and its children’ represcnt the Israelitie common- 
 wealth and its members.” — dovieter yap x.t.2.| namely, to the Mosaic law. 
 The bondage to Rome? is not, according to the context, referred to either 
 alone * or jointly.° The subject is 7 viv ‘Iepove., and not “Ayap.° Looking 
 at the usage both of classical authors and the N. T., there is nothing sur- 
 prising in the change of subject.” Lachmann (also Ewald) has incorrectly 
 placed the words doviebec . . . ait in a parenthesis. 
 
 Note.—If the reading of Bengel and Lachmann, 10 y. Svvd dpor éoriv év T. ’Apap., 
 be adopted, the interpretation would simply be: ‘for the Sinai-Mount is in 
 Arabia ;” so that év 77’ Apa3. would serve to support the allegorical relation of 
 Hagar to Sinai, seeing that Hagar also was in Arabia and the ancestress of the 
 Arabians. This certainly forms a ground of support much too vague, and not 
 befitting the dialectic acuteness of the apostle. In the case of the Recepta also, 
 év TH’ ApaB., taken as a geographical notice, is so superfluous and aimless, that 
 Schott’s uncritical conjecture, treating the words To y. “Ay. 6p. &. &. év Tr. “Apa. 
 as a double gloss, is not surprising. Bentley, who is followed by Mill, Proleg. 
 § 1306, even wished to retain nothing of the passage but 70 dé "Ayap ovotouyel TH 
 vuv ‘Jepovo. x.T.2. Against the interpretation of év 77 Apa. by Wieseler and 
 Hofmann, see above. 
 
 Ver. 26. But altogether different from the position of the present Jerusa- 
 lem is that of the wpper Jerusalem, which is free ; and this upper Jerusalem 
 is our mother. — dé] places the ave ‘Iepove. in contrast with the previous 77 
 viv ‘Iepove. The pia pév of ver. 24 has been left, in consequence of the 
 digression occasioned by the remarks made in ver. 25, without any correla- 
 tive to follow it (such as 7 dé érépa),—an omission which is quite in harmony 
 with the rapid movement of Pauline thought.* He leaves it to the reader 
 to form for himself the second part of the allegorical interpretation after the 
 similarity of the first, and only adduces so much of it as is directly suggested 
 by the contrast of the just characterized rj viv ‘Iepovc. He leaves it, there- 
 fore, to the reader to supply the following thought : ‘‘ But the other cove- 
 nant, which is allegorically represented in this history, is the covenant insti- 
 tuted by Christ, which brings forth to freedom : this is Sarah, who is of the 
 same nature with the upper Jerusalem ; for the latter is, as Sarah was, free 
 with its children, and to this upper Jerusalem we Christiansas children 
 belong.” —7 dé? dvw ‘Iepovcadfu] is neither the ancient Jerusalem, the Salem 
 of Melchizedek,? nor Mount Zion, which is called in Josephus 7 ave 7éAcc,"° as 
 among the Greeks the Acropolis at Athens was also so named." Both inter- 
 
 1“ Inhabitants ;” see Matt. xxiii. 37, Ps. Winer, p. 586. 
 
 Gxdixez: 8 Comp. Rom. vii. 12, e¢ al.; also Rom. 
 2 Comp. Isa. xl. 2. y. 12. 
 3 Pelagius. ® Oeder, Michaelis, Paulus. 
 4 Castalio, Ewald. 10 See the passages in Ottii Spicil. ex Jose- 
 5 Bengel. pho, p. 400 f. 
 6 Cornelius & Lapide, Grotius, and others. 11 Vitringa, Elsner, Mill, Wolf, Rambach, 
 
 7 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 C; Moldenhauer, Zachariae. 
 
CHAP. IV., 26. 207 
 pretations are opposed to the context, and the former to linguistic usage.’ 
 The contrast between heaven and earth elsewhere conveyed by dv, as used 
 by Paul (Phil. iii. 14 ; Col. iii. 2), is found here also, since 7 viv ‘Iep. is the 
 earthly Jerusalem. It is true that this contrast would have been more 
 accurately expressed if, instead of 7% viv ‘Tepovo., he had written rH Karo 
 ‘Tepove. (NUM bw ow1), “the Jerusalem below ;” but in using the vt he 
 thought of the futwre Jerusalem as its contrast (Heb. xiii. 14), and after- 
 wards changed his mode of representation, by conceiving the future as the 
 upper: for it is the heavenly Jerusalem, called by the Rabbins ow mow 
 my, “¢ Jerusalem on high,” which, according to Jewish teaching, is the 
 archetype in heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and on the establishment of 
 the Messiah’s kingdom is let down to earth, in order to be the centre and 
 capital of the Messianic theocracy, just as the earthly Jerusalem was the 
 centre and capital of the ancient theocracy. Comp. Heb. xi. 10, xii. 22, 
 xiii. 14 ; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2.2 And as previously the present Jerusalem 
 represented the Jewish divine commonwealth, so here the upper Jerusalem 
 represents the Messianic theocracy, which before the rapovoia, ‘* presence or 
 coming of Christ,” is the church, and after the zapovoia is the glorious kingdom 
 of the Messiah. With justice, accordingly, the church on earth (not merely 
 the ‘‘ecclesia triwmphans,” ‘‘church triumphant”), has at all times been 
 deemed included in the heavenly Jerusalem,’ for the latter is, in relation to 
 the church, its zoditevua [commonwealth, according to others : citizenship], 
 which is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20). The heavenly completion of the church 
 in Christ ensues at the zapovoia, in which Christ who rules in heaven will 
 manifest in glory the life—hitherto hidden with Him in God *—of the com- 
 munity, which is the body and rAjpeua, ‘‘fulness,” of Him its Head (Eph. i. 
 22 f.). Thus the church on earth is already the theocracy of the heavenly 
 Jerusalem, and has its roA/revua in heaven ; but this its cAypovouia, ‘‘inheri- 
 tance,” is, until the zapovcia, only an ideal and veiled, although in hope 
 assured, possession, which at the second coming of the Lord at length attains 
 objective and glorious realization. It is, however, by no means to be as- 
 serted that Paul entertained the sensuous Rabbinical conceptions of the 
 heavenly Jerusalem ;° for he nowhere presents, or even so much as hints, at 
 them, often as he speaks of the rapovoia and the consequences connected with 
 it. In his view, the heavenly Jerusalem was the national setting for the 
 idea—founded on the exalted Christ as its central point—of the kingdom of 
 the Messiah before and after its glorious realization. — éhevépa éotw] that is, in- 
 dependent of the Mosaic law (opposite of the dovdebe: in ver. 25), in free, 
 moral self-determination, under the higher life-principle of the Spirit (Rom. 
 
 1 dvw always means above. When it appears 
 to mean olim, it denotes the ascending line 
 of ancestry, as ¢.g. in Plat. Legg. ix. p. 880B: 
 H Tarp 7H Ete avwrépw, ‘either to the father 
 or one still higher.”” Theaet. p.175 B al.; the 
 earlier time lying behind being regarded as 
 higher (Polyb. v. 6. 1, iv. 2. 3, iv. 50. 8). 
 
 ®See generally Schoettgen, de Hieros. 
 coclest. in his Horae, p. 1205 ff. ; Meuschen, 
 
 N. T. cx Talim. ill. p. 199 ff.; Wetstein, in 
 loc. ; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 211 ff. ; Ewald, 
 ad Apoc. p. 11, 307. 
 
 3 See Luther, and especially Calovius, im 
 loc. 
 
 4 See on Col. iii. 3 f. 
 
 5 See EHisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. Il. 
 p. 839 ff. 
 
208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 17). —7rice gor? pAtnp jor] correlative with the above- 
 mentioned pera rav téxv. avta¢ ; hence, if Paul had wished to lay the stress 
 upon 7jav,’ he must have made this evident by the marked position rig 7uav 
 ut. &. The emphasis lies rather on #ric, that is, she who, ete. (comp. on 
 ver. 24), guippe quae libera Hierosol, ‘‘since she is the free Jerusalem.” To 
 this Jerusalem as our woAitevua, ‘‘ commonwealth,” we Christians belong, as 
 children to their mother (Phil. iii. 20 ; Eph. ii. 19). Im bondage, it would 
 not be our mother. Hofmann interprets differently : ‘‘the freedom of this 
 Jerusalem may be seen in her children.” But this would be a correlative ret- 
 rospective conclusion, since Paul has neither written ér: (but ric), nor has he 
 expressed himself participially oboa pr. ju. pAtnp without the article is 
 qualitative. That ijuov applies to the Christians generally, including also the 
 Gentile Christians, is obvious of itself from the context, and does not require 
 the addition of wavrwv in the Tezxtus receptus, which is defended by Ewald 
 (in opposition to Reiche), to make it evident. 
 
 Ver. 27. Proof from Scripture? that no other than this, the free Jerusalem 
 (jee), is our mother. This, namely, is according to Paul the subject 
 addressed, the unfruitful one, because Sarah—who, according to the alle- 
 gory, answers to the heavenly Jerusalem—was, as is well known, barren. 
 The historical sense of the prophecy (Isa. liv. 1, exactly according to the 
 LXX.) is the joyful promise of a great increase to the depressed people of 
 God in its state of freedom after the Babylonian exile. The desolate, unin- 
 habited Jerusalem, which had become like an unfruitful wife, is summoned 
 to rejoice, because it—and in this light, certainly, it is poetically compared 
 with itself as asecond person (in opposition to Hofmann)—is to become 
 more populous, more rich in children, than formerly, when it was the hus- 
 band-possessing spouse (of Jehovah). The fulfilment of this Messianic 
 prophecy—Messianic because pervaded by the idea of the victorious theoc- 
 racy—is discerned by Paul in the great new people of God, which belongs 
 to the avw ‘Iepovcadju, to this Sarah in the sense of the fulfilment, as its 
 mother. Before the emergence of the Christian people of God, this 
 heavenly Jerusalem was still unpeopled, childless ; it was oreipa, ‘‘ barren,” 
 
 
 
 ov tixrovoa, ‘‘not bringing forth,” ov« ddivovoa, ‘not in travail,” poe, 
 ‘*desolate” (solitaria, that is, in conformity with the contrast : without 
 conjugal intercourse), consequently quite the Sarah of the allegory, before 
 she became the mother of Isaac. But in and with the emergence of the Chris- 
 tian people of God, the avo ‘IepovcaAnu has become a fruitful mother, rejoic- 
 ing over her wealth of children, richer in children than 7 viv ‘Iepovoadgu, 
 this mother of the ancient people of God, which hitherto, like Hagar, had 
 been May2, 7 éyovca Tov avdpa, ‘‘married.” This dry, ‘‘ husband,” is God 
 (not the law, as Luther interprets), whose relation to the theocratical common- 
 wealth of the old covenant is conceived as conjugal intercourse. In virtue 
 of this idea, the relation of God to the viv ‘Iepoveaa#u—the latter regarded 
 
 1 Winer, Matthias. “Jerusalem above,’’ is the allegorical 
 
 2 For this Scriptural proof, the particular counterpart of Sarah, this ometpa 4 ov 
 passage Isa. liv. 1 is selected with great  tixrovoa x.7.A, “‘ barren, not bringing forth,” 
 skill and truc tact, since the avw ‘TepovoaAnp, ete. 
 
CHAP. IV., 28. 209 
 
 as a woman 7 éyovca tov avdpa—is the counterpart of the relation of Abraham 
 to the raidioxy, ‘‘bondwoman,” Hagar, whose descendants came into life 
 xara oapxa, ‘‘ according to the flesh.” On the other hand, the relation of 
 God to the avw ‘IepoveaA#u—the latter likewise regarded as a woman, who, 
 however, had hitherto been oveipa «.7.4.—is the counterpart of the relation 
 of Abraham to the free Sarah, whose far more numerous descendants were 
 children of promise (ver. 28). -Comp. Rom. ix. 8.— 7 od rixrovea] not for 
 the past participle,’ but expressing the state of the case as it stands: ‘‘ which 
 does not bear,” the consequence of oreipa, sterilis, unfruitful, as Sarah was 
 Mpy., “barren.” In the same way afterwards, 7 ob« ddivovea. — ppZov] dwvhy 
 is usually supplied. For many instances of pjyvoue dovgv or aidfr,? to 
 unchain the voice, that is, to speak aloud, see Wetstein, in loc. ; Loesner, 
 Obss. p. 333 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 385, XI. p. 57, XII. p. 131. But 
 since the verb alone is never thus used, it is safer to derive the supplement 
 from what has preceded ; hence Kypke and Schott correctly supply ei¢gpo- 
 civnv, “gladness” (rumpe jubilum, begin to rejoice), not because 137 ‘N¥9, 
 “break forth into joy,” stands in the Hebrew (Schott), but because eidpo- 
 sivnv flows from the previous ei¢parOnre ;* ‘‘ rejoice, let it break forth.” The 
 opposite is pjyvuue xAavOudr, ‘break into weeping” (Plut. Per. 36), pyyv. 
 daxptwrv vauara, ‘‘ break into streams of tears” (Soph. Trach. 919). — oreipa 
 k.T.A. applies in the connection of the original text to Jerusalem, and is also 
 here necessarily (see ver. 26)—according to the Messianic fulfilment of the 
 prophecy, in the light of which Paul apprehends the scriptural saying—to 
 be referred to Jerusalem, but to the dvw ‘Iepovoadhu, aric éoti wAtnp juor, 
 whereas the 7 éyovoa tov dvdpa which is placed in comparison with it is the 
 viv ‘Iepovoadfju. See above. Chrysostom and his successors, Bengel and 
 others, consider that the words oreipa «.7.2. apply to the Gentile Christians 
 (she who had the husband being the Jewish church) ; but against this view 
 it may be urged that that jri¢ éot? wiry juov, which refers to all Christians, 
 is to be proved by ver. 27.—oddd . . . paddov 7] not used instead of 
 mietova 7, ‘‘more than,” which would leave the multitude of children entirely 
 undetermined ; but it affirms that both had many children,—the solitary one, 
 however, the greater number : for numerous are the children of the solitary 
 one in a higher degree than those of her who possessed the husband. So the 
 LXX. has rightly understood the Hebrew °331) 0°37. 
 
 Ver. 28. It is not till ver. 29 that a new thought is entered on ; hence 
 ver. 28 is to be regarded as a remark explaining the fulfilment of the 
 prophetic utterence, which has its actual realization in the case of Christians, 
 and is to be annexed to ver. 27 (by a semicolon). So correctly, in opposi- 
 tion to the usual separation from ver. 27.°— But the Christians (iueic indi- 
 vidualizing ; see the critical notes) are the many children of that spiritual 
 Sarah, the heavenly Jerusalem! —kara "Icadx| After the manner of Isaac ; 
 comp. 1 Pet. i. 15 ; and see Wetstein and Kypke, also Heindorf,* — éray- 
 
 
 
 1 Grotius and others. 4The LXX. probably did not read 137, 
 2 Eur. Suppl. 710. se 1OVars 
 8 Comp. the Latin rwmpere vocem (Draken- 5 Hofmann, Ewald, Wieseler. 
 
 borch, ad Sil. It. iv, 528). 6 Ad Plat. Gorg. p. 225 f. 
 
 14 
 
210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 yedtac téxva] érayy. is emphatically prefixed : children of Abraham, who are 
 not so by carnal descent like Ishmael, but by promise. So, namely, as Isaac 
 was born to Abraham in virtue of the promise (ver. 23), are Christians by 
 means of divine promise also children of Abraham, in virtue of the fact that 
 they were promised by God to Abraham as réxva, ‘‘ children ;” without 
 which promise, having reference to them, they would not stand in the rela- 
 tion of sonship to Abraham. Comp. Rom. ix. 8. We must not on account 
 of ver. 23 explain the expression here, any more than in Rom. ix. 8,’ as 
 liberi promissi, ‘‘the children promised.” ? 
 
 Vv. 29, 30. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this their higher state of son- 
 ship, these spiritual children of Abraham are persecuted by the bodily chil- 
 dren of Abraham, as was formerly the case with Isaac and Ishmael ; but 
 (ver. 30) how wholly without ultimate success is, and, according to the 
 Scripture, must be, this persecution! This is not a collateral trait (Hol- 
 sten), but the consolatory practical result in which the allegory terminates 
 —its triumphantly joyful conclusion. Comp. on ver. 31. —rére] then, namely, 
 at that time when the allegorically-significant history came to pass. —6 Kata 
 cdpxa yevrAbeic] see ver. 238. —édiwxe] persecuted. It is true that in Gen. xxi. 
 9, Ishmael is designated only as a mocker (of Isaac).* But Paul follows the 
 tradition, which, starting from the basis of that statement, went further.* 
 According to Hofmann, Paul in the word d:éxew probably intends a running 
 after Isaac wantonly to annoy him (just as the partisans of the law followed 
 after the believing Gentiles in order to annoy them, vv. 10, 12). Quite unsup- 
 ported by any historical evidence, and very inappropriate to the rapdocew of 
 the Judaists (of which there is no mention here at all); comp. i. 7. — rév 
 kata treipa] him that is born according to the Spirit, that is, him who was 
 born in consequence of the intervening agency of the Holy Spirit (for the 
 divine rvevua, as the principle of the divine promise, is instrumental in the 
 efficacy of the latter). By means of the vs carnis Isaac could not have been 
 born, but only by means of the vis Spiritus divini, which, operative in the 
 divine promise, furnished at his procreation (Rom. iv. 17 ff.) the capacity 
 of generation and conception. In fact, therefore, tov cata mvevua conveys 
 the same idea as rév dud tic éxayyediac yevynbévta, ver. 23. The explanation : 
 per singularem efficacitatem Dei, ‘by the unique efficaciousness of God,” ° 
 compares things which are in their nature different (Luke i. 35), and is not 
 verbally accurate. And Hilgenfeld unnecessarily assumes ° that the expres- 
 sion is to be explained by a blending together of the ideal reference of the 
 
 1 See in loc. 4See Beresch. R. liii. 15: Dixit Ismael 
 
 2 Winer and others. 
 
 3 The idea that Paul, in using édiwxe, really 
 intended nothing more than this mocking 
 (‘nulla enim persecutio tam molesta esse 
 nobis debet, quam dum impiorum ludibriis 
 videmus labefactari nostram vocationem,” 
 “ For no persecution should be so grievous 
 to us as that which occurs when we see our 
 ealling shaken by the reproaches of the 
 godless,” Calvin), is not in harmony with 
 the comprehensive sense of the word. 
 
 Tsaaco : eamus et videamus portionem nos- 
 tram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sa- 
 gittas, et jaculatus est Isaacum et prae se 
 tulit ac siluderet,” ‘‘ Ishmael said to Isaac: 
 Let us go and see our portion in the field ; 
 and Ishmael carried the bow and arrows, 
 and shot at Isaac, and acted as though he 
 were in sport.” 
 
 5 Schott. 
 
 ® Comp. Bengel. 
 
CHAP. IV.5 31. PA | 
 
 allegory to the Christians, and of its historical basis. —otrw kat viv] So also 
 now the children of Abraham according to the flesh (the Jews) persecute 
 those who are Abraham’s children «ava rvevywa (Christians, érayyediac téxva, 
 ver. 28). Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 15. This oirw cai viv does not exclude any 
 kind of persecution which the Christians suffered at the hands of the Jews ; 
 but that which is intended must have been actual persecutions, such as those 
 to which the Christians as a body were so generally at that time subjected 
 by the Jews, and not the rapdccew on the part of the Judaists.’ — aia ri 
 2éyet 4 ypady ;| triumphantly introduces the divine certainty of the want of 
 success, which will attend this d:oxecv, to the destruction of the persecutors 
 themselves. Observe how the importance of the utterance is brought out 
 more vividly by the iterrogative announcement.* The quotation is from 
 Gen. xxi. 10, almost exactly following the LXX. Instead of pera rod viow 
 pov Ioaak, ‘‘ with my son Isaac,” in the LXX.,* Paul has written pera rod viow 
 THe édevdépac, not accidentally, but in order to give prominence to the con- 
 trast, which significantly refers back to the chief point of the allegory (comp. 
 ver. 22). — éxBate x.t.A.] The words of Sarah to Abraham (which, however, 
 in Gen. xxi. 12 are expressly approved by God and confirmed with a view 
 to fulfilment), requiring the expulsion of Hagar and her son from the house. 
 From this, looking to the scope of the allegory, the Galatians are to infer 
 the exclusion of the non-free Jews, who were now persecuting the free 
 Christians, from the people of God. This exclusion already actually exists 
 even in the present aidv, in so far as the true Israel which is free from the 
 law (the Icpa7A rod Ocod, vi. 16) has taken the place of the ancient people 
 of God, and will attain its perfect realization at the rapovaia, ‘‘ coming of 
 Christ,” when none but the free Christian family of God will share in the 
 kAnpovouta, ‘‘ inheritance,” of eternal Messianic salvation. Comp. iii. 18, 29. 
 According to Hofmann, * the meaning is, that as Abraham separated Ishmael 
 from Isaac, so also the readers are to dismiss from among them, as unentitled 
 to share in their inheritance, those who desired to force upon them their 
 own legalism ; the Christian body ought to remain wndisturbed by such per- 
 sons. This weakening of the idea is impossible with a correct conception 
 of didevy in ver. 29 ; the sure divine Nemesis against the persecutors must be 
 meant—the divine éxdixyorc, ‘‘ vengeance” (Luke xviii. 7 f.; 2 comp. Thess. i. 
 6, 8). — ov yap ju} KAnpov] prefixed with great emphasis ; the son of the bond- 
 woman shall assuredly not inherit.’ As to the exclusion, according to the 
 Israelite law, of the children of a concubine from the right of inheritance, 
 see Selden, de success. ad leg. Hebr. p. 28 ; Saalschiitz, WM. R. p. 831 ; Ewald, 
 Alterth. p. 266. [See Note LXVIL., p. 216.] 
 
 Ver. 31 is usually looked upon as the keystone, as the final result of the 
 previous discourse. ‘‘ Applicat historiam et allegoriam, et summam absolvit 
 brevi conclusione,” ‘‘ He applies the history and allegory, and brings it to a 
 close in a brief conclusion,” Luther, 1519. But so taken, the purport of ver, 
 
 1 Hofmann; see on édtwxe, 3 Which therefore D* E? F G, codd. of 
 2 Comp. Rom. iv. 3, x. 8, xi. 2, 4; Dissen, the Itala, and some Fathers read also here. 
 ad Dem. de cor. p. 186, 347; Blomfield, 4 Comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. V1. 
 
 Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1013. 5 Comp. Gen. xxv. 5 f. 
 
212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 81 appears to express far too little, and to be feeble, because it has been 
 already more than once implied in what precedes (see vv. 26, 28). We do 
 not get rid of this incongruity, even if with Rickert we prefer the reading 
 jusic dé, also approved by Hofmann (see the crit. notes), and assume the 
 tacit inference : ‘‘consequently the inheritance cannot escape us, expulsion 
 does not affect us.” For, after the whole argument previously developed, 
 any such express application of ver. 30 to Christians would have been entire- 
 ly superfluous ; no reader needed it, in order clearly to discern and deeply 
 to feel the certainty of victory conveyed in ver. 30 ; hence ver. 31 would be 
 halting and without force. No ; ver. 31 begins a new section.’ The allegor- 
 ical instruction, which from ver. 22 onwards Paul has given, comes to a 
 close forcibly and appropriately with the triumphant language of Scripture 
 in ver. 30 ; and now Paul will follow it up by the exhortation to stand fast 
 in their Christian liberty (v. 1). But first of all, as a basis for this exhorta- 
 tion, he prefixes to it the proposition——resulting from the previous’ instruc- 
 tion—which forms the ‘‘ pith of the allegory,” * and exactly as such is fitted 
 to be the theoretical principle placed at the head of the practical course of 
 action to be required in the sequel, ver. 31. This proposition is then fol- 
 lowed by r@ éAevbepia nude Xproroc HAcvlépwoev, V. 1, which very forcibly serves 
 as a medium of transition to the direct summons orfxere oiv. ‘* Therefore, 
 brethren, —seeing that our position is such as results from this allegory,—ie 
 are not children of a bond-woman (like the Jews), but of the free woman ; for 
 Sreedom Christ has made us free; stand therefore fast,” etc. 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN EDIToR. 
 
 LIII. Ver. 1. vareoc. 
 
 Nyc is the etymological equivalent of the Latin infans (N-éroc—in fans, 
 in both cases negativing the idea of speech. Hence the word has here the 
 force of the technical legal ‘‘ infant,’’ viz., a minor, Liddell and Scott find the 
 meaning of ‘‘ one still unfit to bear arms’’ in Hom. JI. i. 186 ; ix. 440. 
 
 LIV. Ver. 4. yevduevoy tro véuov. 
 
 The application of this passage, rejected by Meyer, is thus stated by Philippi : 
 «From the strict, even emphatic correspondence in the expression of thesis 
 and antithesis, it manifestly follows that the Son of God was under the law in 
 the same way as was Israel, in order to redeem Israel from slavery to the law, 
 and to introduce it into the adoption of God’s children. But in its youth, like 
 a minor to pedagogues, Israel was subject to the ordinances of the law demand- 
 ing fulfilment, corresponding to which the redeeming work of the Son of God 
 is to be regarded as a vicarious fulfilment of the law, and in this connection 
 his atoning death appears of itself as the completion of his obedience rendered 
 to the demands of the law (his yevéo8a: ird véuov), The passages cited, viz., 
 
 1 Comp. Lachmann, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. 2 Holsten. 
 
NOTES. 213 
 
 Matt. xx. 28; John iv. 34; Phil. i. 8; Gal. iv. 4; cf. Heb. v. 7, 8, treat the 
 Lord’s death as the culmination of His entire obedience of life, and represent 
 the life, passion and death of the Redeemer under a point of view entirely in- 
 divisible, which is none other than that of the vicarious fulfilment of the law. 
 he vicarious obedience of life, in distinction from the vicarious surrender of 
 life, in which it ceases, is typically prefigured in the O. T. For the priest 
 was the substitute of the people accepted of God, not only by his presentation 
 of the offering, but already in the Levitical purity and spotlessness of his 
 nature, life and conversation.’’ Aurchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. 2 : 296 sq. 
 
 LY. Ver. 6. 7d mvedpa rov viov. 
 
 Meyer does not express all that is contained in the words ‘‘the Spirit of His 
 Son.’ ‘If in John xiy. 16 only the procession of the Spirit from the Father 
 is treated of, yet He proceeds not only from the Father through the Son, but 
 also from the Son Himself. ‘For he shall receive of mine,’ says the Lord, 
 John xvi. 14 ; andasthe Father gives and sends Him, so also does the Son. Cf. 
 Matt. iii. 11; John i. 33; Acts ii, 33, possibly also John vii. 38, 39. ‘‘ Receive 
 ye the Holy Ghost.’’ With these words He Himself imparts the spirit to His 
 disciples. In Rom. viii. 9 the Spirit of God is also called the Spirit of Christ ; 
 in Phil. i. 19, the Spirit of Jesus Christ ; in 2 Cor. iii. 17, the Spirit of the 
 Lord ; in Gal. iv. 6, the Spirit of His Son ; and in Rey. xxii. 1, a stream of 
 living water (cf. John vii. 38, 39 ; also iv. 14) proceeds from the throne of God 
 and of the Lamb. The Spirit is accordingly just as much the possession of 
 the Son as of the Father.’’ (Philippi’s Airchliche Glaubenslehre, ii. 222.) 
 
 LVI. Ver. 8. roic dicet py odor Geoic. 
 
 Sieffert cannot appreciate any change of meaning, resulting from the transfer 
 of the 7 from before the @vcev, as in the text. recept. to before oto, as in best 
 codices. In either case a pure negative is expressed that the false gods are 
 not gods in reality, and there is nothing implied on either side of the question 
 as to whether they are pure fiction or have an dbjective existence as demonia. 
 This must be determined from other passages, 1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 19, 20. 
 
 LVII. Ver. 9. yvovrec. 
 
 While Meyer’s disproof of Olshausen’s distinction is conclusive, that of 
 Lightfoot must be accepted : ‘‘ While vida, I know, refers to the knowledge of 
 facts absolutely, ywwaoxw, I recognize, being relative, gives prominence either 
 to the attainment or the manifestation of the knowledge.’’ So Westcott on1 John 
 ii. 29: ‘* Knowledge which is absolute (eid7re) becomes the basis of knowledge 
 that is realized in observation (yvaoxere).’’ The same distinction is observed 
 in classical Greek. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon (under yyvionw) : ‘The strict 
 distinction seems to be that the former class, éyvi«evar, novisse, etc., means to 
 know by observation, the latter eidévai, scire, etc., to know by reflection. Thu- 
 eydides i. 69: éy4 0’ o0i6’ bTt yeyvdckete TovTUY arartec,” ‘‘I know that ye all 
 have come to know this one.’’ The same distinction underlies the German 
 Kennen and Wissen. It is recognized in the Revised Version by the render- 
 ing: ‘* But now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God.” 
 
214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 LVIII. Ver. 9. yvwobévrec 5x0 cod. 
 
 Sieffert’s exceptions to Meyer’s argument seem invalid ; but a more careful 
 observance of the distinction between the two words ‘‘to know,” used in verses 
 8 and 9, makes the argument clearer, as exhibited in a compressed form by 
 Sanday : ‘‘ In speaking of the Galatians as ‘coming to know’ God, it might 
 seem as if too much stress was laid on the human side of the process, and 
 therefore, by way of correction, the apostle presents also the divine side. 
 Any trne and saving knowledge of God has for its converse the ‘ being known 
 of God,’ i.e., recognition by God and acceptance by Him, such as is involved in 
 the admission of the believer into the Messianic kingdom.” 
 
 LIX. Ver. 12. yiveobe ac éyo. 
 
 Such an appeal, however, implies no yielding of the principle involved. 
 The argument is well paraphrased by Lightfoot: ‘‘I gave up all those time- 
 honored customs, all those dear associations of race to become like you. I 
 have lived as a Gentile to please you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me, 
 when I have abandoned all for you ?” 
 
 LX. Ver. 14. oidate dé OTe k.T.A. 
 
 In reply, Sieffert defends Lachmann and Buttmann by maintaining that 
 there is no flaw in the discourse here, which assumes an abrupt character as 
 frequently, because of the deep emotion of the apostle ; that in vv. 10-12 there 
 is a succession of disjointed sentences, and that in chap. ii. 21 asyndeton in 
 beginning of sentence occurs. He proposes this paraphrase: ‘‘ Ye know how 
 through infirmity of the flesh I preached, etc., and how ye were put to the test 
 in my flesh.”’ 
 
 LXI. Ver. 14. eferricarte. 
 
 Marginal reading of Revised Version: ‘‘ spat owt.’’ Lightfoot : ‘‘ Ye did not 
 treat with contemptuous indifference or active loathing.’’ 
 
 LXIT. Ver. 15. rove d¢8adpove tudor. 
 
 Eadie (pp. 329-341) has an excursus on Paul’s infirmity. The various views are 
 classified. I. The carnal style of his preaching (Jerome). II. Persecution 
 (Chrysostom, Eusebius of Emessa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Ambrosiast ; also Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche, Schrader, Ham- 
 mond, Reiche). III. Inner temptation. 1. To unbelief, stirring up of re- 
 maining sin, pangs of sorrow on account of his past life (Gerson, Luther, 
 Calvin, Osiander, Calovius). 2. To incontinence (Augustine, Jerome, Gregory 
 the Great, Salvian, Thomas Aquinas, Bede, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, a Lapide, 
 Bisping) ; against which (a) such would not be given by God. (b) Nor could 
 he have gloried in this, 2 Cor. xii. 9. (c) Nor would this inner struggle have ex- 
 posed him to scorn or aversion. (d) He declares his perfect freedom from 
 such temptations, 1 Cor. vii. 7. Luther: ‘‘ Ah no, dear Paul; it was no such 
 trial as afflicted thee.’’ IV. Some painful and acute corporeal malady, which 
 could not be concealed, but had a tendency to induce loathing (Flatt, Billroth, 
 Emmerling, Rickert, Meyer, de Wette, Lightfoot, Alford, Howson, Chandler, 
 Bottger, Eadie). Against the view that it was a malady of the eyes, among 
 
NOTES. 215 
 
 other arguments, it is urged: (a) The translation, ver. 15, ‘‘your eyes,’’ is un- 
 emphatic, not ‘‘ your own eyes.’’ (b) Defect of vision would not induce the 
 loathing of ver. 14. (c) The thorn was given fourteen years before he wrote 
 2 Cor. ; but his conversion was much earlier. (d) Arguments to prove that he was 
 permanently blinded are untrustworthy. Other conjectures concerning specific 
 affection : hypochondriacal melancholy, haemorrhoids, kidney-disease, gout, 
 the stone, severe headache, epilepsy. Each must be tested by the loathing 
 mentioned in this epistle. 
 
 LXIIL. ver. 17. iva aitode dydovte. 
 
 Such adverbial force of iva as that proposed by Meyer is without an instance 
 in either the LXX. or N. T. The same use of iva with indicative occurs also in 
 1 Cor. iv. 6. Unjustified by classical Greek, Winer declares that ‘‘in later 
 works it occurs so frequently as to preclude the supposition that every instance 
 is a mistake of transcribers.’’ The process of Meyer’s interpretation from that 
 of the fourth to the fifth edition shows how unnatural the application. Besides, 
 the telic and the adverbial iva are in reality the same word, and the attention 
 must be confined here altogether to the difference of moods. Winer’s remark, 
 that in both passages the verb after iva is one ending in ow, is worthy of note. 
 Hence Buttmann’s hypothesis that the present of this class of verbs has with 
 iva the force of the future. Sieffert, in common with almost all interpreters, 
 takes issue with Meyer. 
 
 LXIV. ver. 21. rdv vouov otk axovere. 
 
 There seems no reason to depart from the simpler and ordinarily received 
 meaning : ‘* Will ye not listen to the law?’ Argued in Ellicott, with whom 
 agree Alford, Schmoller, Eadie, Lightfoot and Sanday. 
 
 LXV. ver. 24. éorw ddAnyopodbmeva. 
 
 Sieffert adds, instead of what follows in Meyer: ‘‘ But whether he ascribed 
 the latter to all the details of his exposition is, nevertheless, a question. In 
 any event Meyer’s assertion is incorrect that Paul has raised this allegory to 
 the keystone of his whole antinomistic reasoning, etc. On the contrary, 
 Schott’s judgment is perfectly apposite. For the proper doctrinal demonstra- 
 tion is concluded already in chap. iv. 7, while the allegory is introduced into 
 the midst of the personal admonition to Christian freedom beginning already 
 in ch. iv. 8. (iv. 8-20, v. 1-12), and is expressly designated (v. 21) as in- 
 tended for the special practical wants of the readers . . . Meyer’s assertion, 
 that the argument falls wholly to the ground as a real proof in the view of a 
 
 faith not associated with Rabbinical training, pertains of course to the alle- 
 gorical form of the proof.”’ 
 
 LXVI. ver. 25. 76 “Ayap. 
 
 “If the word Hagar be omitted [according to 8 C F G17, the old Latin, Vul- 
 gate, Aethiopic, and Armenian versions ; Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril, Damas- 
 cenus, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, Pri- 
 marius, and probably all the Latin Fathers’’], the passage is capable of a very 
 
216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 easy and natural interpretation : ‘Sinai,’ St. Paul argues, ‘is situated in 
 Arabia, the country of Hagar’s descendants, the land of bond-slaves.’ And such, 
 too, seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even though with the 
 received text we retain Hagar: ‘This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,’ i.e., it 
 represents Mount Sinai, because Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land of Hagar 
 and her descendants. It is not 7 *Ayap, the woman Hagar, but To "Ayap, the 
 thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is under discussion.” 
 See the very learned and minute examination of this passage in the special ex- 
 cursus, pp. 192-200 of Bp. Lightfoot’s commentary, from which the above is 
 taken. In it will be found Philo’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah. 
 
 LXVII. ver. 29. 
 
 The opinion of Sieffert is worthy of note, that the main object of the apostle 
 is to show how the parallel subsisting between Hagar and Sarah is also appli- 
 cable to their sons, Ishmael and Isaac, to whom also the allegory is pertinent. 
 
CHAP. V. rw 
 
 8 CHAPTER YV. 
 
 Ver. 1. 1H EAevdepia, 7 jude Xpiotoc HAevfépwoe, oTnkeTte] So Griesb. (reading, 
 however, Xprord¢ jude), Riick., Tisch.(1859), Wieseler. But Elz., Matth., Winer, 
 Rinck, Reiche, read 77 édevfepia odv, 7 Xproto¢ nude nAevbépuce, ornkeTe. Lachm., 
 followed by Usteri, reads t7 éAevOepia ude Xpioroe HAEvOépwoer. oTHKETE ObV, Which 
 was also approved of by Mill, Bengel, Griesb. [Eadie, Tisch. (1872)]; and 
 Winer does not reject it. Scholz gives rj éAevOepia, 4 Xpiotdc jude jAevbépwoe, 
 otnkete odv. Schott lastly, following Rinck, joins 77 éAevdepia, 7 jude Xproro¢ 
 nAevbépwoev to iv. 31, and begins the new sentence with oryxere odv. So also 
 Ewald. Lachmann’s reading, which is also followed by Hofmann, must be 
 held to be the original one : (1) because amidst the numerous variations it has 
 a decided preponderance of testimony in its favor, for 7 is wanting in A BC D* 
 Sand 9 min., Dam., and ody after orjxere is written in A B C D* (in the Greek) 
 EF GWS and some 10 min., Copt. Goth. Aeth. Boern. Vulg. ms. Cyr. Bas. ms. 
 Aug. Ambrosiast. ; (2) because from it the origin of the rest of the readings 
 can be explained easily, naturally, and without perjudice to the witnesses— 
 namely, from the endeavor to connect r7 éAev8, yu. X. 7Aev9. immediately with 
 iy. 31. Thus in some cases T7 was merely changed into 7 (I G, It. Vulg. Goth. 
 and Fathers) ; in others 7 was inserted before judc (Griesb.), allowing rf to re- 
 main. The relative thus introduced led others, who had in view the right con- 
 nection with oryxeTe, either to omit the ovv (after oryxere), which the presence 
 of the relative rendered awkward (EK. Vulg. It. Syr. p. Fathers ; Griesb., Riick., 
 Tisch.), or to place it immediately after eAevbepig (C*** K L, min., Fathers ; 
 Elz). Lastly, the transposition Xpiord¢ qud¢ was an involuntary expedient to 
 place the subject first, but is condemned by the decisive counter-weight of the 
 evidence. It is a dubious view which derives the different readings of our 
 passage from the accidental omission in writing of H before Hwac (Tisch., Wiese- 
 ler), especially since very ancient witnesses, in which 7 is wanting, read not 
 nude Xpiotic, but Xpioro¢e jude (as C L 8** Marcion, Chrys.).—Ver. 3. raAw] is 
 wanting in D* FG, 73, 74, 76, It. Chrys. Theophyl. Victorin. Jerome, Aug. Am- 
 brosiast. The omission is caused by the similarity of the ravri which follows. 
 —Ver. 7. évéxowe] The Elz. reading dvéxowe is opposed to all the uncials and 
 most min., and is therefore rightly rejected by Grot., Mill., Bengel, Matth., 
 Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, whereas Usteri sought very feebly to defend it. — The 
 7m Which follows is wanting in A B &*. But the article forms a necessary part 
 of the idea (comp. ii. 5, 14), and the omission must be looked upon as a mere 
 error in copying. Without just ground, Semler and Koppe consider the whole 
 TH aAnO. uy re(Hecbu: to be not genuine ; and the latter is disposed, instead of 
 it, to defend pydevi reifecbe, which is found in F G, codd. Lat. in Jer. and some 
 vss. and Fathers, after we/f<oa:, but is manifestly a gloss annexed to the fol- 
 lowing 7 wetouovy «.7.A. Still more arbitrarily, Schott holds the whole of ver. 7 
 to be an inserted gloss. —- Ver. 9. Guuoi] D* E, Vulg. Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in 
 Jer. and Sedul., and several Fathers, read dodjoi. Approved by Mill. and 
 
218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 Valck. Schol. II. p. 178. An interpretation, because in this passage the leaven 
 represents something corrupting (otherwise in Matt. xiii. 33). Comp. on 
 1 Cor. v. 6. — Ver. 14. év év; Adyw] Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) read iuiv, and 
 D* E F G, It. Ambrosiast. have év iyiv év évi Adyw. Marcion’s reading is of an- 
 tinomistic origin (hence he also omitted the following év 7») ; but the duiv in- 
 troduced by it became subsequently blended with the original text. — rAypeirar] 
 Defended by Reiche ; but A BC 8, min., Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) 
 Damasce. Aug. read retAnpwrat. Justly ; the meaning of the perfect (which is 
 also adopted by Lachm., Riick., Schott, Tisch.) was not apprehended by me- 
 chanical transcribers, —ceavrov] Elz., Matth., Schott, read gavrév. Certainly in 
 opposition to ABC DEK 8, min., and Greek Fathers ; but the pronoun of 
 the second person was very likely to occur to the copyists (in the LXX. Lev. 
 xix. 18, there is the same variety of readings), and indeed the final letter of the 
 foregoing o¢ might easily lend support to the ceav7év : hence éavrév is to be re- 
 stored, in opposition to Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., and others. Comp. on 
 Rom. xiii. 9.—Ver. 17. ravra dé] Lachm. and Schott [Tisch. 1872] read rabra yap, 
 following 8* B D* E F G*, 17, Copt. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. Looking 
 at this preponderance of attestation, and seeing that the continuative dé might 
 easily appear more suitable, ydp is to be preferred. — Ver. 19 f. yoryeia] is 
 wanting before ropy. in A BC 8 *, min., and many vss. and Fathers; 76, 115, 
 Epiph. Chrys. Theophyl. have it after zopveia. In opposition to Reiche, but 
 with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Schott, Tisch., and others, it is to be deleted, 
 since it has been introduced, although at a very early date (It. Or.), most 
 probably by the juxtaposition of the two words in other passages (Matt. xv. 19 ; 
 Mark vii. 21 ; comp. Hos. ii. 2), well known to the transcribers. — épeve, C7Aoe] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular, following weighty evidence ; the plurals 
 were introduced in conformity to the adjoining. —- Ver. 21. ¢évo:] is wanting 
 in B &, 17, 33, 35, 57, 73, and several Fathers, but inno version. Rejected by 
 Mill., Seml., and Koppe, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. On account 
 of the similarity of sound with the preceding word it might just as easily be 
 omitted, as it might be added from Rom. i. 29. Hence the preponderance of 
 witnesses determines the point, and that in favor of the retention. 
 
 ConTENTs. — Exhortation to steadfastness in Christian freedom, and warn- 
 ing against the opposite course. If they allowed themselves to be circum- 
 cised, Christ would profit them nothing, and they would be bound to the 
 law as a whole ; by legal justification they would be severed from Christ and_ 
 from grace, as is proved by the nature of Christian righteousness (vv. 1-6). 
 Complaint and warning on account of the apostasy of the readers, respecting 
 whom, however, Paul cherishes good confidence ; whereas he threatens 
 judgment against the seducers, whose teaching as to circumcision is in no 
 sense his (vv. 7-12). A warning against the abuse, and an exhortation to 
 the right use, of Christian freedom, which consists in a demeanor actuated 
 by mutual love (vv. 138-15) ; whereupon he then enters into a detailed ex- 
 planation to the effect that the Holy Spirit, and not the flesh, must be the 
 guiding power of their conduct (vv. 16-25). After this, special moral ex- 
 hortations begin (ver. 26). 
 
 Ver. 1. Th érevfepia nude Xpiotice HAevdépwoev] On this reading,’ see the 
 critical notes. The sentence forms, with iv. 31, the basis of the exhortation 
 
CHAP. Y., I. 219 
 which follows, orfxere obv x.7.2. See on iv. 31. Por freedom, in order that 
 we should be free and should remain so, that we should not again become 
 subject to bondage, Christ has set us free (iv. 1—7), namely, from the bondage 
 of the orocyeia roi Kéopov (iv. 3). The dative rf éAev8. is therefore commodi, 
 not instrumenti.? By so taking it, and by attending to the emphasis, which 
 lies not on Xpcordc, but on the ry éAevsepia following immediately after rij¢ 
 édevbépac in iv. 31, we obviate entirely the objection of Riickert * that Paul 
 must have written : 
 rabrn, or fv éyouev, or some other addition of the kind. — orjxere ody] stand 
 Sast therefore, namely, in the freedom, which is to be inferred from what 
 goes before ; hence the absence of connection with 7H éAev#. does not pro- 
 duce any obscurity or abruptness.* On the absolute orjxere, which obtains 
 its reference from the context, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15. —xai wy wadw x.7.2.] 
 and be not again held in a yoke of bondage. Previously they had been (most 
 of them) in the yoke of heathenism ; now they were on the point of being 
 held in the yoke of Mosaism (only another kind of the orovyeia Tov Kécpov). 
 The yoke is conceived as laid on the neck: Acts xv. 10 ; Ecclus. li. 26; 
 Dem. 322.12; Hom. H. Cer. 217. Asto wédv, comp. on iv. 9.  dovieiag 
 denotes the characteristic quality belonging to the yoke.® — évéyec#a, with 
 the dative ® or with év,” is the proper expression for those who are held either 
 in a physical (net or the like) or ethical (law, dogma, emotion, sin, or the 
 like) restriction of liberty, so that they cannot get out.* Here, on account 
 of the idea of a yoke, the reference is physical, but used as a figurative repre- 
 sentation for that which is mental, which affects the conscience. 
 
 X. yuac éAevdepia HAevbépwoev, OY Eig éAevd., OY TH éAevO. 
 
 Note.—If we take the reading of the Recepta, and of Griesbach and his fol- 
 lowers (see the critical notes), we must explain it: ‘* In respect the freedom of 
 [therefore], for which Christ has set us free, stand fast, and become not again, ete. !’’ 
 —so that 7 éAevfepia is to be taken like 79 miorec in 2 Cor. i. 24 and Rom. iv. 
 20, and 7 as the dative commodi (Morus, Winer, Reiche). 7 might also (with the 
 Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Riickert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
 and many others) be taken as ablative (instrumentally) : ‘‘ qua nos liberavit,”’ 
 “with which he has freed you,”’ after the analogy of the classical expressions 
 Gv Biv, boat date x.7.2, (Bernhardy, p. 107; Lobeck, Paral. p. 528 ff.), and of 
 the frequent use both in the LXX. and the N. T. (Winer, p. 434) of ‘* cognate” 
 nouns in the dative. But this mode of expression does not occur elsewhere with 
 Paul, not even in 1 Thess, iii. 9. According to Schott, Ewald, and Matthias, 
 who join it to iv. 31 (see the critical notes), we get the meaning: ‘‘ We are not 
 children of abond-maid, but of the free woman through the freedom, with which Christ 
 made us free; stand fast therefore.’ Thus rq éAevfepia 4 nudc Xpiot. HAev9. be- 
 comes a self-evident appendage ; and Xprordé¢ receives an emphasis, just as in 
 iii. 13, which its position does not warrant. 
 
 1 Of. ver. 13; John viii. 36. 
 
 2 Comp. also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 155; 
 Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr. 
 
 3 Comp. Matthies and Olshausen. 
 
 4 In opposition to Reiche. 
 
 5 Comp. Soph. Aj. 924: mpods ota SovAcias 
 Guya xwpovmer. Eur. Or. 1330; Plat. Legg. 
 
 vi. p. 770 E: SovAevoy Gvyov, Hp. 8, p. 354 D; 
 Dem. 3822. 12; Herod. vii. 8. 
 
 6 Dem. 1231. 15; 2 Macc. v. 18; 8 Macc. 
 vi. 10. 
 
 7 Dem. 1069. 9. 
 
 8 See Kypke in loc., and Markland ad Lys. 
 V. p. 87, Reisk. 
 
220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Ver. 2. Paul now in a warning tone reveals to them the fearful danger to 
 which they are exposed. This he does by the address ide in the singular,' 
 exciting the special attention of every individual reader, and with the ener- 
 getic, defiant interposition of his personal authority : éyo Mavaoc, on which 
 Theophylact well remarks : 77 Tov oixeiov mpooorov agvoniotiav avti mdone amo- 
 deiZewe tiOnor, ‘Instead of all demonstration he presents the trustworthiness 
 of his own person.” ? — éav repitéuvycbe] To be pronounced with special 
 emphasis. The readers stood now on the very verge of obeying thus far— 
 and therefore to the utmost—the suggestions of the false apostles in taking 
 upon them the yoke of the law, after having already consented to prelimi- 
 nary isolated acts of legal observance (iv. 10). — Xpucroc iuac ovdév aderjoer| 
 comp. ii. 21. Xprord¢ is emphatically placed first, and immediately after 
 mepit. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly remarks: 6 repitepvouevog ae véomov 
 Sedotkag mepitéuverat, 6 dé dedorKOG arioTel TH Ovvdper THC Yapitoc, 6 dé antoTav 
 obdev Kepdalver rapa THE axvoTovuévnc, ‘‘ He who is circumcised is circumcised 
 as fearing the law, but he who fears the law distrusts the power of grace, 
 and he who distrusts gains nothing from that which he distrusts.” On such 
 a footing Christ cannot be Christ, the Mediator of salvation. Paul’s judg- 
 ment presupposes that circumcision is adopted, not as a condition of a holy 
 life,* but as a condition of salvation, which was the question raised among the 
 Galatians. The future, ¢eAgoer, which is explained by others ° as referring 
 to the consequence generally, points to the nearness of the Parousia and 
 the decision of the judgment. Comp. ver. 5: éArida duxatoobyyc, Just as 
 previously the idea of the kAypovouia in iv. 380. 
 
 Ver. 3. With regard to the judgment just expressed, Xpiord¢ ovdév tude 
 ageAfoet, Paul now, with increasing emotion (yapripoya:, tavti avOp. repit.), 
 gives an explanation (vv. 8, 4) which clearly discloses the entire certainty 
 of this negation. —The dé is not potius,® because it is not preceded by any 
 antagonistic assertion, but is the autem which leads on to more detailed 
 information.’ — papripoua] in the sense of vaptupd, as in Acts xx. 26 ; Eph. 
 iv. 17 ; Joseph. Bell. iii. 8. 3; and also Plat. Phil. p. 47 D, while in classi- 
 cal authors it usually means to summon as a witness and obtestor, Paul testi- 
 jies that which with divine certainty he knows. The context does not war- 
 rant us to supply 6eév, with Bretschneider and Hilgenfeld. — raAw] not con- 
 tra, ‘‘against,” ® which is never its meaning,® but again, not however in the 
 sense that ver. 3 is described as a repetition of what was said in ver. 2,” 
 which it is not ; nor in the sense that Paul is thinking merely of the testify- 
 ing in itself, and not of its pwrport,"—an interpretation which cannot but be 
 the less natural, the more necessarily as that which is attested wé/vv stands 
 in essential inner connection with the axiom which had been previously ex- 
 
 1 Comp. Soph. Zach. 824. § Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Koppe, Wahl; 
 
 2 Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1; Eph. fii. 1; Col. i. 23. comp. Usteri. 
 
 3 Holsten. ® See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 166 f. 
 
 4ii.8,5; Acts xv. 1, xvi. 3. Comp. Lech- 10 Calvin, Castalio, Calovius, Wolf, Zach- 
 ler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 248. ariae, Paulus, and others. 
 
 5 De Wette, Hofmann, and most. 11 Hofmann ; comp. Fritzsche, Winer, de 
 
 6 Schott. Wette. 
 
 7 Herm. ad Viger. p. 845. 
 
CHAP. Y., 4. A221 
 
 pressed (‘‘ probatio est proximae sententiae sumta ez loco repugnantium,” ‘‘ The 
 proof of the next sentence is derived from the topic of things that conflict,” 
 Calvin); but in the sense that Paul calls to the remembrance of his readers his 
 last presence among them (the second), when he had already orally assured 
 them of what he here expresses.! Comp. oni. 9, iv. 16. — xavri avp. repit. | 
 stands in a climactic relation to the foregoing éuiv, remorselessly embracing 
 all: to every one 1 testify, so that no one may fancy himself excluded from 
 the bearing of the statement. According to Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
 with whom Schott and others agree, Paul has wished to avoid the appearance 
 kar’ éyOpav tavra Aéyeoac ; but in this view the whole climactic force of the 
 address is misunderstood, —é4ov] has the emphasis.? Circumcision binds 
 the man who accepts it to obey the whole law, because it makes him a full 
 member of the covenant of the law, a proselyte of righteousness, and the 
 law requires from those who are bound to it its entire fulfilment (iii. 10). 
 Probably the pseudo-apostles had sought at least to conceal or to weaken 
 this true and—since no one is able wholly to keep the law,*—yet so fearful 
 consequence of accepting circumcision, as if faith in Christ and acceptance of 
 circumcision might be compatible with one another. On the contrary, Paul 
 proclaims the decisive aut... aut.* The state of the man who allows him- 
 self to be circumcised stands in a relation contradictory to the state of grace.° 
 
 Ver. 4. But whosoever is justified through the law—a way of justification 
 which necessarily follows from the already mentioned obligation—is sepa- 
 rated from Christ, etc. A complete explanation is thus given as to the 
 Xpiori¢e buac ovdév agdeAgoer. Asyndetic (without dé), and reverting to the 
 second person, the language of Paul is the more emphatic and vivid. — 
 katnpynnre| In the first clause the stress is laid upon the dread separation 
 which has befallen them, in the second on the benefit thereby lost, 
 striking alternation of emphasis. 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 The pregnant expression, katapyeicfar ard 
 tivoc,®° is to be resolved into xatapyeicba Kat yopilecbar ard tivoc, that is, to 
 come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto subsisting with any one, so that 
 we are parted from him." Hence the sense is: your connection with Christ is 
 annulled, cancelled: arexérnre.* Justification by the law and justification for 
 Christ’s sake are in truth opposita, ‘‘ opposites ” (works—faith), so that the one 
 excludes the other. —oirwec év vduq Sixatovobe| ye who are being justified 
 through the law. The directly assertive and present dicarovobe is said from the 
 mental standpoint of the subjects concerned, in whose view of the matter 
 the way of salvation is this : ‘‘ through the law, with which our conduct 
 agrees (comp. ili. 11), we become just before God.” Hence the concrete 
 statement is not to be weakened either by taking dicacovcha in the sense of 
 tyreiv dixacovcba, 11. 17,° or by attributing a hypothetical sense to oitivec." 
 
 1 Moldenhauer, Flatt, Riickert, Olshau- 
 sen, Wieseler. 
 
 2 Comp. Jas. ii. 10. 
 
 3 Acts xiii. 38, xv. 10; Rom. viii. 3. 
 
 4 Aut... autindicates an exclusive alter- 
 
 native. If one member be true, the other 
 must be false. 
 5 Comp. Rom. vi. 14 f., xi. 6. 
 
 6 Comp. Rom. ix. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 3; see gen- 
 erally, Fritzsche ad Rom. II. p. 250. 
 
 7 Just the same in Rom. vii. 2, 6. 
 
 5 Oecumenius. 
 
 ® Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earli- 
 er expositors. 
 
 10 Hofmann, who erroneously compares 
 Thue, v.16. 1. 
 
Ra2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 Whomsoever Paul hits with his oitivec x.7.4., he also means. — the yapitoc 
 iSexécate| that is, ye have forfeited the relation of being objects of divine 
 grace. The opposite : i7d yapw sivac (Rom. vi. 14), to which divine grace 
 faith has led (Rom. v. 2).!_ Whoever becomes righteous by obedience to the 
 law, becomes so no longer by the grace of God,’ but by works acccord- 
 ing to desert ;? so that thus his relation of grace towards God (which is 
 capable of being lost) has ceased. 
 
 Ver. 5. Ground e contrario, ‘‘ on the contrary,” for the judgment passed in 
 ver. 4 on those becoming righteous by the law ; derived, not generally from | 
 what makes up the essence of the Christian state,* but specially from the 
 specific way in which Paul and those like him expect to be justified. The 
 reasoning presupposes the certainity, of which the apostle was conscious, 
 that the jueic are those who are not separated from Christ and have not fallen — 
 from grace, — jueic] we, on our part : ‘‘ quia nobis dissentiunt, habeant sibi,” 
 ‘Tet those who differ from us keep their views to themselves,” Bengel. — 
 rvebmare éx tiotewc] is not (with Luther) to be considered as one idea (‘‘ Spir- 
 itu.qui ex fide est,” ‘‘through the Spirit who is of faith),” since there is no 
 contrast with any other spirit, but rather as two points opposed to the év 
 vouw in ver. 4: ‘by means of the Spirit, from faith, we expect,” etc. ; so 
 that the Holy Spirit is the divine agent, and faith in Christ is the subjective 
 source of our expectation.° Wemust not therefore explain rvetuate either as 
 the spirit of man simply,® or (comp. on Rom. vill. 4) as the spiritual nature 
 of man sanctified by the Holy Spirit ;” but similarly to ver. 16, as the objective 
 mvevua dytov, Which is the divine principle of spiritual life in Christians, and 
 which they have received é& axoj¢ wiotewc.* And the Holy Spirit is the divine 
 mainspring of Christian hope, as being the potential source of all Christian 
 dispositions and of Christian life in general, and as the earnest and surety 
 of eternal life in particular.® —éArida dixaocivne arexdey. | arexdé yeofa (Rom. 
 vili. 19, 23, 25; 1 Cor. i. 7; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Pet. iii. 20) does not indeed 
 denote that he who waits ¢s wholly spent in waiting,! but rather" the persist- 
 ent awaiting, which does not slacken until the time of realization.’ The 
 genitive dixacocbvyc is not appositionis, ‘‘one of apposition,” 1 so that the 
 sense would be : ‘‘ the righteousness hoped for by us,” the genitive with éAri¢ 
 never being used in this way ; but it is the objective genitive : the hope of 
 being justified, namely, in the judgment, where we shall be declared by 
 Christ as righteous. At variance with the context, since justification dtse/f 
 
 1 On the figurative éxmimrew, comp. 2 Pet. 
 ili. 17; Plut. Gracch. 21: ékmecety kai orep- 
 ea0at THs Tpdos TOY Sjpov evvotas, Polyb. xii. 
 14.7; Lucian, Cont. 14; Ecclus. xxxi. 4, 
 
 2 Swpedv, Rom. iii. 24. 
 
 3 Rom. iv. 11, 16, xi. 6. 
 
 4 Hofmann. 
 
 5 On mveiuart, comp. Rom. vii. 6, viii. 4, 
 15 f., Eph. i. 18 f., ii. 22, e¢ al.; and on éx 
 miatews, Comp. ii. 16, iv. 22, Rom. i. 17, iii. 22, 
 ix. 30, x. 6, e¢ al. 
 
 © With Grotius, Borger, Fritzsche, and 
 others. 
 
 7 Winer, Paulus, Riickert, and others; 
 comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof- 
 mann. 
 
 8 iii, 2, 5, iv. 6. 
 
 92 Cor. i. 22, v.5; Eph. i. 14; Rom. viii. 
 T1, 23: 
 
 10 Hofmann. 
 
 11 Comp. generally Winer, de verb. compos. 
 IV. p. 14. 
 
 12.¢. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. 
 p. 156. 
 
 13 Wieseler. 
 
CHAP V., 6. R20 
 is in question (see ver. 4) [See Note LXVIII., p. 243], others understand it 
 as the subjective genitive, as that which righteousness has to hope for,’ that is, 
 the hoped for reward of righteousness, namely, eternal life.* The fact that the 
 dtxacoovvy itself--that is, the righteousness of faith, and not that of a holy 
 life,=—is presented as something future, need not in itself surprise us, 
 because during the temporal life it exists indeed througk faith, but may 
 nevertheless be lost (see vv. 2, 4), and is not yet a definitive possession, which 
 it only comes to be at the judgment (Rom. viii. 33 f.). In a corresponding 
 way, the viofecia, although it has been already entered upon through faith 
 (ili. 26, iv. 5), is also the object of hope (Rom. viii. 23). This at the same 
 time explains why Paul here speaks in particular of an éAml¢ dixasocbyye ; he 
 thereby indicates the difference between the certainty of salvation in the con- 
 sciousness (Rom. viii. 24) of the true Christians, and the confidence, depend- 
 ent upon works, felt by the legally righteous, who say: é réum dica- 
 obuefa, because in their case the becoming righteous is something in a con- 
 tinuous course of growth by means of meritorious obedience to the law. 
 Lastly, the expression arexdéyveoVar éAxida is not to be explained by the sup- 
 position that Paul, when he wrote éA7ida, had it in his mind to make éyouev 
 follow, ‘—an interpretation which is all the more arbitrary, because there is 
 no intervening sentence which might divert his thought,—but the hope is 
 treated objectively,® so that arexdéyeoda éArida belongs to the category of the 
 familiar expressions (jv Biov, miotebew ddEav 3° The 
 Catholic doctrine of the gradual inerease of righteousness’ is entirely un- 
 Pauline, although favored by Romang, Hengstenberg, and others. Justifi- 
 cation does not, like sanctification, develop itself and increase ; but it has, 
 as its moral consequence (iv. 6), sanctification through the Spirit which is 
 given to him who is justified by faith. Thus Christ is to us dccacocivy te Kai 
 dytaouéc, 1 Cor. i. 30. 
 
 Ver. 6. Warrant for the &é« riorewc : for in Christ Jesus, in fellowship with 
 Christ (in the relation of the év Xpio76 elvar), neither cireumeision nor uncir- 
 eumceision is of any avail ; the fact of a man being or not being circumcised 
 is of no influence, but faith, which is operative through love, se. iayier tt. The 
 tt ioyvec is to be left in the same general and unlimited form in which it 
 stands. Circumcision and uncircumcision are circumstances of no effect or 
 avail in Christianity. And yet they were in Galatia the points on which 
 the disturbance turned !_ On the faith active in love, which is the effective 
 saving element in the state of the Christian, comp. 1 Tim. i. 5; 1 Thess, i. 
 
 éArida. TpoodokacVat. 
 
 1 Hofmann, in fact, arrives at the same re- 
 sult, although he rejects the interpretation 
 of the genitive as the gen. subjecti; ** To wait 
 for the blessing of righteousness already pre- 
 pared for him, which constitutes the substance 
 of his hope,’—consequently for the arépavos 
 of his Sxacocvvyn, 2 Tim. iy. 8 (see Huther in 
 loc. ed. 8). 
 
 2So Pelagius, Beza, Piscator, Hunnius, 
 Calovius, Bengel, Rambach, Baumgarten, 
 Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, Paulus, Win- 
 dischmann, Reithmayr, and others; comp. 
 
 also Weiss, bib/. Theol. pp. 333, 341. 
 
 3 Holsten. 
 
 4 Winer, Usteri, Schott. 
 
 5 Comp. on Col. i. 5; Rom. viii. 24; Heb. 
 vi. 18. 
 
 8 Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 ff. Comp. Acts 
 XXiv. 15: eAmida ... 
 Séxortar, Tit. ii. 13; Job ii. 9; Isa. xxviii. 
 10; 2 Mace. vii. 14; Eur. Ale. 130: viv Se tiv’ 
 étt Biov é€Amida mpogdéxwpar ; Dem. 1468. 18. 
 
 7 Trident. vi. 10. 24, Dollinger. 
 
 HV Kal avToL ovTOL Tpoc- 
 
224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 3; 1 Cor. xiii.; also Jas. ii. 22. By means of this faith man is caw Kriorc, 
 vi. 15. Bengel well says: ‘‘Cum jide conjunxit ver. 5, spem, nunc amorem ; 
 in his stat totus Christianismus,” ‘‘ with faith, he joined in v. 5 hope, and now 
 love ; in these all Christianity, consists.” How very necessary it was for the 
 Galatians that prominence should be given to the activity of faith in love, 
 may be seen from vv. 15, 20, 26. The passive view of évepyovu., which is 
 given by the Fathers and many Catholics, such as Bellarmine, Estius, Reith- 
 mayr, in whom the interest of dogmatic controversy against the Protestants 
 came toa great extent into play, is erroneous, because évepyeioSa: in the 
 N. T. is always middle (vim stam exserere), ‘‘ to exert its force.”* It does 
 not mean, ‘‘ having been rendered energetic through love,” ? but working through 
 love, expressing thereby its vital power. Moreover, our passage is not at 
 variance with justification solely by faith : ‘‘ opera fieri dicit ex fide per car- 
 itatem, non justificart hominem per caritatem,” ‘‘ He says that works are 
 done from faith by love, not that man is justified by love,” Luther. Comp. 
 Calovius : ‘‘ Formatam * etiam fidem apostolus refellit, cum non per carita- 
 tem formam suam accipere vel formari, sed per caritatem operosam vel efjica- 
 cem esse docet. Caritatem ergo et opera non fidem constituere, sed consequi 
 et ex eadem jfluere certum est,” ‘‘The Apostle also refutes jides formata, 
 since he teaches that it does not receive its form, neither is it formed by 
 love, but that through love it is active or efficacious. It is certain, there- 
 fore, that love and works do not constitute faith, but follow it, and flow 
 from it.” It must, however, be observed that love (the opposite of all self- 
 ishness) must be, from its nature, the continuous moral medium of the oper- 
 ation in faith in those who are thereby justified,* 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff.° 
 
 Vv. 7-9. How naturally—and, in conformity with the apostle’s lively 
 emotion, asyndetically—the utterance of this axiom of the Christian char- 
 acter and life, which the readers had formerly obeyed, is followed by disap- 
 proving surprise at the fact that they had not remained faithful to it (ver. 
 7), and then by renewed warning against the false teachers, based on the un- 
 godly nature (ver. 8) and the destructive influence (ver. 9) of their opera- 
 tions !—érpéyere xadoc] that is, your Christian behavior—your Christian 
 life and effort—was in course of excellent development. <A figurative mode 
 of presenting the activity of spiritual life very frequently used by the apos- 
 tle.° — tic ina évéxoe] A question of surprise (comp. ili. 1) : who hindered 
 you?™ In Polyb. xxi. 1. 12 it is used with the dative. So also Hippocr. 
 pp. 28, 35 ; for it means properly : to make an incision. —rf aandeia pp 
 reideoar| from obeying the truth, that is, the true gospel, according to which 
 faith alone is that which justifies. 7 is employed, as usual, after verbs of 
 
 
 
 1See on 2 Cor. i. 6; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
 vii. 6, II. p. 18. 
 
 2 Reithmayr. 
 
 3 The “ fides formata’’ is also found here 
 by Bisping, and especially Reithmayr, fol- 
 lowing the Trid. Sess. vi. 7, de justif. See, 
 on the other hand, Apol. Conf. Aug p. 81 f. 
 [ Book of Concord (Jacobs), p. 102 f.] 
 
 * Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theol. 
 
 p. 282 ff. 
 
 5 Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 192 ; Romang, 
 in Stud. u. Krit., 1867, p. 90 ff., who, how- 
 ever, concedes too much to the idea of fides 
 Sormata. 
 
 ®§ Comp. ii. 2; Phil. iii. 11. 
 
 ™Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18; Rom. xv. 223 
 Perit 
 
CHAP. V., 7-9. 225 
 hindering.! The infinitive with n7 denotes that which, so far as the will of 
 the hinderer is concerned, shall not take place. — 7 resouovy «.t.A.] After 
 the surprise comes the warning.2 Whether, however, the word is to be un- 
 derstood actively, as persuasion, or passively, as compliance, is a point which 
 must be decided in the several passages by the context. In this passage it 
 is understood as persuasion by Mss. of the Itala (swasio), Vulgate (persuasio), 
 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Zach- 
 ariae, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, 
 Matthias, Holsten, and others ; on the other hand, Chrysostom,’ Oecume- 
 nius,* Theophylact,® Luther (1519 and 1524 ; but in 1538, and in his transla- 
 tion : such persuasion), and others,* explain it as compliance,’ which, how- 
 ever, does not fit the word used absolutely. The latter rather yields the 
 thought: The persuasion is not of your caller, is not a thing proceeding from 
 God (see, on the contrary, 2 Cor. xi. 15). Paul would have this applied to 
 the mode of operation of the pseudo-apostles, who worked upon the Gala- 
 tians by persuasion (talking over), so that they did not remain obedient to 
 the truth, but turned azo rod KaAécavto¢g avtode év yapite Xpiotrod to an érepov 
 evayyédov (i. 6). If it were to be taken as compliance, some more precise 
 definition must have been appended ;* because compliance is ungodly not 
 in itself, but only according to the nature of the demand, the motive, and 
 the moral circumstances generally. Some have made it to mean credulitas, 
 “credulity,” *® but the sense of the word is thus altered. The talking over, 
 however, did not need anything added, since it is of tsel7/, in matters of 
 faith at any rate, objectionable ; hence it was very superfluous in Luther, 
 Grotius, and many others, to take the article as demonstrative. Moreover, 
 the active sense is excellently adapted to the designation of God by 6 xadav 
 tuac, inasmuch as the talking over is a mode of operating on men character- 
 istically different from the divine calling: the former not befitting the 
 
 1 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 810 f.; Pflugk, 
 ad Eur. Hec. 867; Winer, p. 561. 
 
 2% mevomovy Occurs again only in Apoll. 
 Synt. p. 195. 10, in Eustath. (ZZ. ¢, p. 6387. 5, a, 
 pp. 21, 26, e¢ al.; see Wetstein), and in the 
 Fathers (Ignat. ad Rom. 3 interpol.; Just. 
 Mart. Ap. I. 53, p. 87 ; Epiph. Hae. xxx. 21; 
 Chrysostom, ad 1 Thess. i. 4. 
 
 3 ovK emt TOUTOLS ExadAETEY VILAS O KAAMY, WaTE 
 ovTw cadeverOar, ‘‘ He who called you did not 
 eall you on these conditions in order that 
 you thus waver.” 
 
 470 metcOHvat Tols A€yovoty Uuty TEpLTEemVET- 
 dat, “to be persuaded by those bidding you 
 be circumcised.” 
 
 570 meiderdar Tots amatao.w, “to obey 
 those deceiving.” 
 
 6 Including Morus, Winer, Rickert, Mat- 
 thies, Olshausen, Reiche, Hofmann, Reith- 
 mayr. 
 
 7™This view serves to explain the omis- 
 sion of the ov« in D*, min., Cod. lat. in Jer. 
 and Sedul. Clar. Germ. Or. (once), Lucifer. 
 
 15 
 
 Theodoret also appears not to have read it, 
 as he gives the explanation: (dcov @eod ro 
 kadetv, To 5é mei(derdat ToY axovovTwr, “it is 
 the prerogative of God to call ; of the hear- 
 ers, to obey.” 
 
 8 At least vu@v, which is actually read by 
 Syr. Erp. codd. in Jer. Lucif. Aug. Ambro- 
 siast. Sedul. Arm. has airy yap metopovn. 
 Vomel and Hofmann seek to remove the in- 
 definiteness by reading instead of the ar- 
 ticle the relative »: which obedience. But, 
 according to this view, 7 mecon. must have 
 been correlative to the foregoing wetderdar 
 (comp. Wisd. xvi. 2), and this consequently 
 must have been defined not negatively, but 
 positively, somewhat as if Paul, instead 
 of 77H aAnd. wH metdeodar, had written érépw 
 evayyedtw reideodar. But having written rt. 
 aAnd. wy meidecar, he must, in correlation 
 with pi reideoda, have continued relatively 
 with 9 a7eiveca. 
 
 § Estius, Winer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
 others. 
 
226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 divine dignity like the latter ; the former bound up with human premedi- 
 tation, art, and importunity, taking place év rewoi¢ codiag Aéyoue (1 Cor. ii. 
 4), counteracting free self-determination, and so forth.’ Bengel, Morus, 
 and de Wette understand it as obstinacy (the ‘‘clinging to prejudices,” de 
 Wette), making it correspond with the foregoing rH adydeia py reid_eoba. 
 So also Ewald, although translating it as self-confidence, and comparing 
 ziovvoc. But the passages cited above from Eustathius do not make good 
 this signification ; and, in particular, Od. x. p. 785. 22, is quite improperly 
 adduced in its favor.? Reiche, preferring the signification compliance, takes 
 the sentence as asking indignantly : ‘‘ Annon assensus, obsequium veritati 
 praestandum e Deo est, qui vos vocavit ?” ‘‘Is not then assent, obedience to 
 the truth to be rendered from God, who has called you ?” But why should 
 Paul have expressed this by the singular word re:oyov# not used by him else- 
 where, instead of the current and unambiguous ciovi¢ or iraxoy tHe TioTewe ? 
 By employing the latter, he would, in fact, have also suited the foregoing 
 zeitec da. — The caaov iuac is neither Christ *® nor the apostle,4 but God.* The 
 present participle is not to be understood of a continuing call ‘‘ad resipiscen- 
 tiam,” ‘* to repentance,” ° a view at variance with the constant use of the abso- 
 lute xaAe7v,7 nor does it represent the calling as lasting up to the time of 
 their yielding compliance against the truth,* which would be an idea foreign 
 to the N. T. ;° but it is to be taken substantivally, your caller, the definition 
 of the time nee left out of view.'° God, the caller to everlasting salvation, 
 has assigned to every one, by calling him at his conversion," the ‘‘ normam 
 totius cursus,” ‘rule of his entire course” (Bengel). — puxpa Coun x.t.A.] The 
 meaning of this proverbial warning (see on 1 Cor. v. 6) is : ‘‘ If the false apos- 
 tles have, by means of their persuasion, succeeded in making even but a small 
 beginning in the work of imparting to you erroneous doctrines or false 
 principles, this will develop itself to the corruption of your whole Christian 
 faith and life.” So, taking the figure with reference to doctrine, in sub- 
 stance also Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, explain pxpa Coun too 
 specially of circumcision), Luther, Calvin, Cornelius 3 Lapide, and many 
 others, including Flatt and Matthies. It is true that the dogma of his op- 
 ponents was in itself fundamentally subversive (as Wieseler objects); but 
 its influence had not yet so far developed itself, that the Ciuy might not 
 have been still designated relatively as wpa. Others interpret it as refer- 
 ring to persons : ‘vel pauci homines perperam docentes possunt omnem coe- 
 tum corrumpere,” ‘‘even a few men teaching erroneously can corrupt an 
 entire body,” Winer ;” but against this it may be urged that the number of 
 
 1 Comp. Soph. Fragm. 744, Dind.: Setvov ro ® Hofmann. 
 Tas Ieutots mpoowmov. Aesch. Agam. 385: ° 1.6; Weiss. tbl. Theol. p. 386 f. 
 Bratat & & TaAawa Tred. 10 Comp. 1 Thess. v. 24; Winer, p. 331. 
 2 See Reiche, p. 79 f. 11 Phil. iii. 14. 
 3 Theophylact, Erasmus, Michaelis, and 12 Comp. Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine, 
 others. Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Locke, Bengel, 
 4 Locke, Paulus. Borger, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, 
 5 See oni. 6. Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Windisch- 
 6 Beza. mann, Reithmayr, and others. 
 
 73. 6, v. 13; Rom. viii. 30, e¢ a. 
 
CHAPS We, £0: 2270 
 
 the false teachers, as it is in itself a matter of indifference, and does not 
 acquire greater significance through their having intruded themselves from 
 without, remains also unnoticed throughout the epistle, and the point in 
 question was solely the influence of their teaching (comp. reiopnov7), which 
 was the leaven threatening to spread destructively.’ 
 
 Ver. 10. After the warning in vv. 8, 9, Paul now assures his readers how 
 he cherishes confidence in them, that their sentiments would be in con- 
 formity with this warning ; but those who led them astray would meet 
 with punishment. — 4,6] with emphasis : J on my part, however much my 
 opponents may think that they have won over your judgment to their side. 
 Groundlessly and arbitrarily Rickert affirms that what Paul says is not alto- 
 gether what he means, namely, ‘‘I indeed have done all that was possible, 
 so that I may be allowed to hope,” etc. —eic¢ iuac] towards you.* Usually 
 with the dative or éxi. — év xupiw|] In Christ, in whom Paul lives and moves, 
 he feels also that his confidence rests and is grounded.* — oidév G70] is re- 
 ferred by most expositors, including Luther, Calvin, Winer, Riickert, 
 Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, to the 
 previous purport of the epistle generally as directed against Judaism. But 
 what is there to warrant this vague reference ? The warning which imme- 
 diately precedes in vv. 8, 9 (not ver. 7, to which Wieseler, Hofmann, and 
 others arbitrarily go back) has the first claim to have oidév a//0 referred to 
 it, and is sufficiently important for the reference. The antithesis 6 dé rapac- 
 cwv also suits very appropriately the subjects of that warning, 7 zevcuovy and 
 Coun, both of which terms characterize the action of the seducers. Usteri 
 interprets : that ye will not allow any other than your hitherto subsistisg 
 sentiments.” No, a change, that is, a correction of the sentiments pre- 
 viously existing, is precisely what Paul hopes for. — @povjcere] ye will have 
 no other sentiments (the practical determination of thought). The futre 
 (comp. vi. 16) refers to the time when the letter would be received. Hither- 
 to, by their submissiveness towards those who were troubling them, they 
 seemed to have given themselves up to another mode of thinking, which 
 was not the right one.*— 6 dé rapacowv tac] The singular denotes not, as in 
 2 Cor. xi. 4, the totwm genus, but, as is more appropriate to the subsequent 
 daric av 4, the individual who happened to be the troubler in each actual 
 case.° The idea that the apostle refers to the chief person among his op- 
 ponents, who was well known to him,*—formerly even guessed at by name, 
 and identified with Peter himself (Jerome),—has no warrant in the epistle. 
 See, on the contrary, even ver. 12, and compare i. 7, iv. 17. — éorv¢ av 7] is 
 to be left entirely general : without distinction of personal position, be he, when 
 the case occurs, who he will. The reference to high repute’ would only be 
 
 wGomps 1. °% 10., Lil: 1 5 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 315. 
 
 2 Comp. Wisd. xvi. 324. 6 Erasmus, Luther, Pareus, Estius, Ben- 
 
 3 Comp. Phil. ii. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 4; Rom. gel, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald, and others ; 
 xiv. 14. comp. also Usteri. 
 
 4 ado, comp. Lys. in Hratosth. 48 ; érepos is 7 Theodoret, Theophylact, Luther, Estius, 
 more frequently thus used, see on Phil. iii. and many others; including Koppe, Flatt, 
 
 ia Rickert, de Wette. 
 
228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 warranted, if 6 rapdoc. applied definitely to some particular person. —7ré 
 kpiwa| the judicial sentence xar’ éZoy7v, that is, the condemnatory sentence of 
 the (impending) last judgment.’ Of excommunication® the context con- 
 tains nothing.* — Bacrdce:] the judicial sentencc is conceived as something 
 heavily laid on,4 which the condemned one carries away as he leaves the 
 judgment-seat. The idea of Aau3aver kpiua* is not altogether the same. 
 Ver. 11. But I, on my part. The Judaistic teachers, whom the apostle 
 thus confronts, had,® as is evident from our passage—with the view of 
 weakening the hindrance, which among Pauline churches they could not 
 but encounter in the authority of the apostle opposing them—alleged (per- 
 haps making use of Timothy’s circumcision, Acts xvi. 3, for this purpose) 
 that Paul himself still (in other churches) preached ecirewmeision ; that is, 
 that, when Gentiles went over to Christianity, they should allow themselves 
 to be circumcised. This calumny’ was sufficiently absurd to admit of his 
 dismissing it, as he does here, with all brevity, and with what a striking 
 experimental proof! [See Note LXIX., p. 243.] But if I am still preach- 
 ing circumeision, wherefore am I still persecuted? For the persecution on the 
 part of the Jews was based on the very fact of the atagonism to the law, 
 which characterized his preaching of the Crucified One. See the sequel. 
 — el repitouyy ete knpioow| Paul mightalso have said, ei w. é. éxfpvocor, 7. é. 
 iduwxdunv av, for he means what objectively is not a real matter of fact. But 
 he transfers himself directly into the thought of his opponents, and just as 
 directly shows its absurdity ; he assumes the reality of what his opponents 
 asserted, and then by the apodosis annuls it as preposterous : hence the sense 
 cannot be, as it is defined by Holsten, that his persecution on account of no 
 longer preaching circumcision had not, possibly, the alleged pretext of 
 making the Gentiles complete members of the theocracy, but only the one 
 motive of national vanity and selfishness, to annul the offence of the cross.*® 
 — The emphasis is laid on repiroufv ; but érz, still,? does not convey the idea 
 that Paul, as apostle, had formerly preached circumcision. For although 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. ii. 3, iii. 8; 1 Cor. xi. 29. 
 
 2 Locke, Borger. 
 
 3 Jatho also explains the word as referring 
 to this and other ecclesiastical penalties. 
 But it was not the manner of the apostle to 
 call for the discipline of the church in so in- 
 direct and veiled a fashion (comp. 1 Cor. y.). 
 
 49 Kings xviii. 14. 
 
 5Rom. xiii. 2; Jas. iii. 1; Luke xx. 47, 
 et al. 
 
 ® See Chrysostom. 
 
 7 Comp. also Hilgenfeld in his Zettzschr. 
 1860, p. 216 ff. 
 
 5 Holsten has, in a special excursus (2. 
 Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387 ff.), acutely 
 explained his interpretation, and endeavor- 
 ed to vindicate it. At the close he puts it 
 in this shape: ‘“ Paul wishes to denounce 
 to the Galatians the secret, unexpressed 
 ground of his persecution on the part of his 
 opponents: ‘J, dear brethren, am only perse- 
 
 cuted because I no longer preach circumcision ; 
 Sor, if T still preach it as the divine will, why 
 am 1 still persecuted 2— Thus indeed is the of- 
 Sence of the cross annulled!” But still Paul 
 must have had some special inducement 
 for proposing, inet «.7.A., anotoriously non- 
 real case as a logical reality ; and this in- 
 ducement could only be found in the cor- 
 responding accusation of his opponents. 
 Otherwise it would be difficult to see why 
 he should not have thrown his language 
 into such a form, that the protasis should 
 have begun either with «i and the imper. 
 fect or with ore (because), and the expression 
 of the apodoses should have undergone cor- 
 responding modification. According to Hol 
 sten’s view, the words have a dialectic enig- 
 matical obscurity, which, looking at the sim- 
 plicity of the underlying idea, would be 
 without motive. 
 9 See Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. p. 449 C. 
 
CHAP avon Le 229 
 the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit produced in none of the apostles at once 
 and absolutely the laying aside of all religious error previously cherished, 
 but led them forward by gradual and individual development into the whole 
 truth ;* yet in the case of Paul especially, just because he was converted 
 in the midst of his zealotry for the law, the assumption that he had still 
 preached the necessity of circumcision for salvation, and had thus done 
 direct homage to the fundamental error opposed to the revelation of God in 
 him (i. 15), and to His gospel which had been revealed to him (i. 11 f.), 
 would be quite wapsychological. And in a historical point of view it would 
 be at variance with the decidedly antinomistic character of his whole apos- 
 tolic labors as known to us,* as well as with the circumstance that the 
 requirement of circumcision in the case of the Gentile Christians, Acts xv., 
 came upon the apostolical church as something quite new and unheard of, 
 and therefore produced so much excitement, and in fact occasioned the 
 apostolic conference. In a purely exegetical point of view, moreover, such 
 an assumption is not compatible with ri érv didKoua, because we should 
 thereby be led to the inference that, so long as Paul preached circumcision, 
 he had not been persecuted ; and yet at the very beginning of his Christian 
 labors he was persecuted by the Jews.* Riickert* is of opinion that in 
 using ér: they only mean to say that Paul, although he preached Christ, 
 required that, notwithstanding this, they should still allow themselves to be 
 circumcised. Comp. Olshausen, who refers ér: to the inferiority of the ten- 
 dency. But in Olshausen’s view, the reference to an earlier kypitrew repitouhy 
 still remains unremoved ; and in that of Riickert, the ér: is unwarrantably 
 withdrawn from the apostle and passed over to the side of those to whom he 
 preached. Even if (with Hofmann °) we understand the é7 as in contradis- 
 tinction to the earlier time, when the preaching of circumcision had been of 
 general occurrence and had been in its due place, the reference of this érz is 
 transferred to a general practice of the earlier time, although, according to the 
 words of the apostle, it clearly and distinctly assumes his own previous 
 kipvocew rept. The correct view is the usual one, adopted also by Winer, 
 Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, that év points back 
 to the period before the conversion of the apostle, Certainly the objection is 
 made,°® that Paul at that time, as a Jew among Jews, and coming in contact 
 with Jewish Christians only, had no occasion at all to preach circumcision. 
 But looking at our slight acquaintance with the circumstances of the 
 apostle’s pre-Christian life, this conclusion is formed much too rashly. For, 
 
 1 See Liicke’s apt remarks on John ii. 10, ent time.” Thisis also unsuitable, because 
 
 p. 501. 
 
 2 Comp. Acts xxi. 21. 
 
 3 Acts ix. 24 f.; 2 Cor. xi. 32 f. 
 
 4Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius 
 Wette. 
 
 5 According to Hofmann, the apostle’s 
 meaning is, ‘‘that they would have no 
 longer any cause for persecuting him, so 
 soon as his preaching of Jesus Christ should 
 be that, which it is not—a continuance of 
 the preaching of circumcision at the pres- 
 
 and de 
 
 ei would introduce a swmtio ficti, ‘the as- 
 sumption of what is false,’ and that indeed 
 in the view of Paul himself. Certainly é 
 with the present indicative might be so 
 put ; but in the apodosis the optative with 
 av must have been used, as is the case in 
 the passages compared by Hofmann him- 
 self (Xen. Anabd. vii. 6. 15, v. 6.12. See also 
 Memor. ii. 2. 3; Bornemann, ad Sympos. 4. 
 10, 5. 7; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 487). 
 ® See Reithmayr and Hofmann. 
 
230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 as CyAwrac for God and the law,' Saul, who was an energetic and * esteemed 
 Pharisaic Rabbi, might often have had occasion enough to preach and to 
 defend circumcision, partly in the interest of proselytizing, and partly also 
 in polemic conflict with Christians in and beyond Judaea, who maintained 
 that their faith, and not their circumcision, was the cause of salvation. — 
 ri ére dtOxouat ;|] This ére also, which by most® is taken as logical, as in Rom. 
 iii. 7, ix. 19, cannot without arbitrary procedure be understood otherwise 
 than as temporal: ‘‘Why am I yet always persecuted?” Why have they 
 not yet ceased to persecute me ?” They could not but in fact have seen how 
 groundless this dice was !— dpa xarypyrytat k.7.2.] apa is, as always, igitur, 
 rebus sic se habentibus, ‘‘ therefore, as matters are” (if, namely, I still preach 
 circumcision), Paul gives information concerning the foregoing question, — 
 how far,namely, there no longer existed any cause, etc. : thus therefore is the 
 offence of the cross done away, that is, the occasion for the rejection of the 
 gospel, which isafforded by the circumstance that the death of Christ on the 
 cross is preached as the only ground of salvation.* If Paul had at the same 
 time preached circumcision also as necessary to salvation, then would the Jew 
 have seen his law upheld, and the cross would have been inoffensive to him ; 
 but when, according to his decisive principle, ii. 21, he preached the death 
 of the cross as the end of the law (iii. 18 ; Rom. x. 3, e¢ al.), and rejected 
 all legal righteousness—then the Jew took offence at the cross, and rejected 
 the faith.° To take it as an interrogation °—with which the accentuation 
 might have been dpa (comp. on ii. 17)—appears logically not inappropriate 
 after ri ére diOkowa, but yields a less striking continuation of the discourse. 
 Ver. 12. The vivid realization of the doings of his opponents, who were 
 
 
 
 not ashamed to resort even to such falsehood (ver. 11), now wrings from 
 his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic wish’ of holy indignation : Would 
 that they, who set you in commotion, might mutilate themselves ! that they who 
 attach so much importance to circumcision, and thercby create commotion 
 among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but 
 might even have themselves emasculated ! On dd¢edov as a particle, see on 
 1 Cor. iv. 8. ‘‘Omnino autem observandum est (‘‘It is generally to be ob- 
 served that”) SdeAov ® non nisi tum adhiberi, quum quis optat, ut fuerit ali- 
 quid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est,” ‘‘is 
 employed only when one desires something to have been, or to be in the 
 present or future, which has not been, or is not, or will not be,” Her- 
 mann, ad Viger. p. 756. It is but very seldom used with the future, as 
 
 1 Acts xxii. 
 iii. 5. 
 
 2 Comp. Acts xxii. 4, 5. 
 
 3 Including de Wette and Wieseler. 
 
 3; comp. Gal. i. 14; Phil. being able to appeal to the revealed law, 
 would thereby assume a shape in which it 
 would cease to be dangerous.”” How arbi- 
 
 trarily the thought is imported! And yet 
 
 41 Cor. i. 23; Phil. iii. 18. 
 
 5 Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. 
 
 6 Syr., Bengel on ver. 12, Usteri, Ewald, 
 and others. 
 
 7 According to Hofmann, indeed, it is 
 “ quite earnestly meant,’’ and is supposed to 
 contain the thought that ‘* their perversity, 
 which is now rendered dangerous by their 
 
 the wish, if earnestly meant, would be at all 
 events a st/lyone. Fora similar instance of 
 a bitterly pointed saying against the Judais- 
 tic overvaluing of circumcision, see Phil. 
 iii. 2. 
 
 ® As to the form odedov, see Interpr. ad 
 Moer. p. 285 f. 
 
CHAP Vis kod 231 
 Lucian, Soloec. 1.'— ai] the climactic ‘‘even,” not that of the correspond- 
 ing relation of retribution,’ in which sense it would be only superfluous and 
 cumbrous. — aroxéyovrac| denotes castration,* either by incision of the vena 
 seminalis (Deut. xxiii. 1) or otherwise. Owing to «ai, which, after ver. 11, 
 points to something more than the circumcision therein indicated, this in- 
 terpretation is the only one suited to the context : it is followed by Chry- 
 sostom and his successors, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cajetanus, Grotius, 
 Estius, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, and many others ; also Winer, Riickert, 
 Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, 
 Reithmayr, Holsten ; comp. Ewald, who explains it of a still more com- 
 plete mutilation, as does Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others. In 
 opposition to the context, others, partly influenced by an incorrect aesthet- 
 ical standard,® and sacrificing the middle signification,—which is always 
 reflexive in Greek prose writers,° and is also to be maintained throughout in 
 the N. T.*— have found in it thesense: ‘‘ exitiwm imprecatur impostoribus,” 
 ‘‘He imprecates destruction against impostors ;” ® or have explained it of 
 the divine extirpation ;° or : ‘‘may they be excommunicated ;1° or : may all 
 opportunity of perverting you be taken from them ;”"! or: ‘‘ may they eut 
 themselves off from you.” [See Note LXX., p. 244. ] — dvacrazoiv] stronger 
 than ;apdcoevy, means here to stir up (against true Christianity), to alarm.™ 
 The word, used instead of the classic avacraroy zoisiv, belongs to the later 
 Greek. 1 
 
 Ver. 13. ‘‘It is with justice that I speak so indignantly against those 
 men ; for ye, who are being worked upon by them to bring you under the 
 bondage of the law, have received God’s call to the Messianic kingdom for 
 an object entirely different, —in order that ye may be free.” Thus the 
 apostle again reminds his readers of the great benefit already indicated in 
 ver. 1, but now with the view of inculcating its single necessary moral 
 limitation, -— ix’ éAevde_epia] that ye should be free ; éxi used of the ethical aim 
 of the xaAciv.’” — uévoy yi x.r.2.| Limiting exhortation. But the verb, which 
 
 1 See Hermann /.c.; Graev. ad Luc. Sol. 
 Ii. p. 730. 
 
 2 Wieseler. 
 
 3 Arrian, pict. ii. 20. 19. 
 
 4 See the passages in Wetstein. Comp. am6- 
 «otros, castrated, Strabo, xiii. p. 6380; amoxe- 
 koupevos, Deut. xxiii. 1. 
 
 5 Comp. Calovius: ‘ 
 impure gloss.”’ 
 
 6 Kiihner, II. p. 19. 
 
 T Winer, p. 229. 
 
 6Calvin, acknowledging, however, the 
 word as an allusion to circumcision ; Calo- 
 vius, and others. 
 
 glossa impura,”’ “an 
 
 ® Wieseler. 
 
 19 Hrasmus, Beza, Piscator, Cornelius A 
 Lapide, Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, 
 Morus SBaumgarten-Crusius, Windisch- 
 
 mann, and others; Luther, in his trans- 
 Jation, rendered it: ¢o be extirpated (thus 
 
 like Calvin); in his Commentary, 1519, he 
 does not explain it specially, but speaks 
 merely of a curse which is expressed. In 
 1524, however, he says characteristically - 
 “Si omnino volunt circumcidi, opto, ut et 
 abscindantur et sint eunuchi illi amputatis 
 testiculis et veretro, i. e., qui docere et 
 gignere filios spirituales nequeunt, extra 
 ecclesiam ejiciendi.”’ On the other hand, 
 in the Commentary of 1538, he says quite 
 simply, ‘‘allusit ... ad circumcisionem, 
 q. d. cogunt vos cireumcidi, utinam ipsi 
 funditus et radicitus excindantur.” 
 
 11 Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten. 
 
 12 Ellicott. 
 
 13 Comp. Acts xvii. 6, xxi. 38. 
 
 14 Sturz, dial. Mac. p. 146. 
 
 16 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 7; Eph. ii. 10; Soph. 
 Oed. C. 1459: raklwgm’ éb’ & Kadets. 
 
aor THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 is obvious of itself (tpémere, perhaps, or even éyeze), is omitted, the omission 
 rendering the address more compact and precise.’ This also corresponds 
 (in opposition to Hofmann’s groundless doubt) to the usage of the Greeks 
 after the prohibitory ju7j.’— cic adopuiy tH capxi| for an oceasion to the flesh ; do 
 not use your liberty so that it may serve as an occasion for the non-spiritual, 
 psychico-corporeal part of your nature to assert its desires which are 
 contrary to God.* As to cape in the ethical sense, see Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19, 
 vii. 14 ; John iii. 6. —adAa dia tHe ayarne dova. adAg2] but let love (through 
 which your faith must work, ver. 6) be that by means of which ye stand in 
 a relation of mutually rendered service. An ingenious juxtaposition of jfree- 
 dom and brotherly serviceableness in that freedom.4 The special contrast, how- 
 ever, which is here opposed to the general category of the capé, has its 
 ground in the circumstances of the Galatians, and its warrant in what is about 
 to be said of love in ver. 14. 
 
 Ver. 14.° Reason assigned for the did ric ayaryc K.7.A. just said : for the 
 whole law is fulfilled in one utterance ; that is, compliance with the whole 
 Mosaic law has taken place and exists, if one single commandment of it is 
 complied with, namely, the commandment, ‘‘ Love thy neighbor as thyself.” 
 If, therefore, ye through love serve one another, the whole point in dispute 
 is thereby solved ; there can no longer be any discussion whether ye are 
 bound to fulfil this or that precept of the law,— ye have fulfilled the whole 
 law. ‘‘Theologia brevissima et longissima ; brevissima quod ad verba et 
 sententias attinet, sed usu et re ipsa latior, longior, profundior et sublimior 
 toto mundo,” ‘‘Theology the briefest and the longest ; the briefest, as to 
 words and sentences, but in experience and fact wider, longer, deeper and 
 higher than the whole world,” Luther. 6 dae vduoc* places the totality of 
 the law in contradistinction to its single utterance. The view of Hofmann, 
 that ‘‘it denotes the law collectively as an unity, the fulfilment of which existing 
 in the readers they have in the love which they are to show,” falls to the 
 ground with the erroneous reading, to which it is with arbitrary artifice 
 adapted ; as in particular, 6 ra¢ véz0¢ means not at all the law as unity, but 
 the whole law." In point of fact, the phrase does not differ from bAo¢ 6 véuoc, 
 Matt. xxii. 40. Without alteration in the sense, the apostle might also 
 have written zac yap 6 yéuoc, Which would only have made the emphasis fall 
 
 1Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5; Buttmann, newt. 
 Gr. 338. 
 
 2See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 315 B; 
 Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153; Klotz ad 
 
 followed above, A BC & agree. 
 
 6 Comp. 1 Tim. i. 16; Acts xix. 7, xx. 185 
 Soph. Zl. 1244; Phil. 13; Thue. ii. 7. 2, vill. 
 93.3; Kriiger, § 50. 11. 12. 
 
 Devar. p. 669; Winer, p. 554 f. 
 
 3 Comp. Rom. vii. 8. 
 
 4Comp. Rom. vi. 18, 22; 1 Cor. ix. 19; 
 1-Pet.Ai. 16) 2)Pet: i 19. 
 
 5 Hofmann reads the verse : 6 y. mas vou.os 
 A form 
 of the text so destitute of attestation (Ter- 
 tullian alone has in vobis instead of év évi 
 Adye), that it is simply equivalent to a (very 
 strange) conjecture. Also the omission of ev 
 76 is much too feebly attested. In the text, 
 
 év Umty meTANpwrae ayamyncets K.T.A, 
 
 7 [This isan approximate rendering of the 
 passage, the meaning of which is not, to me 
 at least, very clear. Hofmann seems to 
 have been conscious of this want of clear- 
 ness, for in his revised edition just issued 
 he has considerably altered his mode of ex- 
 pression, but still leaves the matter some- 
 what obscure.—W. P. D.] Comp. also 2 
 Mace. vi. 5; 8 Macc. vi. 2 e¢ al.; Herod. i. 
 ible 
 
CHAP. V., 14. 233 
 still more strongly on zac. — rexAgpwra]| As to the reading, see the critical 
 notes. The perfect denotes the fulfilment as complete and ready to hand, 
 as in Rom. xiii. 8. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Estius, Baumgarten, Semler, Morus, Riickert, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, and others, have correctly explained riypoic- 
 Sa of compliance with the law ; for the explanation comprehenditur, ‘‘is 
 comprised,” ! that is, avaxedadaovtac (which, however, in Rom. xiii. 9 is dis- 
 tinguished from rAgjpovoda.), is at variance with the universal usage of rAnpovv 
 tov vouov in the N. T.? The thought is the same as in Rom. xiii. 8, 6 
 ayarav tov éEtspov véuov meTAfpwxe, and xXxill. 10, rAApwua vépov 7 
 Grotius interprets rAyp. in the same way as in Matt. v. 17: ‘‘sicuti rudi- 
 menta implentur per doctrinam perfectiorem, ‘‘ as rudiments are filled out 
 by the more perfect doctrine.” This interpretation is incorrect on account 
 of rac, and because a commandment of the Mosaic law itself is adduced. — 
 év r@| that is, in the saying of the law ; see Winer, p. 103. — aydryoec] 
 Ley. xix. 18. Respecting the imperative future, see on Matt. i. 21; and. 
 as to éavrév used of the second person, see on Rom. xiii. 9.2 On the idea of 
 the dc éavr., see on Matt. xxii. 39.4. The neighbor is, for the Christian who 
 justly (Matt. v. 17) applies to himself this Mosaic commandment, his fellow- 
 Christian,® just as for the Jew it is his fellow-Jew. But how little this is to 
 be taken as excluding any other at all, is shown not only by distinct intima- 
 tions, such as vi. 10, 1 Thess. iii. 12, 2 Pet. i. 7, but also by the whole 
 spirit of Christianity, which, as to this point, finds its most beautiful ex- 
 pression in the example of the Samaritan (Luke x.) ; and Paul himself was 
 a Samaritan of this kind towards Jews and Gentiles. — The question, how 
 Paul could with justice say of the whole law that it was fulfilled by love 
 toward one’s neighbor, is not to be answered, either by making véuoc signify 
 the Christian law,* or by understanding it only of the moral law," or of the 
 second table of the Decalogue,* or of every divinely revealed luw in general ;° 
 for, according to the connection of the whole epistle, 6 rac vduoc cannot 
 mean anything else than the whole Mosaic law. But it is to be answered by 
 placing ourselves at the lofty spiritual standpoint of the apostle, from which 
 he regarded all other commandments of the law as so thoroughly subordi- 
 nate to the commandment of love, that whosoever has fulfilled this com- 
 mandment stands in the moral scale and the moral estimation just as if he 
 had fulfilled the whole law. From this lofty and bold standpoint every- 
 thing, which was not connected with the commandment of love (Rom. xiii. 
 8-10) fell so completely into the background,” that it was no longer con- 
 
 ayarn. 
 
 1 Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Calvin, Ram- 
 bach, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Rosen- 
 miler, Winer, Usteri, Olshausen, Reiche, 
 and others. 
 
 2 Comp. éxmuumAdvar 7. vouov, Herod. i.. 
 199; so also Philo, de Abrah. I. p. 36. See vi. 
 2; Matt. iii. 15; Rom. viii. 4, xiii. 8; Col. 
 iv. 17. 
 
 3 Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 447. 
 
 4 Comp. Cie de Legg. i. 12: ‘‘ Nihilo sese 
 plus quam alterum homo diligat,” ‘Let a 
 
 man love himself no more than he does 
 another.”’ 
 
 5 Comp. ver. 13, aAAnAots, and see ver. 14. 
 
 ® Koppe. 
 
 7 Estius and many others. 
 
 8 Beza and others; also Wieseler ; comp. 
 Ewald. 
 
 ® Schott. 
 
 10 Especially the precepts as to cadtus, in 
 the apostle’s view, were included among 
 the orotxeia Tod Koopoy, iv. 3. 
 
234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 sidered as aught to be separately and independently fulfilled ; on the 
 contrary, the whole law appeared already accomplished in love, that is, in the 
 state of feeling and action produced by the Spirit of God (ver. 22 f.; Rom. 
 xv. 30), in which is contained the culminating point, goal, and consumma- 
 tion of all parts of the law.’ The idea thus amounts to an impletio totius 
 legis dilectione formata, ‘‘ fulfilment of the whole law, energized by love,” 
 by which the claim of the law is satisfied (ver. 23). The view of Hofmann, 
 that here the law comes into consideration only so far as it is not already 
 Fulfilled in faith ; that for the believer its requirement consists in the com- 
 mandment of love, and even the realization of this is already existing in him, 
 so that he has only to show the love wrought in him by God—simply 
 emanates from the erroneous form of the text and the wrong interpretation 
 of ver. 14 adopted by him. That the apostle, moreover, while adducing 
 only the commandment of love toward one’s neighbor, does not exclude the 
 commandment of love towards God,? was obvious of itself to the Christian 
 consciousness from the necessary connection between the love of God and 
 the love of our neighbor.* Paul was induced by the scope of the context to 
 bring forward the latter only (vv. 18, 15). 
 
 Ver. 15. Adkvere xai xatecbiere] A climactic figurative designation of the 
 hateful working of party enmity, in which they endeavored mutually to 
 hurt and destroy one another. Figurative expressions of this nature, de- 
 rived from ravenous wild beasts, are elsewhere in use.* xareo@ierv is not, 
 however, to be understood ° as to gnaw, but must retain the meaning which 
 it always has, to eat up, to devour.’ Observe the climax of the three verbs, 
 to which the passive turn of the final result to be dreaded also contributes ; 
 Hi] O70 AAAHAwY avarwbhyte| lest ye be consumed one of another—consumamini ; 
 that is (for Paul keeps by his figure), lest through these mutual party hos- 
 tilities your life of Christian fellowship be utterly ruined and destroyed. 
 What is meant is not the ceasing of their status as Christians,’ in other 
 words, their apostasy ; but, by means of such hostile behavior in the very 
 bosom of the churches, there is at length an utter end to what constitutes 
 the Christian community, the organic life of which is mutually destroyed by 
 its own members. 
 
 Ver. 16. With the words ‘‘ But I mean” (iii. 17, iv. 1) the apostle intro- 
 duces, not something new, but a deeper and more comprehensive exhibition 
 and discussion of that which, in vv. 13-15, he had brought home to his 
 readers by way of admonition and of warning—down to ver. 26. Hofmann 
 is wrong in restricting the illustration merely to what follows after 4224, 
 —a view which is in itself arbitrary, and is opposed to the manifest corre- 
 
 1 Therein lies the essence of the so-called 3 Comp. 1 John iv. 20; 1 Cor. Vili. 1,3.. \ 
 tertius usus, ‘‘ third use,”’ of the law, the fur- 4See Maji Obss. Il. p. 86; Jacobs, ad 
 ther development of which is given in the Anthol. VIII. p. 230; Wetstein, iv doc. 
 Epistle to the Romans. Comp. Sieffert, in 5 With Schott. 
 the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 211 f. [See Chap- 6 See on 2 Cor. xi. 20; Hom. JU. ii. 814, xxi. 
 
 ter on ‘‘ The Third Use.” Formula of Con- 24, Od. i. 8, et al.; LXX. Gen. xl. 17; Isa. i. 
 cord, chap. vi., Philadelphia edition, Book "> Add. ad Hsth. 1. 11, 
 of Concord, 1. 508 sqq., 595 sqq.] 7 Hofmann. 
 
 2 Comp. Matt. xxii. 37 f. 
 
CHAP: Va, U2 200 
 
 lation existing between the contrast of flesh and spirit and the adgopuy, 
 which the free Christian is not to afford to the flesh (ver. 13). — rvetpuari 
 mepimateite| dative of the norma.! The subsequent rvetuati dyeoHe in ver. 18 
 is more favorable to this view than to that of Fritzsche,? who makes it the 
 dative commodi (spiritui divino vitam consecrare, ‘‘ to consecrate the life to the 
 Divine Spirit,” or to that of Wieseler, who makes it instrumental, so that 
 the Spirit is conceived as path (the idea is different in the case of dvd in 
 2 Cor. v. 7), or of Hofmann, who renders : ‘‘ by virtue of the Spirit.” Ca- 
 lovius well remarks : ‘“‘juata instinctum et impulsum,” ‘according to the 
 suggestion and impulse of the Spirit.” The spzrit is not, however, the 
 moral nature of man (that is, 6 iow dvOpwroc, 6 voic, Rom. vil. 22, 28), which 
 is sanctified by the Divine Spirit,’ in behalf of which appeal is erroneously 
 (see also Rom. viii. 9) made to the contrast of caps, since the divine rveipa 
 is in fact the power which overcomes the odpé ;+ but it is the Holy Spirit. 
 This Spirit is given to believers as the divine principle of the Christian life 
 (iii. 2, 5, iv. 6), and they are to obey it, and not the ungodly desires of 
 their céps.° The absence of the article is not ° at variance with this view, 
 but it is not to be explained in a qualitative sense,’ any more than in the 
 case of Bedc, xipioc, and the like ; on the contrary, rvevua has the nature of 
 a proper noun, and, even when dwelling and ruling in the human spirit, 
 remains always objective, as the Divine Spirit, specifically different from the 
 human (Rom. viii. 16).* —xai éxiBupiav capkid¢ ob uy TeAéonre| is taken as con- 
 sequence by the Vulgate, Jerome, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Gro- 
 tius, Estius, Bengel, and most expositors, including Winer, Paulus, Riickert, 
 Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr ; 
 but by others, as Castalio, Beza, Koppe, Usteri, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Ewald, in the sense of the imperative. Either view is well adapted to the 
 context, since afterwards, for the illustration of ‘what is said in ver. 16, the 
 relation between capf and rveiua is set forth. But the view which takes it 
 as consequence is the only one which corresponds with the usage in other 
 passages of the N.T., in which od uf with the aorist subjunctive is always 
 used in the sense of confident assurance, and not imperatively, like ov with 
 the future, although in classical authors oi uj is so employed. ‘‘ Ye will 
 certainly not fulfil the lust of the flesh,—this is the moral blessed consequence, 
 which is promised to them, if they walk according to the Spirit.”° [See 
 Note LXXI., p. 244.] 
 
 Ver. 17. ‘H yap caps ériOuyei cata Tov rvetpatoc, TO O& TvEdpma KaTa T. CdpKoc] 
 The foregoing exhortation, with its promise, is elucidated by the remark 
 
 2 
 
 1 kata rvevwa, Rom. viii. 4. Comp. vi. 16; 5 Comp. Neander, and Miiller, v. d. Stinde, 
 Phil. iii. 16; Rom. iv. 12; Hom. Jl. xv. 194: I. p. 458, ed. 5. 
 ovte Avos Béowar peau, ‘‘ Nor do I order my § In opposition to Harless on Eph. p. 268. 
 life according to the will of Zeus.” 7 Hofmann. 
 
 2 Ad Rom. I. p. 225. ® Comp. on vv. 3,5, and on Rom. viii. 4 ; 
 . 3 Beza, Gomarus, Riickert, de Wette, and also Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 78. 
 others; comp. Michaelis, Morus, Flatt, * On rtedecv, used of the actual carrying 
 Schott, Olshausen, Windischmann, De- out of a desire, passion, or the like, comp. 
 litzsch, Psychol. p. 389. Soph. O. #. 13830, #7. 769 ; Hesiod, Scut. 36. 
 
 4 Rom. vii. 23 ff., Rom. viii. 1 ff. 
 
236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 that the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to one another in their desires, so that 
 the two cannot together influence the conduct. — As here also 76 rvedua is 
 not the moral nature of man (see on ver. 16), but the Holy Spirit,’ a com- 
 parison has to some extent incorrectly been made with the variance between 
 the vove and the cdpé (Rom. vii. 18 ff.) in the still unregenerate man, in 
 whom the moral will is subject to the flesh, along with its parallels in Greek 
 and Roman authors.? Here the subject spoken of is the conflict between 
 the fleshly and the divine principle in the regenerate. The relation is there- 
 fore different, although the conflict in itself has some similarity. Bengel in 
 the comparison cautiously adds, ‘‘ guodammodo,” ‘‘in a measure.” —ravra 
 yap adrproi avtixecrac] As to the reading ydp, see the critical notes. It in- 
 troduces a pertinent further illustration of what has just been said. In order 
 to obviate an alleged tautology, Riickert and Schott have placed ratra y. 
 add. avtix. in a parenthesis (see also Grotius), and taken it in the sense : 
 “‘for they are in their nature opposed to one another.” A gratuitous inser- 
 tion ; in that case Paul must have written : gicee yap tatta aad. avtix., for 
 the bare avrixectac after what precedes can only be understood as referring 
 to the actually existing conflict. — iva py x.7.2.] is not* to be joined to the 
 first half of the verse,—a connection which is forbidden by the right view of 
 the raita yap add. avtix. as not parenthetical—but to the latter. iva ex- 
 presses the purpose, and that not the purpose of God in the conflict men- 
 tioned— which, when the will is directed towards that which is good, would 
 amount to an ungodly (immoral) purpose—but the purpose of those powers 
 contending with one another in this conflict, in their mutual relation to the 
 moral attitude of man’s will, which even in the regenerate may receive a 
 twofold determination.4 In this conflict both have the purpose that the 
 man should not do that very thing (ravta with emphasis) which in the re- 
 spective cases (av) he would. If he would do what is good, the flesh, striving 
 against the Spirit, is opposed to this; if he would do what is evil, the Spirit, 
 striving against the flesh, is opposed to that. All the one-sided explanations 
 of d Gv OéAnre, Whether the words be referred to the moral will which is 
 hindered by the flesh,*® or to the sensual will, which is hindered by the 
 
 
 
 1 De Wette wrongly makes the objection, 
 that in the state of the regenerate this re- 
 lation of conflict does not find a place, see- 
 ing that the Spirit has the preponderance 
 (vv. 18, 24). Certainly so, if the regenera- 
 tion were complete, and not such as it was 
 in the case of the Galatians (iv. 19), and if 
 the concupiscentia carnis, *‘ lust of the flesh,’’ 
 did not remain at allin the regenerate. 
 That tvevua here denotes the Holy Spirit, is 
 confirmed by ver. 22. The difference of the 
 conflict in the unconverted and in the re- 
 generate consists in this,—that in the case 
 of the former the ocapé strives with the 
 better moral will (vods), and the capé is vic- 
 torious (Rom. vii. 7 ff.); but in the case of 
 the regenerate, the oapé strives with the 
 Holy Spirit, and man may obey the latter 
 (ver. 18). In the former case, the creature- 
 
 ly power of the cap& is in conflict with the 
 likewise creaturely vovs, but in the latter 
 with the divine uncreated mvredpa. De 
 Wette was erroneously of opinion that here 
 Paul says briefly and indistinctly what in 
 Rom. vii. 15 ff. he sets forth clearly; the view 
 of Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 389, is similar. 
 
 2 Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 21; Arrian. Hpict. ii. 26; 
 Porphyr. de abst.i. 56; Cie. Tuse. ii. 21, e¢ 
 al., and Rabbins (see Schoettgen, Hor. 
 p. 1178 ff). 
 
 8 With Grotius, Semler, Moldenhauer, 
 Riickert, and Schott. 
 
 4 Comp. Weiss. bibl. Theol. p. 361 f. 
 
 ® Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Morus, 
 Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Usteri, Riickert, Schott, 
 de Wette ; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Hol- 
 sten, and others. 
 
CHAPS V.1,/ 118. 237 
 
 Spirit,' are sct aside by the fact that iva yf «.7.2. is connected with the pre- 
 ceding raita yap GAA. avtix., and this comprehends the mutual conflict of 
 two powers.” Winer has what is, on the whole, the correct interpretation : 
 “<8 xvevua impedit vos (rather impedire vos cupit), quo minus perficiatis ra 
 Tie capkoc (Ca, quae 7 cap perficere cupit), contra 7 cdpf adversatur vobis, 
 ubi ta Tov rvebiuatoc peragere studetis,” ‘‘ The Spirit hinders (rather desires 
 to hinder) you from accomplishing the things of the flesh (i.e., those which the 
 Jlesh desires to accomplish) ; on the other hand, the flesh antagonizes you when 
 you are eager to do the things of the Spirit.” * 
 of the conflict (ratira . tavta Tote) Might indeed in itself be dispensed 
 with, since it was in substance already contained in the first half of the 
 verse ; but it bears the stamp of an emphatic and indeed solemn exposition, 
 that it might be more carefully considered and laid to heart. In Hof- 
 mann’s view, iva yu) «.t.4. is intended to express, as the aim of the conflict, 
 that the action of the Christian is not to be self-willed (‘‘springing from 
 himself in virtue of his own self-determination’’) ; and this, because he can- 
 not attain to rest otherwise than by allowing his conduct to be determined 
 by the Spirit. But setting aside the fact that the latter idea is not to be 
 found in the text, the conception of, and emphasis upon, the se/f-willed, 
 which with the whole stress laid on the being se/f-determined would form 
 the point of the thought, are arbitrarily introduced, just as if Paul had 
 written : iva py) & Gv ato (or avtoi ipeic, Rom. vii. 25, 
 abroyvauovec, wTdévouot, avtéBovdo, or the like). 
 
 Ver. 18. If, however, of these two conflicting powers, the Spirit is that 
 which rules you, in what blessed freedom ye are then! *— rvebware dyeobe| 
 See on Rom. viii. 14.°—ov« éoré bd véuov|] namely, because then the law can 
 have no power over you ; through the ruling power of the Spirit ye find your- 
 selves in such a condition of moral life (in such a xavvérng SaAc, Rom. vi. 4, 
 and rvetpyaroc, vii. 6), that the law has no power to censure, to condemn, or 
 to punish anything in you.® In accordance with ver. 23, this explanation 
 is the only correct one ; and this freedom is the true moral freedom from 
 the law, to which the apostle here, in accordance with ver. 13, attaches 
 importance.” There is less accuracy in the usual interpretation: *° ye no 
 longer need the law ; as Chrysostom : ri¢ ypeia véuov; 7H yap olkofev Katop- 
 
 This more precise statement 
 
 or avdaipetor, Or 
 
 Govvre Ta pelo Tov ypeia radaywyov ; or : you are free from the outward con- 
 straint of the law;° comp. also Hofmann, who, in connection with his mis- 
 taken interpretation of ver. 14, understands a subjection to the law as a 
 requirement coming from without, which does not exist in the case of the 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, 
 Neander. Comp. also Ewald, “ in order that 
 ye, according to the divine will expressed 
 on the point, may not do that which ye possi- 
 bly might wish, but that of which ye may 
 know that God desires and approves it.” 
 
 2 Comp. Ernesti Urspr. der Stinde, I. p. 89. 
 
 3 So in substance Ambrose, Oecumenius, 
 Bengel, Zachariae, Koppe, Matthies, Reith- 
 mayr, and others; Wieseler most accu- 
 
 rately. 
 
 4 Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 2 ff. 
 
 § Comp. also 2 Tim. iii. 6. 
 
 6 Comp. on Rom. viii. 4. 
 
 7 Comp. 1 Tim. i. 9. 
 
 8 Adopted by Winer, Riickert, Matthies, 
 Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius; comp. de 
 Wette. 
 
 9 Usteri, Ewald. 
 
238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Christian, because in him the law collectively as an unity is fulfilled. [See 
 Note LXXII., p. 244 seq. ] 
 
 Vv. 19-23. The assertion just made by Paul, that the readers as led by 
 the Spirit would not be under the law, he now illustrates more particularly 
 (dé), by setting forth the entirely opposite moral states, which are produced 
 by the flesh and by the Spirit respectively (vv. 22 f.) : the former exclude 
 from the Messiah’s kingdom (are therefore abandoned to the curse of the 
 lew), while against the latter there is no law. 
 
 Ver. 19. davepa dé x.7.4.] Manifest, however (now to explain myself more 
 precisely as to this oi« éoré ‘7d réuov), open to the eyes of all, evidently 
 recognizable as such by every one, are the works of the flesh, that is, those 
 concrete actual phenomena which are produced when the flesh, the sinful 
 nature of man (and not the Holy Spirit), is the active principle. The dé (in 
 opposition to Hofmann’s objection) is the dé erplicatioum, frequently used 
 by Greek authors and in the N.T.? That one who is led by the Spirit will 
 abstain from the zpya which follow, is obvious of itself ; but Paul does not 
 state this, and therefore does not by dé make the transition to it, as Hof- 
 mann thinks, who gratuitously defines the sense of gavepa as : ‘‘ well known 
 to the Christian without law.” ? The list which follows of the épya tie capKéc 
 contains four approximate divisions : (1) lust: ropveia, axabapc., acédry. 3; (2) 
 
 idolatry : cidwaoratp., gapunak.; (3) enmity: éxOpar.. . ddvoe ; (4) imtemper- 
 ance: péfat, Kouor. — axabapoia] lustful impurity (lewdness) generally, after 
 the special topveia. Comp. Rom. i. 24; 2 Cor. xii. 21. — aoéAyeca] lustful 
 
 immodesty and wantonness. See on Rom, xiii. 138. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; 
 Eph. iv. 19 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 7. [See Note LX XIE, j)pa2aan} 
 
 Ver. 20. EidwioAarpeia| is not to be considered as a species of the sins of 
 lust ;* a view against which may be urged the literal sense of the word, and 
 also the circumstance that unchastity was only practised in the case of 
 some of the heathen rites. It is to be taken in its proper sense as idolatry. 
 Living among Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not unfrequently seduced 
 to idolatry, to which the sacrificial feasts readily gave occasion.* — gapyakeia| 
 may here mean either poison-mingling,® or sorcery.° The latter interpretation 
 is to be preferred,’ partly on account of the combination with eidwAo2arpeia,* 
 partly because ¢é6voc occurs subsequently. Sorcery was very prevalent, 
 especially in Asia (Acts xix. 19). To understand it, with Olshausen, 
 specially of love-incantations, is arbitrary and groundless, since the series of 
 sins of lust is closed with daoé2yera. —The particulars which follow as far as 
 gdvor stand related as special manifestations to the more general éy#pa. On 
 the plural, comp. Herod. vii. 145 ; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10. — tyAoc, Rom, xiii. 
 13 ; jealousy, 1 Cor. iii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, Jas. iii, 16.— The distinction 
 
 1 Winer, p. 421; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. ¢ Ex. vii. 11, 22, viii. 3; Isa. xlvilt 9) 12); 
 Dell Rev. ix. 21, xviii. 23, xxi. 8; Wisd. xii. 4, 
 
 2 On davepss, lying open to cognition, mani: xviii. 13; comp. ¢apuaxa, Herod. iii. 85; 
 Jestus, see van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 111. hapnaxeverv, Herod. vil. 114. 
 
 3 Olshausen. 7 With Luther, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, 
 
 4 Comp. on 1 Cor. y. 11. Winer, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, Ewald, 
 
 5 Plat. Legg. viii. p. 845 E; Polyb. vi. 13. Wieseler, Hofmann, and others. 
 4, xl. 3.7; comp. dapuaxds, Dem. 794. 4. ® Comp. Deut. xviii. 10 ff.; Ex. xxii. 18. 
 
CHAP. V., 21, 22. 239 
 between @vudc and dpyf is, that opy7 denotes the wrath in itself, and Aude 
 the effervescence of it, exasperation. Hence in Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, we have 
 Avuoc tic opyic.1— épieiac] self-seeking party-cabals.? — diyooracia, aipécerc | 
 divisions, fuctions.? Observe how Paul, having the circumstances of the 
 Galatians in view, has multiplied especially the designations of dispeace.* 
 According to 1 Cor. iii. 3 also, these phenomena are works of the jlesh. 
 
 Ver. 21. Adv01, 66vor] paronomasia, as in Rom. i. 29 ; Eur. Troad. 736. 
 —kopo.| revellings, comissationes, especially at night.°— kai ra bpuova toirore | 
 and the things which are similar to these (the whole matters mentioned in vv. 
 20, 21). ‘*Addit et zis similia, quia quis omnem lernam carnalis vitae 
 recenseat ?” ‘‘ He adds ‘such-like ;’ for who can recount the entire marsh of 
 this carnal life.” Luther, 1519. — The rpo in rpoAéyw and rpoeizor is the be- 
 forehand in reference to the future realization ° at the rapovoia ; and the past 
 mpoeirov reminds the readers of the instructions and warnings orally given 
 to them, the tenor of which justifies us in thinking that he is referring to 
 the first and second sojourn in Galatia. — rpdcoovrec| those who practise such 
 things ; but in ver. 17 rouwre : ye do.” — Baoiaciav Oeov ov KAnpovon.|° Sins of 
 this kind, therefore, exclude the Christian from the kingdom of the Messiah, 
 and cause him to incur condemnation, unless by werévora he again enters 
 into the life of faith, and so by renewed faith appropriates forgiveness.’ 
 For the having been reconciled by faith is the preliminary condition of the 
 new, holy life,*? and therefore does not cancel responsibility in the 
 judgment.” 
 
 Ver. 22. 6 dé xaproc¢ Tov tvehuaToc] essentially the same idea, as would be 
 expressed by ra dé épya Tov rvehwatoc—the moral result which the Holy Spirit 
 brings about as its fruit.” But Paul is fond of variety of expression.’ A special 
 intention + in the choice cannot be made good, since both épya and xaproc 
 
 1 See on Rom. ii. 8. 
 
 2 See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20. j 
 
 3 Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 18 f. On atpeocs in this 
 signification, which occurs only in later 
 writers (1 Cor. xi. 19; Acts xxiv. 5, 14), see 
 Wetstein, II. p. 147 f. Comp. aiperoris, 
 partisan, Polyb. i. 79. 9, ii. 38. 7. 
 
 4 Comp. Soph. @. C. 1234 f. 
 
 5 Herm. Privatalterth. § 17. 29. Comp. 
 
 % 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10; Rom. viii. 34; 1 John ii. 
 1f.; observe the present participle. 
 
 10 Rom. vi. 
 
 11 2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10. 
 
 12 Comp. Pind. OQ/. vii. 8: Kkapmos dpevos, 
 Nem. x. 12, Pyth. ii. 74; Wisd. iii. 13, 15. 
 
 13 Comp. Eph. ii. 9, 11. 
 
 14 Chrysostom thought that Paul had used 
 kapros, because good works were not, like 
 
 Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Plat. Theaet. 
 p. 173 D: éetrva cai ody avAnrpior K@mor, * ban- 
 quets and revellings with flute-girls.”” Symp. 
 p. 212 C; Isaeus, p. 39. 21 : k®por kai ageAyera, 
 “revellings and licentiousness.”’ Herod. i. 
 21: mivew k. KHWUw xypeeTtat Es aGAAHAOUs, ‘tO 
 drink and indulge in revelling with one an- 
 other.” Jacobs, Del. epigr. iv. 43: xkwpmov x. 
 macys Kolpave mavvuxidos, ‘lead the revel 
 and the entire night festival.” 
 
 6 Herod. i. 53, vii. 116; Lucian. Jov. Tragq. 
 30; Polyb. vi. 3. 2. 
 
 7 See on Rom. i. 32; John iii. 20. 
 
 8 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9f , xv. 505 Eph. v. 5; 
 das. ii. 5; and generally, Rom. vi. 8 ff. 
 
 evil works, brought about by ourselves 
 alone, but also by the divine ¢Aavipwma. 
 Comp. also Holsten, who, however, makes 
 the distinction sharper. Luther and many 
 others. including Winer, Usteri, Schott: 
 because it is beneficent and praiseworthy 
 works which are spoken of. Matthies: be- 
 cause that whereby the Spirit proves His 
 presence, is, in and by itself, directly fruit 
 and enjoyment. Reithmayr mixes up vari- 
 ous reasons, including the very groundless 
 suggestion that in xapmds there is implied 
 the acknowledgment of man’s joint part in 
 the production. 
 
 15 Comp. the clear passage in the LXX. 
 
240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 are in themselves voces mediae, ‘‘colorless terms,” and according to the 
 context, nothing at all hinged on the indication of organic development,’— 
 a meaning which, moreover, would have been conveyed even by épya, and 
 without a figure,—or of the proceeding from an inner impulse.* The 
 collective* singular xapréc has sprung, as in Eph. v. 9, from the idea of inter- 
 nal unity and moral homogeneity ; for which, however, the singular ipyov 
 (see on vi. 4) would also have been suitable (in opposition to the view of 
 Wieseler).—That gac and zvedua are not to be considered as identical on ac- 
 count of Eph. v. 9, see on Eph. J.c. — ayaz7] as the main element,® and at 
 the same time the practical principle of the rest, is placed at the head, cor- 
 responding to the contrast in ver. 18. The selection of these virtues, and 
 the order in which they are placed, are such as necessarily to unfold and to 
 present to the readers the specific character of the /ife of Christian fellowship 
 (which had been so sadly disturbed among the Galatians, ver. 15). Love 
 itself, because it is a fruit of the Spirit, is called in Rom. xv. 30, ayary tod 
 xvehuatoc. — yapa] is the holy joy of the soul, which is produced by the 
 Spirit, through whom we carry in our hearts the consciousness of the divine 
 love,’ and thereby the certainty of blessedness, the triumph over all suffer- 
 ings, etc. The interpretations : participation in the joy of others,* and a 
 cheerful nature towards others,’ introduce ideas which are not in the text.’ 
 — elpiyn| Peace with others. Rom. xiv. 17; Eph.iv. 3. The word has 
 been understood to mean also peace with God," and peace with oneself ; ? but 
 against this interpretation it may be urged, that this peace (the peace 
 of reconciliation) is antecedent to the further fruits of the Spirit, and that 
 elphun k.T.2. is evidently correlative with éy6pa x.r.A. in ver. 20, so that the 
 elpfvy Ocov (see on Phil. iv. 7) does not belong to this connection, — 
 paxpoOvuia| long-suffering, by which, withholding the assertion of our own 
 rights, we are patient under injuries,!* in order to bring him who injures us 
 to reflection and amendment.'* The opposite : o&v#uuia, Eur. Andr. 728. — 
 xpnorérnc| Benignity. 2 Cor. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 12.%—dyafwotry| goodness, pro- 
 bity of disposition and of action. It thus admirably suits the xior¢ which 
 follows. Usually interpreted :'° kindness ; but see on Rom. xv. 14. — rioric] 
 Jidelity."" Matt. xxiii. 23 ; Rom. iii. 8 ; and see on Philem. 5.— pair : 
 meekness.8 The opposite : aypidryc, Plat. Conv. p. 197 D, in Greek authors 
 
 Proy. x. 16, where épya and xaproi alternate ® Calvin, Michaelis. 
 exactly in the opposite sense: épya dtxatwy 10 Rom. xii. 15. 
 Cwiv move, Kaptrot be ageBwv apaptias, 11 Rom. v. 1. 
 1 See on caprés especially, Rom. vi. 21 f.; 12 de Wette and others. 
 Matt vii. 20; Plat. Hp. 7, p. 336 B. 13 Boadvs eis opyyv, Jas. i. 19. 
 2 To which Olshausen refers xapros. 14 Comp. Rom. ii. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 6. 
 3 de Wette. 15 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff. 
 4 Hom. Od. i. 156, and frequently. 16 Also by Ewald and Wieseler. 
 51 Cor. xiii.; Rom. xii. 9. 17 de Wette, Wieseler, Reithmayr, take it 
 6 See on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Thess. i. 6 ; comp. as confidence, the opposite to distrust, 1 Cor. 
 also 2 Cor. vi. 10. xiii. 7. But the substantive does not occur 
 7 Rom. vy. 5. in this general sense in any other passage 
 
 ® Grotius, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, of the N. T. 
 Winer, Usteri. 18 See on 1 Cor. iv. 21. 
 
CHAPIIV., Lon on R41 
 
 
 
 often combined with ¢v2avOpwria. — éyxparera] self-control, that is, here conti- 
 nence, aS opposed to sins of lust and intemperance,! 
 
 Ver. 23. Just as ra rovavra in ver. 21,* rév towtTrwy in this passage is also 
 neuter, applying to the virtues previously mentioned among the fruits of the 
 Spirit,* and not masculine, as it is understood by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, and many of 
 the older expositors ; also by Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Hofmann.* It 
 is, moreover, quite unsuitable to assume (with Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, 
 Flatt, and others) a peiwore ;° for Paul wishes only to illustrate the oi« eivar 
 id vduov, Which he has said in ver, 18 respecting those who are led by the 
 Spirit. This he does by first exhibiting, for the sake of the contrast, the 
 works of the flesh, and expressing a judgment upon the doers of them ; and 
 then by exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, and saying : ‘‘ against virtues and 
 states of this kind there is no law.” Saying this, however, is by no means 
 ‘‘more than superfluous” (Hofmann), but is intended to make evident how it 
 is that, by virtue of this their moral frame, those who are led by the Spirit 
 are not subject to the Mosaic law.* For whosoever is so constituted that 
 a law is not against him, over such a one the law has no power. Comp. 
 tein. 1. 9 f. 
 
 Ver. 24. After Paul has in ver. 17 explained his exhortation given in ver. 
 16, and recommended compliance with it on account of its blessed results 
 (vv. 18-23), he now shows (continuing his discourse by the transitional dé) 
 how this compliance—the walking in the Spirit—has its ground and motive 
 in the specific nature of the Christian ; if the Christian has crucified his flesh, 
 and consequently lives through the Spirit, his walk also must follow the 
 Spirit. — rv capa éctatpwcar| not : they crucify their flesh ;7 but : they have 
 erucified it, namely, when they became believers and received baptism, 
 whereby they entered into moral fellowship with the death of Jesus * by 
 becoming vexpol 7 auapria.* The symbolical idea: ‘‘to have crucified the 
 Jlesh,” expresses, therefore, the having renounced all fellowship of life with 
 sin, the seat of which is the flesh (caps) ; so that, just as Christ has been ob- 
 jectively crucified, by means of entering into the fellowship of this death on 
 the cross the Christian has swbjectively—in the moral consciousness of faith 
 —crucified the capé, that is, has rendered it entirely void of life and efficacy, 
 by means of faith as the new element of life to which he has been trans- 
 ferred. To the Christians ideally viewed, as here, this ethical crucifixion of 
 
 1 Keclus. xviii. 830; Acts xxiv. 25; 2 Pet. i. 
 6; Xen. Mem.i. 2. 1: appodiciwy x. yaortpos 
 eykpatéatatos. 
 
 2 Haec talia: see Engelhardt, ad Plat. 
 Lach. p. 14; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 2. 
 
 8 Trenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, 
 Calvin, Beza, yet doubtfully, Castalio, Cor- 
 nelius & Lapide, and most expositors. 
 
 4So also Baéumlein, in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1862, p. 551f. The objection that the singu- 
 lar 0 kapros in ver. 22 forbids the neuter in- 
 terpretation (Hofmann), is quite groundless 
 both in itself and because xapmos is collec- 
 
 16 
 
 tive. 
 
 5 Non adversatur, sed commendat, ‘‘ He 
 does not oppose, but commends,” and the 
 like ; so also de Wette. 
 
 6 The fundamental idea of the whole epis- 
 tle—the freedom of the Christian from the 
 Mosaic law—is thus fully displayed in its 
 moral nature and truth. Comp. Sieffert, in 
 the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1869, p. 264. 
 
 7 Luther and others ; also Matthies. 
 
 § See on ii. 19, vi. 14; Rom. yi. 3, vii. 4. 
 
 ® Rom, vi. 11. 
 
242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 the flesh is something which has taken place,’ but in reality it is also some- 
 thing now taking place and continuous.” The latter circumstance, however, 
 in this passage, where Paul looks upon the matter as completed at conver- 
 sion and the life thenceforth led as (jv rvetpare,*® is not to be conceived * as 
 standing alongside of that ideal relation,—an interpretation which the his- 
 torical aorist unconditionally forbids. — civ roi¢ maby. x. Taig éribuu| together 
 with the affections® and lusts, which, brought about by the power of sin in- 
 stigated by the prohibitions of the law,* have their seat in and take their 
 rise from the caps, the corporeo-psychical nature of man, which is antago- 
 nistic to God ; hence they must, if the capé is crucified through fellowship 
 with the death of the Lord, be necessarily crucified with it, and could not 
 cemain alive.” The ém@vuia are the more special sinful lusts and desires, in 
 which the radjuara display their activity and take their definite shapes.* 
 The affections excite the feelings, and hence arise éxSvuia, in which their 
 definite expressions manifest themselves. 
 
 Ver. 25. If the Christian has crucified his flesh, it is no longer the ruling 
 power of his life, which, on the contrary, proceeds now from the Holy Spirit, 
 the power opposed to the flesh ; and the obligation thence arising is, that 
 the conduct also of the Christian should correspond to this principle of life 
 (for otherwise what a self-contradiction would he exhibit !) — ei Céuev rveb- 
 art] introduced asyndetically (without ody), so as to be more vivid. The © 
 emphasis is on rvetpat, as the contrast to the cdpé : If after the crucifying 
 of the flesh we owe our life to the Holy Spirit, by which is meant the life 
 which begins with conversion, through the radryyeveoia (Tit. iii. 5)—the life 
 of the new creature, vi. 15."°—The jirst rvetpyarz is ablative: the second, em- 
 phatically placed at the commencement of the apodosis, is the expression of 
 the norma (ver. 16).!! crosyeiv (comp. also Acts xxi. 24) is distinguished 
 from sepirareiv in ver. 16 only as to the figure ; the latter is ambulare, the 
 former is ordine procedere (to march). But both represent the same idea, 
 the moral conduct of life, the firm regulation of which is symbolized in 
 oToLyelv. 
 
 Ver. 26. Special exhortations now begin, flowing from the general obliga- 
 tion mentioned above (vy. 16, 25) ; first negative (ver. 26), and then positive 
 (vi. 1 ff). Hence ver. 26 ought to begin a new chapter. The address, 
 adeAdoi (vi. 1), and the transition to the second person, which Rickert, 
 Schott, Wieseler, make use of to defend the division of the chapters, and 
 the consideration added by de Wette, that the vices mentioned in ver. 26 
 belong to the works of the flesh in ver. 20, and to the dissension in ver. 15 
 (this would also admit of application to vi. 1 ff.), cannot outweigh the con- 
 nection which hinds the special exhortations together. — xevédéFor.] vanam 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff. 977 yap émt Tov Supoy lovay Suvdper dhAov 
 2 Rom. vili. 13; Col. iii. 5. OTL TovTO ekA7y TO dvowa, ‘it is manifest 
 3 Ver. 25; comp. ii. 20. that this term was applied to the force 
 4 With Bengel and Schott. coming upon the Spirit (emt tov Supor),” 
 5 See on Rom. vii. 5. . Plat. Crat. p. 419 D. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5. 
 
 6 Rom. vii. &. 10 Comp. Rom. vi. 4 ff., vii. 5 f., vill. 95 
 7 Comp. on ver. 17; Rom. vii. 14 ff. 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 8 Rom. vii. 5,8. 1 Comp. vi. 16; Phil. iii. 16; Rom. iv. 12. 
 
NOTES. 243 
 gloriam captantes.! 
 who had remained faithful to him,’ nor merely to those of Judaistic senti- 
 ments,* for these partial references are not grounded on the context ; but to 
 the circumstances of the Galatians generally at that time, when boasting 
 and strife (comp. ver. 15) were practised on both sides. —Both the ywoyueda in 
 itself,‘ and the use of the first person, imply a forbearing mildness of ex- 
 pression. — dAAqdove tpoKaa., arAHaAowe PYovovvrec] contains the modus of the 
 challenging one another (to the conflict, in order to triumph over 
 the challenged), envying one another (namely, those superior, with whom 
 they do not venture to stand a contest).° — @Jovety governs only the dative 
 ‘of the person,° or the accusative with the infinitive,” not the mere accusative ;° 
 hence the reading adopted by Lachmann, a/27/0v¢ ¢dov.,° must be considered 
 as an error of transcription, caused by the mechanical repetition of the 
 foregoing aAAjdovc. — The fact that 4227/2. in both cases precedes the verb, 
 makes the contrariety to fellowship:more apparent, ver, 13. 
 
 In these warnings, Paul refers neither merely to those 
 
 Kevodosia : 
 
 Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 LXVIII. Ver..5. éArida dixaoovvne. 
 
 The restriction of the argument by Meyer to justification seems too narrow. 
 The subject at this particular place is rather, as Sieffert remarks : What is the 
 goa] towards which the true Christian advances from the time of the reception 
 of grace? In opposition to the painful and fruitless endeavor to fulfil the law, 
 this is, according to ver. 5, the joyful hope founded upon faith and grace. 
 Weiss’ paraphrase is: ‘‘We expect the salvation which we have to hope for 
 in consequence of the righteousness which has been presented us & miotewc”’ 
 (Eng. Trans. I, 451), 
 
 LXIX. Ver. 11. é repitomny K.7.A. 
 
 This interpretation, to which Sieffert objects, on the ground that while con- 
 sistent with the line of argument, it nevertheless is incomprehensible how such 
 
 1 Phil. ii. 3; Polyb. xxvii. 6. 12, xxxix. 
 1. Comp. xevodofetv, 4 Macc. y. 9, and xevo- 
 Sofia, Lucian V. 77. 4, M.D. 8. See Servius, 
 ad Virg. Aen. xi. 854. 
 
 2 Olshausen. 
 
 3 Theophylact and mary others. 
 
 4 Fiamus, ‘“‘let us become.”” The matter 
 is conceived as already in course of taking 
 place ; hence the present, and not the aorist, 
 asisreadin G*, min., yevoueda. The Vul- 
 gateand Erasmus also correctly render it 
 eficiamur. On the other hand, Castalio, 
 Beza, Calvin, and most expositors, incor- 
 rectly give simus, “let us be.’? Against 
 eficiamur Beza brings forward the irrele- 
 vant dogmatic objection: “ atqui natura 
 ipsa tales nos genuit,” ‘* But our very nature 
 has begotten us as such,” which does not 
 hold good, because Christians are 7egener- 
 
 ate (ver. 24). Hofmann dogmatically affirms 
 that forbearing mildness is out of the ques- 
 tion.. It is, in fact, implied in the very ex- 
 pression. Comp. Rom. xii. 16; 2 Cor. Vi. 
 14; Eph. v.17. And passages such as iv. 12 
 are in no way opposed to this view, for they 
 are without negation ; comp. Eph. v. 1, Phil. 
 Till %. 
 
 5 On mpoxadrciodat, to provoke, see Hom. J/. 
 iii. 482, vii. 50. 218. 285; Od. viii. 142; Polyb. 
 i. 46. 11 ; Bast. ep. crit. p. 56, and the passages 
 in Wetstein. 
 
 6 Kihner, II. p. 247. 
 
 7 Hom. Qd. i. 346, xviii. 16, xi. 381; Herod. 
 viii. 109. 
 
 8 Not even in Soph. 0. #. 310. 
 
 ® Following B G*, and several min., 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, ms., Oecumenius. 
 
244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 slander could have originated, has been well put by Lightfoot : ‘* At this point 
 the malicious charge of his enemies rises up before the apostle : ‘Why, you do 
 the same thing yourself ; you caused Timothy to be circumcised.’ To this he 
 replies: ‘What, do J, who have incurred the deadly hatred of the Judaizers, 
 who am exposed to continual persecution from them, do J preach cireumci- 
 sion?” For other circumstances than the circumcision of Timothy, whence 
 this charge might have originated, see Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of N. T., Eng. Tr., I, 
 486. 
 LXX. Ver. 12. amoxdwovrat. 
 
 ‘««The common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of the 
 language in the LXX., is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the 
 delicacy of modern times” (Jowett). The American section of the Revision 
 committee, following the French rendering of Deut. xxiii. 1, reeommends the 
 euphemism, ‘‘ Go beyond circumsion” as the preferable mode of expressing this 
 idea of the verb in a version for general circulation. Both Lightfoot and Eadie 
 emphasize the fact that such mutilation was a part of the rites of the worship 
 of Cybele, and as such the allusion would have been at once understood. The 
 idea conveyed is that circumcision, when no longer fulfilling its original design 
 as an ordinance adumbrative of Christ and His blessings, has no more validity 
 than such degrading prescriptions of the heathen, and that the sole difference 
 is in degree, but notin kind. The application of this principle here is in the 
 vein of intense irony. The explanation of Sanday is certainly remarkable, that 
 while the interpretation here maintained is the true one, Paul is writing 
 under the strain of passion, and in his anger uses an expression that indicates 
 ‘*one of very few flaws in a truly noble and generous character.” 
 
 LXXI. Ver. 16. exfnyiav capkoc. 
 
 «¢The Pauline conception of cdpé, even where not used in ethical relations, is 
 not contrary to its original anthropological signification, according to which it 
 is the human body (not indeed with respect to the form, which is designated by 
 cana, but) with respect to its contents, and therefore especially with respect to 
 its material substance, as well as according to its powers ; and, therefore, in 
 its inner combination with the lower human soul-life, which Paul ordinarily 
 understands by the term 1vy7, as contradistinguished from the higher spiritual 
 life of man allied to God, the voic. This sensuo-psychical side of man’s na- 
 ture is clearly also ocap& here, where mvevwa and capg appear as two different 
 principles working upon the human will from the higher human spiritual life, 
 as also in Rom. vii., where odpé and wéAy are antithetical to voic. Butin this and 
 other passages where odp£ maintains an ethical relation, it especially signifies 
 the sensuo-psychical side of man’s nature, so far as it is brought by the human 
 will which was originally in harmony with God into antagonism with God and 
 all that is godly, and thus, by the egoistic alienation of that will from God, 
 constituted a dominant life-principle, active through the first sin of Adam in 
 the entire human race, and continually perpetuated through transmission” 
 (Sieffert). 
 
 LXXITI. Ver. 18. ovx éoré b76 voor. 
 
 While Sieffert’s interpretation, as opposed to Meyer, that the Mosaic law is 
 here referred to, cannot be substantiated, yet it is better, not merely with 
 Usteri and Ewald, but with a large number of exegetes (Hofmann, Lightfoot, 
 
NOTES. 245 
 
 Eadie, among the more recent) and dogmaticians, to regard the not being under 
 the law as freedom from the constraint and coercion of the law. So far as 
 man is led by the Spirit of God, the law is written on his heart. No longer an 
 external matter, it becomes a second nature, a life-force, whereby the duties 
 prescribed by God are rendered with joy, instead of reluctance. Thus Weiss 
 (Bibl. Theol. of N. T., I. 483, Eng. Trans.) : ‘‘ Those who are led by the Spirit 
 are, viz., no longer under the law (Gal. v. 18) ; for what the law with its require- 
 ment strove after, and yet could not reach (Rom. viii. 3), that the Spirit really 
 attains to, inasmuch as at His instigation the requirement of the law is fulfilled 
 in them who walk according to the Spirit. The power of the Spirit, which is 
 operative in man, has taken the place of the law, which is outwardly fixed in the 
 letter.” Quenstedt (iv. 11): ‘* Not to be under the law signifies to be freed from 
 the curse and constraint of the law, because the regenerate are led by the Spirit, 
 are delighted in the law according to the inner man, and spontaneously do the 
 things which are of the law.” Cf. Formula of Concord (598 : 16): ‘As long as 
 man is not regenerate and conducts himself according to the law, and does the 
 works of the law because they are thus commanded, from fear of punishment or 
 desire for reward, he is still under the law, and his works are properly called 
 by St. Paul works of the Jaw, for they are extorted by the law, as those of slaves” 
 
 (Phil. edition). Compare Westminster Confession, xix. 7. 
 
 LXXIII. Ver. 19. épya tij¢ capxéc. 
 
 «The flesh is spoken of in the entire short paragraph in its lusting and 
 warrings, in contrast with the Spirit in its wrestlings and leadings. Those who 
 are guided by the Spirit are not as such under the law ; but the flesh is under 
 law, under its sentence and dominion: manifest are its works, and the law 
 cannot but condemn them as fpya, works done by the evil and unrenewed na- 
 ture. It is needless to press a contrast in ¢avepd with the fruit of the Spirit, as 
 being more hidden, and needing to be educed and specified. The works of 
 the flesh are notorious and notoriously of a corrupt origin’ (Eadie). 
 
246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 CHAPTER Vi- 
 
 Ver. 2. dvardAnpdoare] [Elz., Tisch, 1859, following 8 A CD, ete.] Lachm. 
 and Schott [Tisch. 1872], read avarAnpacere, following B F G, 33, 35, and several 
 vss. and Fathers. Looking at this amount of attestation, to which the vss. give 
 special weight (including Pesch., Vulg. It.), and considering that the impera- 
 tive might readily have been occasioned by the preceding imperatives, the 
 aorist form being involuntarily suggested by the similar future form, the future 
 is to be preferred.—Ver. 10. épyatwuefa] A B L, min., Goth. Oec. read épya- 
 Couea. Approved by Winer, but too feebly attested, especially as hardly any 
 version is in favor of it. A mere error in transcribing, after the preceding 
 indicatives §epicouev and éyouev, Looking at the frequent confusion of wand o, 
 we must also regard as a copyist’s error the reading in ver. 12 of d:wxovras, 
 adopted by Tisch., and attested by A C, etc., instead of déxwvra: (B D, ete.). — 
 Ver. 12. uw] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive testimony, to be 
 placed after Xpuorov. — Ver. 13. repitexvouevor] B L, many min., also vss. and 
 Latin Fathers, read mepitetunuévor.1 Recommended by Griesb., adopted by 
 Lachm. and Scholz, and approved by Rinck and Reiche. And justly ; the pre- 
 terite is absolutely necessary, as the Judaistic teachers are meant. The present 
 has crept in as a mere mechanical error of the transcribers, who had just pre- 
 viously written mepitéuvecbar, and perhaps also recollected v. 3. — Ver. 14. 7@ 
 before xéoum is omitted by Lachm. [and Tisch. 1872.] on weighty evidence ; 
 but it might be readily suppressed, owing to the preceding syllable yo, espe- 
 cially as the article might be dispensed with, and kdcouo¢ just before was anar- 
 throus.—Ver, 15. ev ydp Xpioré "Inoov oie] B, 17, Arm. Aeth. Goth. Chrys. Georg. 
 Syncell. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., have merely oire yap (Syr. Sahid., od ydp). 
 Approved by Mill, Seml., Griesb., Rinck, Reiche ; adopted by Bengel, Schott, 
 Tisch. Justly ; the Recepta is manifestly an amplifying gloss, derived from v. 
 6,— éoriv] Elz. and Matth. read icyier, against decisive evidence. Derived 
 from v. 6. — Ver. 16. ororyijoovow] [Tisch. 1872], following 8, B C** K L P, 
 Vulg. Chrys. Cyr. Theodoret, Dam. But, A C* DE FG, 4, 71, Syr. utr. Sahid. 
 It. Cyr. Victorin. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., read ctotyovow. Approved by Griesb., 
 placed in the margin by Lachm., adopted by Tisch. [1859]. But the present 
 suggested itself most readily to the unskilled transcribers, and what ground 
 could these have had for the alteration in the future ?— Ver. 17. xvpiov is 
 omitted before “Ijcov in A B C*, 8, 17, 109, Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. ms. Petr. 
 Alex. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A frequent addi- 
 tion, in this case specially derived from ver. 18 ; hence several witnesses add 
 nav. 
 
 ConTENTS.—Continuation of the special admonitions begun in v. 26 (vv. 
 1-5) ; then an exhortation to Christian morality in general, with allusion to 
 
 1 Jn favor of this may probably be reck- mepiteuynuéevor, Which betray through the 
 oned also F with wepitepvypor, and G with wrongly written » perfect forms. 
 
CHA Pravalu,l. 247 
 its future recompense (vv. 6-10). A concluding summary, in the apostle’s 
 own handwriting, of the chief polemical points of the epistle (vv. 11-16) ; 
 after which Paul deprecates renewed annoyance, and adds the benediction 
 (vive, 18). 
 
 Ver. 1. Loving (ddeAgoi) exhortation to a course of conduct opposed to 
 Kevodotia. —iav Kai mpoAndy x.t.2.| Correctly rendered in substance by the 
 Vulgate : ‘‘etsi praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto.” The mean- 
 ing is: ‘if even any one ' shall have been overtaken by any fault,—so, namely, 
 that the sin has reached him more rapidly than he could flee from it (1 Cor. 
 vi. 18, x. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22). So Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and most expositors, including Riickert and 
 de Wette ; and in substance also Wieseler, who, however, explains pod. 
 figuratively of a snare, in which (év) one is unexpectedly (po) caught.” 
 There is, however, no intimation of this figure in the context (kataprifete) 5 
 and to explain év the quite common instrumental use amply suffices, accord- 
 ing to which the expression is not different from the mere dative. Ina 
 mild and trustful tone Paul conceives the sin, which might occur among 
 his Galatians, oniy as ‘‘ peccatum praecipitantiae,” ‘a sin of precipitancy ;” 
 for this is, at any rate, intimated by zpoayod7. On rporauBaveww, to overtake, 
 comp. Xen. Cyn. 5, 19; 7, 7; Theophr. #. pl. vil. 1. 3; Polyb. xxxi. 23. 
 8 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 75 ; Strabo, xvi. p. 1120. Im édy kai the emphasis is 
 laid on «i (if even, if nevertheless).? Others * have explained rpoAngdy as 
 deprehensus fucrit, is seized ; but against this view it may be urged that, as 
 the word cannot be used as merely equivalent to the simple verb, or to 
 “KaTaAnodh,? or éykataAngdn,® no reference for the zpo can be got from the 
 
 context.’ Even in Wisd. xvii. 17, zpoAygdeic means overtaken, surprised by 
 destruction. And the xai does not require that interpretation, because, 
 
 while it might belong to rpoAyodH,* so as to mean also actually caught,° or, 
 by way of climax, even caught, it does not necessarily belong to it. — ipeic 
 oi mvevuatixoi} Paul thus puts it to the consciousness of every reader to 
 regard himse/f as included or not: ye, the spritual, that is, who are led by 
 The opposite : puyexoi, capxexoi (1 Cor. 11.13 f., 11. 1). In 
 the case of duvatoi, Rom. xv. 1, the circumstances presupposed and the con- 
 
 the xvevua aycov. 
 
 trast are of a different character. 
 
 1 avdpwros, as in ver. 7, and 1 Cor. xi. 28, 
 iv. 1, e¢ al. 
 
 2Comp. Goth. ‘‘ gafahdiddu,” 
 caught. 
 
 3 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519; Baeuml. 
 Partik. p. 151. 
 
 4 Grotius, Winer, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, 
 Ewald, Hofmann. 
 
 § John viii. 4. 
 
 6 Aeschin. Cles. p. 62. 17. 
 
 7 Grotius strangely interprets: ‘‘ depre- 
 hensus antequam haec epistola ad vos veniat,” 
 “caught before this epistle come to you.” 
 Winer introduces more than the text war- 
 rants: ‘“‘etiamsi quis antlea deprehensus fu- 
 erit in peccato, eum tamen (ilerwin peccantem) 
 
 that is, 
 
 Those very mvevuatixoi might readily be 
 
 corrigite,” ‘“‘even though one have been 
 previously caught in sin, nevertheless cor- 
 rect him (again sinning).’? Paul must have 
 expressed this by ¢av kat madw Andy. 
 Olshausen affirms that by zpo the AauBaveora 
 is indicated as taking place before the cara- 
 prugev. But this relation of time was so 
 obvious of itself, that it would have been 
 strange thus to express it. Hofmann inter- 
 prets not more aptly: ‘‘eve he repents of the 
 sin; as if this idea could. only be thus 
 mentally supplied! Luther appropriately 
 remarks, ‘if a man skould somehow be 
 overtaken by a fault.” 
 
 § Klotz, p. 521; Kiihner, § 824, note 1. 
 
 ® Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 17. 
 
248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 guilty of an unbrotherly exaltation and severity, if they did not sufficiently 
 attend to and obey the leading of the Spirit towards meekness. — xarapri- 
 Sere] bring him right, into the proper, normal condition ; dsopSoire, Chrysos- 
 tom.' A jigurative reference to the setting of dislocated limbs? is not sug- 
 gested by the context. — év rvetpati tpadrytoc| through the Spirit of meekness, 
 that is, through the rvevya aywov producing meekness. For rveiwa should 
 be understood, not with Luther, Calvin, and many others, of the human 
 spirit (1 Pet. iii. 4), of the tendency of feeling or tone of mind,* but of the 
 Holy Spirit, as is required by the very correlation with rvevuarixoi.4 But 
 among the manifold xaprog tov rvetparocg (V. 22), tpabryto¢ brings promi- 
 nently forward the very quality which was to be applied in the xarapriCecv. 
 In that view it is the ‘* character palmarius hominis spiritualis,” ‘‘ the pre- 
 eminent characteristic of the spiritual man,” Bengel. — oxorév ceavrov x.t.A.] 
 looking (taking heed) to thyself lest, etc.° There is here a transition to the 
 singular, giving a more individual character to the address ; just as we fre- 
 quently find in classical authors that after the plural of ‘the verb, the singular 
 of the participle makes the transition from the aggregate to the individual. ® 
 Erasmus aptly remarks that the singular is ‘‘magis idoneus ad compel- 
 landam uniuscujusque conscientiam,” ‘better adapted for addressing the 
 individual conscience.” There is therefore the less ground for considering 
 these words as an apostolical marginal note (Laurent). — uz kai od rerp.| lest 
 thou also (like that fallen one) become tempted, enticed to sin,—wherein the 
 apostle has in view the danger of the enticement being successful.’ Lach- 
 mann places a full stop after tpaityroc, and connects cxomév . . . recpaodig 
 with the words which follow ; a course by which the construction gains 
 nothing, and the connection actually suffers, for the reference of xa) cd to 
 Tov rovovrov is far more natural and conformable to the sense than the refer- 
 ence tO aAAjiov. 
 
 Ver. 2. a4A42wv| emphatically prefixed (comp. v. 26), opposed to the hab- 
 it of selfishness : ‘‘ mutually one of the other bear ye the burdens.” 7a apy, 
 however, figuratively denotes the moral faults (comp. ver. 5) pressing on 
 men with the sense’of guilt, not everything that is oppressive and burden- 
 some generally, whether in the domain of mind or of body,*—a view which, 
 The 
 mutual bearing of moral burdens is the mutual, loving participation im 
 another’s feeling of guilt, a weeping with those that weep in a moral point of 
 view, by means of which moral sympathy the pressure of the feeling of guilt 
 is reciprocally lightened.’ As to this fellowship in suffering, comp. the ex- 
 
 according to the context, is much too vague and general (vv. 1, 3, 5). 
 
 1 Comp. on 1 Cor. i. 10. Hofmann. 
 
 2 Beza, Hammond, Bengel, and others. 
 
 3 Riickert, de Wette, Wieseler, and others. 
 
 4 See on 1 Cor. iv. 21. 
 
 5 Comp. Soph. Phil. 506. In Plat. Theaet, 
 p. 160 E, Luke xi. 35, it is differently used. 
 Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 209. 
 
 6 See Bernhardy, p. 421 ; Lobeck, ad Soph. 
 Aj. 191. 
 
 7 Comp. 1 Cor, vii. 5. 
 
 8 Matthies, Windischmann, Wieseler, 
 
 ® Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Cramer’s 
 Cat. (and in Fritzsche, p. 129), well remarks 
 that the bearing of one another’s burdens 
 takes place, éray dia mapatvéecews Kal XpyoTo- 
 TYTOS Emtkoudigys avT@ THy WuxHV, VTS THS 
 TOU GpmapTHmatos cuvetdyoews Pe- 
 Bapynuévnv, ‘whenever by advice and 
 kindness you relieve his spirit, weighed 
 down by the consciousness of sin.” 
 
CHAP YI., 3: 249 
 
 ample of the apostle himself, 2 Cor. xi. 29. It is usually taken merely to 
 mean, Have patience with one anothers faults ; * along with which several, such 
 as Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winer, quite improperly (in opposition to diAgrov, 
 according to which the burdened ones are the very persons affected by sin) 
 look upon apy as applying to faults by which a person becomes burden- 
 some to others. But the command, thus understood, would not even come 
 up to what was required in ver. 1, and would not seem important and high 
 enough to enable it to be justly said : kat obtw¢ avarAnpacete Tov vouov T. Xp. 
 —and in this way (if ye do this) ye will entirely fulfil the law of Christ, the 
 law which Christ has given, that is, the sum of all that He desires and has 
 commanded by His word and Spirit, and which is, in fact, comprehended 
 in the love*® which leads us to serve one another. What Paul here requires 
 is conceived by him as the culminating point of such a service. He speaks 
 of the véuoc of Christ in relation to the Mosaic law,* which had in the case 
 of the Galatians—and how much to the detriment of the sympathy of love— 
 attained an estimation which, on the part of Christians, was not at all 
 due to it ; they desired to be id véuov, and thereby lost the évvoyov Xpiarow 
 elva.* A reference at the same time to the example of Christ, who through 
 love gave Himself up to death® (as contended for by Oecumenius and 
 Usteri), is gratuitously introduced into the idea of véuoc. The compound 
 avarAnp is, as already pointed out by Chrysostom (who, however, wrongly 
 explains it of acommon fulfilment jointly and severally), not equivalent to the 
 simple verb,® but more forcible : to jill up, to make entirely full (the law 
 looked upon as a measure which, by compliance, is made full ; comp. v. 
 14), so that nothing more is wanting.” The thought therefore is, that with- 
 out this moral bearing of one another’s burdens, the fulfilment of the law of 
 Christ is not complete ; through that bearing is introduced what otherwise 
 would be wanting in the avarAjpwore of this law. And how true this is ! 
 Such self-denial and self-devotion to the brethren in the ethical sphere ren- 
 ders, in fact, the very measure of love full,® so far as it-may be filled up at 
 all.° 
 
 Ver. 3. Argumentum e contrario for the preceding kai oitwe avarAnp. T. v. T 
 Xp.; in so far as the fulfilment to be given in such measure to this law is 
 impossible to moral conceit.—VFor if any one thinks himself to be something, 
 imagines himself possessed of peculiar moral worth, so that he conceives 
 himself exalted above such a mutual bearing of burdens, while he is nothing, 
 although he is in reality of no moral importance, he is, so far from fulfilling 
 the law of Christ, involved in self-deception. — On eivai t1, and the opposite 
 pndéev eivat, nullius momenti esse, ‘*to be of no account,” ?° comp. ii. 6, and see 
 
 1 Rom. xv. 1. as to which you are deficient.”’ 1 Thess. ii. 
 
 ve ddit: 16; Matt. xiii. 14. See Tittmann, Synon. 
 
 3 Comp. v. 14. p. 228 f. ; Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. com- 
 
 2ACor, 1x. 21. Ossi Nel. usu. Wl. pe ld t. 
 
 5 Rom. xv. 3; Eph. v. 2. 81 Cor. xiii. 4 ff. 
 
 § Rickert, Schott, and many others. 9 Rom. xiii. 8. 
 
 7Comp. Dem. 1466. 20: ay ay éxAetmyTe 10 Comp. Arrian. Hpict. ii. 24: doxav peév te 
 VILELS, OVX EVPHTETE TOUS avaTAnpwoorTas, ‘you eivat, ay & ovdeis, “to be of no account.” 
 
 will not find such as will fill up those things 
 
200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 on Acts v. 86 ; 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 148. As to pf with 
 the participle, see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 801. If pydév dv be attached to 
 the apodosis,' the effect is only to weaken the judgment which is expressed 
 in it, because it would contain the fundamental statement (since he is nothing) 
 in which the éevr. @pevar. is already obviously involved, and consequently, 
 as the first portion of the affirmation in the apodosis, would anticipate the 
 latter portion of it and take away its energetic emphasis. This is not the 
 case, if the ‘‘ being nothing” belongs to the antithetical delineation of con- 
 ceited pretension in the protasis, where it is appropriate for the completeness 
 of the case supposed. Moreover, dv oy is really applicable in the case of 
 every one, Luke xvii. 10 ; Rom. iii. 23 ; 1 Cor. iv. 7, et al. — dpevarara] de- 
 notes deception in the judgment, here in the moral judgment ; the word is 
 not preserved in any other Greek author.? 
 
 Ver. 4. But men ought to aet in a way entirely different from what is in- 
 dicated by this doxei eivai tx. ‘‘ His own work let every man prove, and 
 then,” etc. —The emphasis lies on 76 épyov (which is collective, and denotes the 
 totality of the actions, as in Rom. ii. 7, 15; 1 Pet. i. 17; Rev. xxii. 12), 
 opposing the objective works to the subjective conceit. — dokipatétw] not : pro- 
 batum reddat,* ‘‘render approved,” a meaning which it never has (comp. on 
 1 Cor. xi. 28), but : let him try, investigate of what nature it is. — cai rére] 
 and then, when he shall have done this (1 Cor. iv. 5), not : when he shall 
 have found himself approved.* — ei¢ éavrov pwdvov 70 Kabynua é&e1, K.7.A.] does 
 not mean, he will keep his glorying for himself,’ that is, abstinebit a gloriando, 
 ‘he will abstain from glorying;” ° for although éyecv may, from the context, 
 obtain the sense of keeping back,” it is in this very passage restricted by xa? 
 ovk ei¢ Tov érepov to its simple meaning, to have ; and xaiyyua is not equivalent 
 to Kabyyow, but must retain its proper signification, materies gloriandi, 
 ‘“subject for glorying.” ® 
 of Winer : ‘‘non tantas in se ipso reperiet laudes, quibus apud alios quoque 
 glorietur,” ‘‘In himself he will not find such praise, of which to boast also 
 before others ;” of Usteri : ‘‘then will he have to glory towards himself 
 alone, and not towards others,’—a delicate way of turning the thought : 
 “‘then he will discover in himself faults and weaknesses sufficient to make him 
 think of himself modestly ;’ and of Wieseler, ‘‘he will be silent toward 
 others as to his xaiyyua.”” But in accordance with the context, after the re- 
 quirement of self-examination, the most natural sense for cic (on account of 
 the antithesis, ei¢ éavrdv —eic tov étepov) is: in respect to, as regards ; more- 
 over, in the above-named interpretations, neither the singular nor the article 
 in rov étepov obtains its due weight. The sentence must be explained : then 
 will he have cause to glory merely as regards himself, and not as regards the 
 other ; that is, then will he have cause to boast merely in respect of good of 
 
 Nearest to the view of Koppe in seise come those 
 
 1 Michaelis, Baumgarten, Morus, Jatho, 
 Hofmann. 
 
 2 But comp. dpevaratys, Tit. i. 10; Ignat. 
 Trail. interpol. 6; Etym. M. 811. 3. 
 
 3 Reza, Piscator, Rambach, 
 Michaelis, Riickert, Matthies. 
 
 Semler, 
 
 4 Erasmus, Estius, Borger, and others. 
 
 5 Comp. Hilgenfeld. 
 
 6 Koppe. 
 
 7™Hom. J. y. 271, xxiv. 115; Eur. Cyci. 
 270. 
 
 8 Rom. iy. 2; 1 Cor. y. 6, and always. 
 
CHAPS) Vi; 3 251 
 his own, which he may possibly find on this self-examination, and not in 
 reference to the other, with whom otherwise he would advantageously com- 
 pare himself. Castalio aptly remarks : ‘‘ probitas in re non in collatione,” 
 “‘worth isin the thing, not in the comparison,” and Grotius: ‘‘ gaude- 
 bit recto sui examine, non deteriorum comparatione,” ‘‘ He will rejoice by a 
 just examination of self, not by comparison with the worse”—as, for 
 instance, was done by the Pharisee, who compared himself with robbers, 
 adulterers, etc., instead of simply trying his own action, and not boasting 
 as he looked to others, whom he brought into comparison.’ «kaiyyya with the 
 article denotes, not absolute glory,” which no one has (Rom. iii. 23), but the 
 relevant cause for the xavyacda: which he finds in himself, so far as he does 
 so, on that trial of his own work. It is therefore the xaiyjua, supposed or 
 conceived by Paul, as the result of the examination in the several. cases.* 
 This relative character of the idea removes the seeming inconsistency with 
 vv. 3 and 5,* and excludes all untrue and impious boasting ; but the taking 
 Kavynua éxyew ironically,’ or as mimesis,® is forbidden even by kai oi« ei¢ tov 
 érepov. Hofmann interprets, although similarly in the main, yet without 
 irony, and with a more exact unfolding of the purport : ‘‘ while otherwise he 
 found that he might glory as he contrasted his own person with others, he will 
 now in respect to the good which he finds in himself, seeing that he also discovers 
 certain things in himself which are not good, have cause to glory only towards 
 himself—himself, namely, who has done the good, as against himself who has 
 done what is not good.” But in this interpretation the ideas, which are to 
 form the key to the meaning, are gratuitously imported ; a paraphrase so 
 subtle, and yet so clumsy, especially of the words eic¢ éavrév uovov, could not 
 be expected to occur to the reader. More simply, but introducing a differ- 
 ent kind of extraneous matter, de Wette interprets : ‘‘and then he will for 
 himself alone (to his own joy) have the glory (if he has any such thing, which 
 is evidently called in question) not for others (in order thereby to provoke 
 and challenge them).” But how arbitrary it is to assign to eic two refer- 
 ences so entirely different, and with regard to xatyyua to foist in the idea : 
 ‘if he has aught such”! A most excellent example of the ci¢ éavtov pdvoy rd 
 Kabynua Every is afforded by Paul himself, 2 Cor. x. 12.7 
 
 Ver. 5. Reason assigned, not for the summons to such a self-examination, 
 but for the negative result of it, that no one will have to glory eic tov érepov : 
 Sor every one will have to bear his own burden. No one will be, in his own 
 
 gradually from the habit of glorying; 6 yap 
 ecsiovels (Ly TOU TANnTLOV ws 0 Papioaios, KaTa= 
 
 1Comp. Calvin and others; also Reith- 
 mayr. 
 
 2 Matthies. 
 
 3 Bernhardy, p. 15. 
 
 Kavxagval, TaXEws Kai TOV Kad’ EavToy EvaBpv- 
 veovat anootygeta, ‘‘ For becoming accus- 
 
 4 Tn opposition to de Wette. 
 
 5 Against which Calvin justly pronounces. 
 
 6 Bengel and others; also Olshausen: ‘\a 
 thorough self-examination reveals so much 
 in one’s own heart, that there can be no 
 question of glory at all.’ So in substance 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that 
 Paul has spoken ovyxataBatikas,“* by accom- 
 modation,” in order to wean his readers 
 
 tomed not, as the Pharisee, to exult over 
 one’s neighbor, he will abstain quickly even 
 from private conceit,” Theophylact. Comp. 
 Oecumenius, according to whom the sub- 
 stantial sense is: éavrod KarayvwoeTat, Kat 
 ovxi étépwv, “He will accuse himself, and 
 not otbers.” 
 7 Comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ff. 
 
252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 consciousness, free from the moral burden of his own sinful nature, which he 
 hasto bear. The future does not apply to the /ast judgment, in which every 
 one will render account for his own sins,’ and receive retribution,? —a 
 view which, without any ground in the context, departs from the sense of 
 the same figure in ver. 2, and also from the relation of time conveyed in é£e, 
 in ver. 4; but it denotes that which will take place in every man after the 
 self-examination referred to in ver, 4: he will, in the moral consciousness, 
 namely, produced by this examination, bear his own burden ; and that will 
 preclude in him the desire of glorying cic tov érepov.—The distinction 
 between $dpoc and gopriov (which is not diminutive) consists in this, that 
 the latter denotes the burden in so far as it is carried (by men, beasts, ships, 
 wagons ; hence freight, baggage, and the like), while the former denotes the 
 burden as heavy and oppressive ; in itself the gopriov may be light or heavy ; 
 hence : gopria Bapéa,* and zAadpa ; * Whereas the Bapoc is always burdensome. 
 The expression is purposely chosen here from its relative character. 
 
 Ver. 6. In contrast to the referring of every one to himself (vv. 4, 5), there 
 is now, by the xovwwveitw dé, which is therefore placed emphatically ® at 
 the beginning, presented a fellowship of special importance to a man’s 
 own perfection, which he must maintain : Fellowship, on the other hand, 
 let him who is being instructed in the doctrine® have with the instructor’ in all 
 good (ver. 10), that is, let the disciple make common cause (endeavor 
 and action) with his teacher in everything that is morally good. So, 
 following Marcion (?) (in Jerome) and Lyra, in modern times Aug. 
 Herm. Franke (in Wolf), who, however, improperly connects év maow 
 ayaboic, With karyyovvr:, Hennicke, de nexu loci, Gal. vi. 1-10, Lips. 1788 ; 
 Mynster, Al. theol. Schr. p. 70, Matthies, Schott, Keerl, Diss. de Gal. vi. 
 1-10, Heidelb. 1834, Trana, Jatho, Vémel, Matthias ; also not disapproved 
 by Winer. Usually, however,* there is found in the words a summons to. 
 liberality towards the teachers, so that év raowv ayaboic is taken as referring to 
 the communication of everything good,*® or more definitely, of all earthly 
 good things,’® or of good things of every kind ;™ and xowwveirw is taken either 
 transitively, as if the word were equivalent to ko.vovy : communicet 
 
 nevertheless members of the church endow- 
 ed with the xapiopa didackadlas, ‘* charism of 
 
 1 Augustine, c. lit. Petil. iii. 5; Luther. 
 2 Jerome, Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, 
 
 Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michael- 
 is, Borger, Riickert, and others ; comp. also 
 Hofmann. 
 
 3 Matt. xxiii. 4; Ecclus. xxi. 16. 
 
 4 Matt. xi. 30. 
 
 5 In opposition to Hofmann. 
 
 6 kar’ cEoxnv, ‘‘ especially,” in the gospel; 
 comp. 1 Thess. i. 6; Phil. i. 14. 
 
 7 The question, whether the persons here 
 meant were permanent teachers of the 
 church, or itinerant evangelists, is to be 
 answered by saying that neither of these 
 two kinds of teachers is excluded. For al- 
 though at that time there were no diéacxador, 
 “‘teachers,”’ speciaily instituted except the 
 presbyters (see on Eph. iv. 11), there were 
 
 teaching,’ who devoted themselves to the 
 function of continuous instruction in their 
 churches. Rom. xii 7. 
 
 8 As by Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Olshausen, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, 
 Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and 
 others. 
 
 ° Ewald. 
 
 10 in omni facultatum genere, ut usu 
 venit,” ‘“‘in every kind of resources, as the 
 case may be,” Bengel. 
 
 41 Ellicott, Hofmann. 
 
 12 So usually, also by Ewald. 
 
 13 As to the distinction between the two, 
 
 see especially Thuc. i. 39. 3. 
 
CHAP VIZ, 6: 
 
 (which, however, cannot be conclusively established in the N. T., not even 
 in Rom. xii. 13 ; and in the passages from Greek authors! it is to be referred 
 to the idea : ‘‘ to share with any one”), or intransitively :? ‘let him stand in 
 Sellowship,” namely by communication, or in the sense of the participation 
 in the teacher, which is perfected év zac ay.* But against the whole of 
 this interpretation may be urged : (1) the singular want of connection of 
 such a summons, not merely with what goes before,* but also with what 
 follows,® wherein Paul inculcates Christian morality generally. (2) Since in 
 vy. 1-5 moral faultiness was the point in question, the reference which most 
 naturally suggests itself for éy racw ayafoicg is a reference to moral good. 
 (8) At the conclusion of this whole section in ver. 10, épyaféueba ro ayabiv 
 k.T.A., To ayabdy is nothing else than the morally good. (4) The requirement 
 itself, to communicate with the teacher in all good things, would, without 
 more precise definition,® be so indeterminate and, even under the point of 
 view of the possession as common property, Acts iv. 32,7 which we do not 
 meet with in Paul’s writings, so little to be justified, that we cannot 
 
 1Jn Fritzsche, ad@ Rom. III. p. 81, and 
 Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 317, Goth. 
 
 2 So Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler. 
 
 3 Hofmann, comparing Rom, xv. 27. 
 
 4The connection with what goes before 
 might be dispensed with, for Paul might 
 (through é€) haye passed on to a fresh sub- 
 ject. Winer, indeed, conceives the con- 
 nection to be: ‘“‘cum vv. 4,5 ea tetigisset, 
 quae priva sibi quisque habere debeat, nune 
 ad haec descendere, quae cum aliis conunu- 
 nicanda sunt,’ ‘“‘When yv. 4, 5 he had 
 touched on those things which every one 
 should have as private to himself, he now 
 descends to those which are to be shared 
 with others” (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.) 
 But, with the precept of diverality towards 
 teachers, so entirely alien to what goes be- 
 fore, this connection appears forced ; and 
 it would be better to forego any connecting 
 link with what precedes (Riickert) than to 
 bring out an illogical relation of the con- 
 trast. de Wette discovers a satisfactory 
 connection with vv. 1-5in the circumstance 
 that there, as here, the apostle has in view 
 defects of Christian social life. This, how- 
 ever, is to specify not a connection, but 
 merely a logical category. According to 
 Ewald, the previous counsels are to be con- 
 ceived as for the most part addressed to 
 the Pauline teachers of the Galatians, and 
 Paul therefore now adds a word as to the 
 correct behavior of the non-teachers also. 
 But the former idea is assumed without 
 ground in the text, which speaks quite gen- 
 erally. According to Wieseler the concep. 
 tion is, that the care for worldly mainte- 
 nance was a species of the Bapn, ‘‘ burdens” 
 (ver. 2), which the readers were to relieve 
 
 them of in return for their being instructed 
 inthe word. But those Bap, ‘* burdens,” are 
 necessarily of a moral nature, burdens of 
 guilt. According to Hofmann, Paul has 
 previously exhorted every one to serve his 
 neighbor with that which he is, and now ex- 
 horts every one to employ that which he 
 possesses, aS his Christian position requires. 
 A scheme of thought purely artificial, and 
 gratuitously introduced. 
 
 5 The sequel down to ver. 10 is indeed re- 
 ferred by Luther (most consistently in 1538) 
 and others, including Olshausen and de 
 Wette, with more or with less (Koppe, de 
 Wette, Hilgenfeld) consistency, to the beha- 
 vior towards the teachers, by the despising of 
 whom Godis mocked, the support of whom 
 is a sowing of seed for spiritual objects, 
 ete. But looking at the general nature of 
 the following instructions, which there is 
 not a word to limit, how arbitrarily and 
 forced is this view! Not less far-fetched 
 and forced is the explanation of Hofmann, 
 who considers that, because by means of 
 the covvwvety x.7.A. the teacher is enabled to 
 attend to his own business, Paul in vv. 7 ff. 
 warns against the erroneous opinion that 
 people might, without danger to the soul, 
 deal lightly with that covvwvety x.7.A.; that 
 by means of this kcorvwvetvy people devote 
 that which they possess to the Spirit, ete. 
 
 6 Luther, 1538: Paul desires simply, ‘‘w¢ 
 liberaliter eos alant, quantum satis est ad 
 vitam commode tuendam,” ‘‘ that they liber- 
 ally support them, so far as is sufficient for 
 the proper maintenance of life,”—an idea 
 which is not suggested in the passage. 
 
 7 de Wette. 
 
204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 venture to attribute it—thus thrown out without any defining limitation— 
 to the apostle, least of all in a letter addressed to churches in which misin- 
 terpretations and misuse on the part of antagonistic teachers were to be 
 apprehended. Through the stress laid by Wieseler on the spiritual counter- 
 service of the teacher,’ the expression éy racw ayafoic, seeing that it must 
 always involve that which is to be given by the disciples to their teacher, 
 is by no means reduced to its just measure (the bodily maintenance as 
 recompense for the rvevuatixa received, 1 Cor. ix. 11; Phil. iv. 15); whilst 
 Ewald’s interpretation, ‘‘communication in all good things,”* cannot be 
 linguistically vindicated either for kowov. or for év.* Paul would have said 
 perhaps: xowa roveito 6«.7.2. TOK. TavTa ayabd, or something similar in correct 
 Greek. The objection raised against our interpretation,* that it is difficult 
 to see why this particular relation of disciple and teacher should be brought 
 into prominence, is obviated by the consideration that this very relation 
 had been much disturbed among the Galatians by the influence of the . 
 pseudo-apostles (iv. 17), and this disturbance could not but be in the high- 
 est degree an obstacle to the success of their common moral effort and life. 
 But in reference to de Wette’s objection that xovvwveiv, instead of pipetofas, is a 
 strange expression, it must be observed that Paul wished to express not at all 
 the idea of ppyeicfa, but only that of the Christian xocvwria between disciple 
 and teacher. The disciple is not to leave the sphere of the morally good to 
 the teacher alone, and on his own part to busy himself in other interests 
 and follow other ways ; but he is to strive and work in common with his 
 teacher in the same sphere. In this view, the expression is (in opposition 
 to Hofmann’s objection) neither too wide nor too narrow. Not too wide, 
 because the sphere of moral good is one and the same for teachers and 
 learners, and it is only the concrete application which is different. Not too 
 narrow, because moral fellowship in Christian church-life finds its most 
 effective lever in the fact that learner and teacher go hand in hand in all 
 that is good. —6 cary yoievoe rov Adyov).° It is self-evident that Paul means 
 only the relation to true, Pauline teachers. —év raaw ayafoic] the sphere, 
 in which common cause is made.* <A classical writer would say, tavr@v aya- 
 av,” or eic ravra ayabd,? or even repli rdv7wv ay.° On the plural 7a ayafa, as 
 applied to moral good, comp. John y. 29 ; Matt. xii. 35 ; Ecclus. xi. 31, 
 xvii. 7, xxxix. 4, xiii. 25; and frequently in Greek authors. _ Paul might 
 also have written év ravti épyw ayabo 3" but év raow ayaboic is More Compre- 
 hensive. The dative 74 xarny. is the dativus communionis, ‘ dative of 
 impartation,” everywhere common." [See Note LXXIV., p. 271 seq. ] 
 
 Ver. 7. A warning to the readers, in respect to this necessary moral fel- 
 lowship, not to allow themselves to be led astray (by the teachers of error 
 
 1 Comp. also Hofmann. 5 Comp. Acts xvili. 25. 
 
 2 Comp. Grotius: “per omnes res bonas, ® Comp. Matt. xxiii. 30. 
 i.e.,non per alimenta tantum, sed et alia 7 Heb. ii. 14; Plat. Rep. p. 464 A; Soph. 
 obsequia et officia,” “not only by support, Trach. 548. 
 but by other services and offices.” * Plat. Rep. p. 453 A. 
 
 3 — 5, according to Sprachi. p. 484 f. 9 Polyb. xxxi. 26. 6. 
 
 4See Riickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wiese- 10 Col. i. 10. 
 ler. 11 Dem. 142, wld. 789. 2. 
 
CHAP. VI, 8. 255 
 
 or otherwise), with very earnest reference to the divine retribution. This 
 nearest and easy connection makes it unnecessary to refer back to the whole 
 of the section from ver. 1 onward.’ [See Note LXXYV., p. 272.] — pq raav- 
 aode] See on 1 Cor. vi. 9. — Oed¢ ob pKtypiverar] God is not sneered at, that 
 is, mocked ; He does not submit to it. See the sequel. This mocking of God 
 (a more forcible expression of the idea zepafew Oedv) takes place on the 
 part of him who, by immoral conduct, practically shows that he despises 
 God and accounts nothing of His judgment. On pvxrnpiferv, properly, to turn 
 up the nose,* and then to deride, comp. Sueton. Claud. 4 : oxdrrew Kai woxtnpi- 
 Cewv, ‘to jeer at and deride.” *—6 yap éav oreipy x.7.A.] Proof for @ed¢ ov 
 pouxtnpitera. The identity between the kind of seed sown and the kind of 
 fruit to be reaped from it (rovro, this, and nothing else ; for instance, from 
 the sowing of weeds no wheat) is a figurative expression for the equivalent 
 relation between moral action in the temporal life and the recompense at 
 the judgment. * : 
 
 Ver. 8. Ground assigned for the foregoing proposition. ‘‘So it is, sincein 
 fact the two opposite sorts of ground which receive the seed will also yield 
 two opposite kinds of harvest.” In the words 6 éay oreipy dvdp. rovto k. Depi- 
 oer Paul, as was required by the matter which he would figuratively present 
 (evil—good), has conceived two different classes of seed, with two sorts of 
 recipient soil likewise essentially different ; one class comprises all the 
 kinds of seed which are sown to a man’s own flesh, the other class includes 
 all those which are sown to the Holy Spirit. He who scatters the former 
 class of seeds, and therefore sows to his own flesh, will from this soil, which 
 he has furnished with the corresponding seed, reap corruption, etc. There- 
 fore we have not here any alteration in the figure, by which Paul leaves the 
 description of the seed, and passes over to that of the soi/,° but a proof that 
 the state of the case, in accordance with the two kinds of soil which come into 
 view, will not be other than is said in ver. 7. Observe the 67, for the most 
 part neglected by expositors, which is not explanatory, but causative (‘‘ quo- 
 niam,” Vulgate). — 6 oreipwv sic t. capxa éavtov| that is, he who is minded 
 and. acts so that his own flesh—his sinfully-determined corporeo-psychical 
 nature °—is the element conditioning and prompting his thoughts and ac- 
 tions, éavrov is added, because afterwards an objective principle, 7rd rvevua, 
 is opposed to this selfish subjective principle.? The idea that eic¢ r. odpka 
 
 1 Wieseler. 
 
 2 Comp. Horat.i. 6. 5; Hp. i. 19. 45. 
 
 8 Sext. Emp. adv. math. i. 217; Job xxii. 
 HORSELOVe 150. sil. 8; 3) Ears i, 51 ‘Comp. 
 also pukrip, Diog. L. ii. 19; Lucian. Prom. 1 ; 
 MuKTyptojos, 2 Mace. vii. 389 ; and puKrypiotijs, 
 Athen. iv. p. 182 A, v. p. 187 C. 
 
 4Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 6. The same figure is 
 frequently used as to recompense, Hos. viii. 
 7; Job iv.8; Prov. xxii. 8; Ecclus. vii. 2; 
 Plat. Phaedr. p. 260D; Arist. Rhet. iii. 4; 
 Plut. Mor. p. 394.D; Cic. de orat. ii. 65: ‘Sut 
 sementem feceris, ita metes,” ‘‘as you 
 make the seeding, so will you reap.” 
 
 5 Riickert, Hofmann, according to whom 
 it is only this alteration which explains the 
 connection with ver. 6. 
 
 6 Comp. v. 16 f. 
 
 7 Luther (1519 and 1524), with strange ar- 
 bitrariness, holds that Paul desires to obvi- 
 ate the thought ‘‘ de seminatione mascult in 
 carnem feminae.”” Butin 1533 he consistent- 
 ly abides by the reference to the attitude 
 towards the teachers, and explains: ‘“‘qui 
 nihil communicat ministris verbi, sed sé so- 
 lum bene pascit et curat, id quod caro suadet,”” 
 ““who communicates nothing to the minis- 
 ters of the Word, but only feeds well him- 
 
206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 éavrov applies to cireumeision’ is entirely foreign to the context. — ¢opdr] 
 corruption, destruction,® that is, here, in accordance with the contrast of Cay 
 But the suggestion that @Sopdv is used in refer- 
 ence to the corruptibility of the flesh,* cannot be entertained, because the 
 true Christians who die before the zapovoia partake the lot of corruption, 
 and the point of time for the harvest is conceived as not earlier than the 
 nearly approaching rapovoia (ver, 9), in which either ¢3opdé or Ca aldvioc will 
 be the result of the yudgment. According to de Wette, Paul has chosen this 
 expression in order to denote the perishableness of carnal aims, and at the 
 same time their destructive consequences for the soul. This is arbitrary. 
 
 The general idea of ¢¥opay obtains its more precise definition simply from 
 5 
 
 aiovioc, the eternal azéreca.* 
 
 Coqv atov.° —6 dé oreipwv eig 70 rvevua] No more than in chap. v. does 7d 
 wvevua here mean the higher nature of man,® but” it denotes the Holy Spirit. 
 Jerome aptly remarks, that for this very reason Paul did not again add éavrob 
 (which Ernesti would arbitrarily again supply). The less, therefore, the 
 ground for misapplying the passage in favor of the meritoriousness of good 
 works. The sense, when divested of figure, is : ‘‘he who is minded and 
 acts so that the Holy Spirit is the element which determines and prompts 
 odopa and Cay aid- 
 viog are conceived as the two kinds of produce which shall have sprung up 
 from the two different sorts of recipient soil. 
 
 Ver. 9. Encouragement, not to become weary in that which is meant by 
 this second kind of sowing ; 76 kadov rowivrec is the same as would be figura- 
 tively expressed by ei¢ 7d mvevua oreipovrec. The autem (dé), which simply 
 marks the transition to this summons, cannot be attached to the exhortation 
 in ver. 6, as appending to it another.* — ékxcaxouev] As to this form, and 
 the form éykax.,! see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. On the ‘‘ slight paronomasia” " in 
 kaAdv and éxxaxk., comp. 2 Thess. iii. 18. He who loses moral cowrage (éxxaxe?) 
 loses also moral strength (éxAberar). — Kaipo yap idiw] at the time expressly des- 
 tined for the reaping (Matt. xiii. 30), by which is meant the time of the 
 mapovoia, Which man must await with perseverance in what is good.!? — uy 
 éxAvéuevor] not becoming weary,'® which is not to be understood of the not be- 
 coming fatigued in the reaping,'4 a contrast being therein discovered either 
 
 him.” — é« tov rvevuatoc Sepioe: x.7.2.| At the rapovoia.® 
 
 
 
 self, and attends to what the flesh advises,” 
 etc. Comp. Calovius and others ; also Hof- 
 mann : he who applies that which he possesses 
 to his own flesh, in order to gratify its desires. 
 We may add that the Encratites made use 
 of our passage (see Jerome) as a ground for 
 rejecting sexual intercourse and marriage ; 
 holding that he who takes a wife sows to 
 the flesh, ete. 
 
 1 Pelagius, Schoettgen; comp. Riickert 
 and also Usteri. 
 
 ZROM A Villewe le COleniiar ges) 2 ebeb. lal 2) 
 LXX. Ps. cii. 4; Wisd. xiv. 12; Thue. ii. 47; 
 Plat. Pol. viii. p. 546 A; and frequently. 
 
 3 The same thought is expressed in 
 Rom. viii. 13: et kata oapka Cnre, méAAeTe 
 
 anodvyckew, Comp. ver. 23. 
 
 4 Winer, Schott, Reithmayr, and others; 
 comp. also Chrysostom and Theodoret. 
 
 5 Comp. 1 Cor. iil. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 12. 
 
 6 Riickert, Schott, and most expositors 3 
 also Ernesti Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 60, I. 
 p. 90 f. 
 
 7 So also Wieseler and Hofmann. 
 
 8 See also Rom. viii. 11, 15-17; 2 Cor. vy. 
 5; Eph. i. 14. 
 
 ® Hofmann. 
 
 10 Lachmann, Tischendorf. 
 
 11 Winer. 
 
 12 Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 15; Tit. i. 3. 
 
 13 Matt. xv. 82; Mark viii.3; Heb. xii. 3; 
 1 Mace. iii. 17 ; Wetstein, I. p. 426 ; Loesner, 
 p. 336. 
 
 14 Thus expressing the idea: ‘ Nulla erit 
 
CHAPS Vi.,, LO: 25% 
 with the toils of the harvest proper,’ or with the labor of sowing.? Either 
 form of the contrast would yield a description of the eternal harvest, which 
 would be feeble, superfluous, and almost trifling, little in harmony with the 
 thoughtful manner of the apostle elsewhere. We may add, that it is not 
 the nature of the harvest (which was obvious of itself from ver. 8), but the 
 time of the harvest, which constitutes the point on which the pi éxxak. is 
 grounded ; and therefore on ka:p@ idiw Calvin aptly remarks, ‘‘ Spe igitur et 
 patientia suum desiderium sustineant fideles et refrenent,” ‘‘In hope and 
 patience, therefore, let believers sustain and restrain their longing.” Hence 
 py éxAvdu. is rather to be taken as : if we do not become weary in doing good.* 
 This denotes the present state, by which the future harvest is conditioned. 
 It involves not a clumsy repetition,’ but a reiterated setting forth of the 
 condition, urgently emphasizing its importance, by means of a correlate 
 word which closes the sentence with emphatic earnestness.° Nor would py 
 éxdantévtec have been more correct,*® but on the contrary : ‘‘videndum, quod 
 quoque loco tempus vel ferri possit,” ‘‘ we must consider what time in every 
 place can be especially admitted,” Herm. ad Viger. p: 773. Ewald’s ex- 
 planation : undeniably, that is, necessarily, is without support from linguis- 
 tic usage. Hofmann incorrectly makes ju éxAvéuevor begin a new sentence ; 
 for Paul always places dpa oiv at the commencement, but here he would have 
 fully preserved the emphasis of ju éxA., if instead of dpa oiy he had written 
 merely ovv, or merely apa. 
 
 Ver. 10. Concluding exhortation of the section of the epistle which began 
 at ver. 6, inferred from the preceding xacp@ yap iia Aepioower py éKA. (apa 
 ov). The specialty of this exhortation lies in d¢ Karpov éyouer, which is 
 therefore emphatically prefixed : as we have a season suitable thereto.’ This 
 seasonable time will have elapsed, when the rapovoia sets in ; we must there- 
 fore utilize it as ours by the épyafecfa: 76 ayafdv. The same idea as the 
 éEayopalecta T. karpév in Eph. v. 16 ; Col. iv. 5. Hofmann introduces the 
 idea, that there will come for the Christians, even before the rapovoia, an 
 “hour of temptation,” in which they can only (?) withstand evil, but not 
 bestow good one on another. This idea is in opposition to the context in ver. 
 9, and is nowhere else expressed ; and its introduction rests on the incor- 
 rect explanation of épyd¢. 76 ayafév as referring to beneficence, and on the 
 wrong idea that the doing good will become impossible. — é¢ is the usual 
 as, that is, as corresponds with and is suitable to this circumstance, that we 
 
 Karpov éxouev.. Others, likewise retaining the signification ‘‘ as,” interpret : 
 
 satietas vitae aeternae,” ‘‘ There will be no 
 satiety of life eternal,’’ Calovius. This isthe 
 meaning also of Luther's translation: 
 “ without ceasing” (Vulgate, non deficientes); 
 comp. Estius. 
 
 1 Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius. 
 
 2 Usteri; the two ideas are combined by 
 Chrysostom, Clarius, and others. 
 
 3 See Photius in Oecumenius, p. 766 D, 
 and Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and 
 nearly all modern expositors. 
 
 1? 
 
 4 Usteri. 
 
 ° Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 336. 
 
 ® Riickert, Hofmann. 
 
 7 For instances of cacpov Exevv, opportunum 
 tempus habere, see Wetstein. 
 
 8 Comp. Luke xii. 58; John xii. 35; Clem- 
 ent, 2 Cor. 9; ws Exouev Karpov tod iadjnvat, 
 eTLS@LEV EavTOVs THO BeparevovTL Mew, “as we 
 have opportunity to be healed, let us give 
 ourselves to the care of God that healeth,”’ 
 
258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 prout habemus opportunitatem, ‘‘aswe have opportunity,” that is, when and 
 how we have opportunity.!. For this, indeed, no conditional av would be 
 necessary ; but how weak and lax would be the injunction ! Besides, xaipév 
 has obtained, by means of ver. 9, its quite definite reference. Others take 
 oc as causal.? So Koppe, Paulus, Usteri (because we have time and oppor- 
 
 tunity), de Wette ; also Winer, who, however, does not decide between. 
 
 quoniam, ‘‘ since,” and prout, ‘‘as.” But dc, in the sense of because, is no- 
 where to be found in Paul’s writings (not even in 2 Tim. i. 3). Most ex- 
 positors explain it as so long as,* which, however, it never means, not even 
 in Luke xii. 58. —76 ayafév| the morally good, not the useful.* Not merely 
 the article, but also the use of the expression by Paul, in definite connec- 
 tion with épyafeca, as applying to morality active in works,* ought to have 
 prevented the interpretation of 7d dya6év, at variance with the context, as 
 benefits.° Hofmann’s interpretation (‘‘do good towards others”), in more 
 general terms evading the definite idea, amounts to the same thing. The 
 ayaév in this passage is the same as 7d caddy in ver. 9. That which is good 
 is also that which is morally beautiful. Comp. especially Rom. vii. 18 f. — 
 mp6c| in relation to, in intercourse with : see Winer, p. 378 f. ; Sturz, Lex. Xen. 
 IIL. p. 698 ; Bernhardy, p. 265. — rove oixeiove tH¢ rictewc] the associates in the 
 Saith, believers, oixeioc, primarily inmate of the house, comes to be used gen- 
 erally in the sense of special appertaining to,” without further reference to 
 the idea of a house. So with the genitive of an abstract noun, as oikevoz 
 @tdocodiac, ‘‘ associates of philosophy” (Strabo, I. p. 13 B), yewypadiac, ‘* of 
 geography” (Strabo, I. p. 25 A.), dAcyapyiac, ‘‘ of the oligarchy” (Diod. Sie. 
 xiii. 91), and the like in Wetstein, p. 286 ; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 401.° 
 The xiorc is the Christian faith ; those who belong to it are the riorebovrec. 
 The opposite would be : rove aAdotpiove tHe miot. The idea that the church 
 is the oixoc cov ® is improperly introduced here, in order to obtain the sense : 
 “qui per fidem sunt in eadem atque no, familia Domini,” ‘‘ who are by faith 
 in the same family of God as we.” For rye riorewe conveys the complete 
 definition of rode oixefovue ; and the sense mentioned above must have been 
 expressed by some such form as rove judv oixelove THE Tiotewc."! Paul might 
 also simply have written xpdc¢ rove muctevovtac ; but the expression oixeiovg 
 r. T. Suggests a stronger motive. Among the rao, in relatidn to whom we 
 have to put into operation the morally good, those who belong to the faith 
 have the chief claims—because these claims are based on the special sacred 
 duty of fellowship which it involves—in preference to those who are stran- 
 
 1 Thus Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zach- 8 Comp. Ta Tis aperfs oixeca, *‘ things con- 
 
 ariae, Hilgenfeld. 
 
 2Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 118; Matthiae, 
 p. 1511. 
 
 3So Flatt, Rickert, Matthies, Schott, 
 Olshausen. 
 
 # Olshausen. 
 
 5 Rom. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 28. 
 
 6 Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many 
 others, including Schott, de Wette, and 
 Wieseler. 
 
 7 Gomp. LXX. Isa. lvili. ¥. 
 
 formable with yirtue,” 2 Mace. xv. 12; Ta 
 THs Pvoews oikeia, “things conformable with 
 the nature,’’? Dem. 1117. 25. 
 
 91 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii. 2, v. 6, x. 215 
 Bete lite. 
 
 10 Beza; comp. Estius, Michaelis, and 
 others, also Schott and Olshausen, Wiese- 
 ler, and Ewald, who limits the idea to the 
 same church. 
 
 11 Comp. Phil. ii. 30, e¢ al. ; Winer, p. 180, 
 rem. 3. 
 
 ee ee” 
 
CHAP. VI., 11. 259 
 gers to the faith, although in respect even to the latter that conduct is to be 
 observed which is required in Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 12. 
 
 Note. — If the reading épyaéuefa (see the critical notes), which is followed by 
 Ewald, were the original one, the indicative would not (with Winer in his 
 Commentary, but not in his Gramm. p. 267) have to be taken as a stronger and 
 more definite expression instead of the hortative subjunctive (do we therefore the 
 good), since this use of the present indicative (Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 559, ad 
 Delect. epigr. p. 228 ; Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 109; Bernhardy, p. 396) in non-in- 
 terrogative language (John xi. 47) is foreign to the N. T., although opportunities 
 for it often presented themselves. The interpretation of the whole sentence 
 as an interrogation has been rightly given up by Lachmann (also at Rom. xiv. 
 19), because so complete an interruption by a question does not occur elsewhere 
 in Paul’s writings, and the addition padiora dé rpic¢ Tove oikeioug Tig TicTEws in- 
 dicates that the passage is of the nature of an assertion, and not of a question. 
 épydfomefa TO aya)ov would rather represent the matter as actually taking place 
 (we do it, we hold it so, it is our maxim), and would thus belong to the ideal delin- 
 eation of Christian life common with the apostle ; which might indeed be 
 highly appropriate in its place at the conclusion of a discourse as a note of 
 triumph, but here, in immediate connection with mere exhortations and injunc- 
 tions, would be somewhat out of place. 
 
 Vv. 11-18. Final section of the epistle in the apostle’s own handwriting. 
 The main points of controversy are here briefly summed up : then in ver. 17 
 a repetition of molestations is deprecated, and ver. 18 concludes with the 
 farewell blessing. 
 
 Ver. 11. Not ‘‘anodd verse,” the purport of which is ‘‘ a singular whim: 
 on the contrary, in accordance with his well-known manner in other pas- 
 sages, * Paul adds to the letter, which up to this point he had dictated,? the conelu- 
 sion from ver. 11 onward in his own handwriting. By means of these 
 autograph endings the epistles indicated their authentic character.° But 
 this close of our epistle, as stringently comprehending all its main points 
 once more, was intended to catch the eyes of the readers as something so 
 specially important, that from ver. 12 to the end the apostle wrote it with very 
 large letters,® just as we, in writing and printing, distinguish by letters of a 
 larger size anything that we wish to be considered as peculiarly significant. 
 To this point, and consequently to the quite special importance of the addi- 
 tion now made at the end, not by the hand of the amanuensis, but by 
 his own hand in large writing, Paul calls the attention of his readers, and 
 
 may, however, be doubtful whether Paul 
 wrote merely ver. 12 with larger letters, and 
 
 1 Usteri. 
 21 Cor: xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2'Thess. iii. 17. 
 
 3 Comp. Rom. xvi. 22. 
 
 4 From 2 Thess. iii. 17 it isto be assumed 
 that Paul closed ai his epistles with his 
 own hand, even when he does not expressly 
 say 80. 
 
 5 See 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17. 
 
 ® The principal emphasis is on the word 
 mmnaAtkots, Which is therefore placed apart ; 
 the secondary stress lies on t7 éuy xerpi. It 
 
 ” 
 
 the sequel with his own hand but in his 
 ordinary mode of writing, or whether he 
 continued the large characters down to 
 ver. 16 07 to ver. 18. The internal connec- 
 tion of vv. 12-16, the uniform solemn tone 
 of these verses down to their solemn con- 
 clusion, and the abrupt character of ver. 
 17, all unite in inducing us to adopt the 
 second view. 
 
260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 says: ‘‘ See with how great letters I have written (the sequel, from ver. 12) to 
 you with my own hand!” Neither idere’ nor éypapa? is at variance with the 
 reference to what follows ; for Paul, following the custom of letter-writers, 
 has in his mind not the present point of time, when he is just about to write, 
 but the point of time, when his readers have received the letter and conse- 
 quently see what and how he has written.* Just in the same way in Philem. 
 19, éypaa 7H EuH verpi points to what follows. In keeping with this is the 
 similarly common use of éreywa, ‘‘respectu habito temporis, quo alter donum 
 accipiebat,” ‘‘ respect being had to the time wherein another received the 
 gift.”* Holsten, Voemel, Matthias, Windischmann, Reithmayr, agree with 
 our view. Grotius also (‘‘sua manu scripsit omnia, quae jam sequuntur,” 
 ‘- With his own hand he wrote all that now follows”), Studer, and Laurent 
 refer the words to what follows. Grotius, however, contrary to the usus 
 loquendi, explains ryAixorc as how much, thus making Paul call attention to the 
 length of his autograph conclusion ; and Studer understands it as referring 
 to the wnshapeliness of the letters (in opposition to this, see below) ; while 
 Laurent,® against the signification of the word, adheres to the qualibus, 
 ‘* what sort,” of the Vulgate, and is of opinion that Paul wrote this conclusion 
 of the letter in the cursive character. Usually, however (as also by Ewald, 
 Wieseler, Hofmann [Eadie]), ver. 11 is referred to the whole epistle, which 
 Paul had written with his own hand,°® r7A/xore being explained ” as referring 
 to the wnshapeliness of the letters,* arising from want of practice in writing 
 
 1 In opposition to Riickert and Schott. 
 
 2 In opposition to Usteri. 
 
 3 Philem. 19, 21; 1 John ii. 14, 21; Acts 
 xy. 27, xxiii. 30; Rom. xvi. 22; Thuc. 1.1 
 in. ; Isoer. ad Demonic. in. 
 
 4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25; comp. 
 Kriiger, § 53. 10. 1. 
 
 5In the Stud. uw. Krit. 1864, p. 644 ff., and 
 in his newt. Stud. p. 125. 5. 
 
 8 In adopting this view various grounds 
 have been guessed for its autograph com- 
 position. Pelagius: ‘‘that Paul desired to 
 show that he was not afraid!” Ambrosi- 
 aster, comp. Augustine and Michaelis: 
 ‘that he desired to prove the genuineness of 
 the epistle.”” Chrysostom (who, moreover, 
 assumes in addition the cause assigned by 
 Pelagius), Luther, Calvin, Calovius, and 
 many others: ‘‘that his intention was to 
 show the Galatians his earnest care for 
 them, to make them attentive in reading, 
 and the like.’’ Hilgenfeld: ‘‘that he at- 
 tached so much importance to the epistle.” 
 Ewald: ‘‘that Timothy had not been with 
 him just at the time when he composed the 
 epistle ; and he thus wished, in the post- 
 script written at a somewhat later period, 
 to make excuse for the large inelegant 
 letters in which the epistle had been writ- 
 ten.” Hofmann: “that the autograph writ- 
 ing was intended ¢o bring the apostle as it 
 
 were vividly before the eyes of his readers.” 
 Hofmann is also of opinion that Paul had 
 not elsewhere written with his own hand, 
 that he might not needlessly curtail the 
 time for procuring his bodily maintenance. 
 As if the dictating to the pen of another 
 would not have involved just as much loss 
 of time! Tertius and Timothy were hardly 
 shorthand writers. Or is Paul supposed to 
 have been occupied in tent-making during 
 the time when he was dictating his letters, 
 which presuppose so much abstraction and 
 concentration of mental labor? 
 
 7 With Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
 lact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Estius, Winer, 
 Riickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld. 
 
 8 This is not, as is often stated, the view 
 of Jerome, who, on the contrary, specifies 
 this view only to reject it, and assumes 
 that down to ver. 11 the epistle was writ- 
 ten by the amanuensis, but after ver. 11 by 
 Paul himself in very large characters, in 
 order that his readers should recognize his 
 genuine handwriting and at the same time 
 his solicitous care forthem. Jerome there- 
 fore comes nearest to our view, but intro- 
 duces into the myAccors purposes which have 
 no natural connection with the largeness of 
 the characters, and could not, without fur- 
 ther intimation, have been understood by 
 the reader. Theodore of Mopsuestia ex- 
 
CHAPS Vi:, 11. 261 
 Greek ; or ryiix. ypauu. being explained as: what a large letter I have 
 written to you. So most expositors, including de Wette and Hofmann. 
 But against this /atter view—although the epistle, notwithstanding 1 Pet. v. 
 12, Heb. xiii. 22, would no doubt be long enough for an autograph one— 
 may be urged the very use which it assumes of ypdupara for éxoroAyf,* since 
 Paul elsewhere always calls an epistle éricroAW ;* and, on the other hand, he 
 just as constantly uses the word ypayya, in the singular? and plural,* to ex- 
 press the idea of a letter of the alphabet ; and also the decisive consideration 
 that the employment of the dative (instrum.), instead of the accusative,* 
 would be quite in opposition to all usage.®° The dative would only be 
 suitable if, instead of éypawa, rapexadeca perhaps, or some suitable word, 
 followed. Against the former interpretation, which refers the word to the 
 unshapeliness of the letters, it may be urged that the idea of auopdia is arbi- 
 trarily introduced into rydixoc, as this quality is by no means an essential 
 characteristic of /arge letters ; secondly, that the charge of want of practice 
 in writing Greek cannot be proved. The native of Tarsus and Roman citi- 
 zen, who from his youth had enjoyed a learned training in Jerusalem, where 
 the Greek language was very current among the Jews’—the man who 
 handled with so much delicacy and skill the Greek literary language, who 
 was familiar with the works of the Greek poets,* and who was in constant 
 intercourse with Greek Jews and Gentiles,—is it to be thought that such an 
 one should not have possessed even the humble attainment of writing Greek 
 without making the letters of an unshapely size? In Wieseler’s view, the 
 large letters were very /egible (for the public reading of the epistle) ; and in 
 calling attention to this circumstance, Paul desires to bring into prominence 
 his great love for his readers, which shuns no trouble on their account. 
 But even thus the matter would amount only toa trifle. The Galatians 
 were in possession cf far greater proofs of his love than the size of the char- 
 
 plains it better, likewise understanding 
 myAikous ypapmaow correctly (uetGoow éexpy- 
 gato ypaupacv, ““he used larger letters’), 
 and specifying as Paul’s object that »eAAwv 
 catantertat Tav evavtiwoyv, ‘being about to 
 assail his adversaries,’ he wished to inti- 
 mate that he neither epudpua ovre apverrac 
 Ta Aceyoueva, “is ashamed of nor disowns 
 what he has said.*”” [See Note LXXVI., 
 Deeiesl 
 
 1 Taking the word by itself, there can be 
 no doubt that ypaupa (scriptwm, 2 Tim. iii. 
 15, John y. 47) may, according to the con- 
 text, mean epistle, so that in the plural it 
 would denote epistolae (Acts xxviii. 21, and 
 often in Greek authors), but may also 
 apply to a single epistle. Thus, for instance, 
 Thue. vii. 8. 3, where émcaroAy is used short- 
 ly before ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 26, where émuaroAy 
 occurs immediately after; Xen. Eph. ii. 5 
 and Locella én Joc. Comp. also Luke xvi. 6; 
 i Mace. iv. 10, 14: Ignat. Rom. 8, ad Polye. 7. 
 
 SGOT Ayano a Svdais se) COLA ial esteem! Oe 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 14, 17. 
 
 3 Rom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 
 42 Cor. iil. 7. 
 
 5 Acts xxiii. 25; Rom. xvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 1. 
 
 ® Quite irrelevantly Hofmann compares 
 the usage of combining a verb with the 
 abstract noun derived from it in the dative 
 (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 159); and just as 
 irrelevantly the expression oye, 
 Matt. viii. 8 (see on this passage), Luke 
 vii. 7. Not even that use of civety Aoye, in 
 which it may denote to deliver as an orator 
 (Kriiger on Thue. i. 22. 1), would here be 
 analogous. Only such phrases as, @.9., 
 Xpvcois ypappace ypaherr, to write with golden 
 letters, Lucian. Alex. 433; peyadots yeaum. 
 avaypapew, to write down in large letters, 
 Gymn. 22; ypéppacw “EAAnveKots, Luke xxiii. 
 38, Elz.; douvcxiors ypaup., Soph. Hragm. 
 460 D, really correspond. 
 
 7 See Hug, Hin. I. § 10. 
 
 8 See on Acts xvii. 28. 
 
 elretv 
 
262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 acters in his own handwriting, which, besides, might be something very 
 different from legibility. 
 
 Ver. 12.’ All those whose wish and will are directed to making a fair show in 
 the flesh, that is, to the having a specious appearance, while they are involved 
 in fleshly habits,—this class of men force circwmeision wpon you, and they do 
 so solely for the reason that they may not bring on themselves persecution on 
 account of the cross of Christ. This persecution they would incur on the part 
 of the Jews, if they preached the cross of Christ and at the same time re- 
 jected circumeision ; whereas, by insisting on circumcision, they disarmed the 
 zeal of the Jews for the law,? and removed from the cross of Christ all occa- 
 sion of their experiencing persecution for it. In order to understand the 
 passage rightly, we must note that the emphasis is on eizpocwxycar (not on 
 év capki) : they desire to combine a@ pleasing exterior with an unspiritual, 
 carnal state of life, in which they really are. Thus is characterized the hyp- 
 ocritical conduct of these people, whose jesuitry makes them resemble the 
 ragowe Kexoviauévore (Matt. xxiii. 27; comp. Acts xxiii. 3). So many as 
 belong to this dissembling class, they constrain you to be circumcised !— ev- 
 mpdouwroc| speciosus facie, ‘* fair of face,” sometimes applied to actual beauty of 
 person,® and sometimes to a mere specious appearance,°® is very commonly 
 used among Greek authors ;’ but eizpocwreiv is not preserved elsewhere in 
 the literary language.* — év capxi] is the element of the sinful nature of man,® 
 in which, instead of being renewed and refined by the Holy Spirit, those 
 hypocrites are found living, and at the same time endeavor to give to them- 
 selves a good coloring which would prepossess the opinion of others in 
 their favor. The juxtapositicn of the words, ‘‘to look fair in the flesh,” 
 reveals the moral contradiction in their nature, and delineates their whole 
 portraiture, as if with one sharp touch, indignantly, vigorously, and appro- 
 priately. The words are usually explained : ‘‘those who desire to be well- 
 pleasing by means of outward carnal things, such as cireumeision and the observ- 
 ance of the ceremonial law generally.” © Of course év capxi might, ex adjuncto, 
 obtain the sense, by means of circumeision and observance of the law," but in 
 this passage the context suggests no ground for thinking of anything else 
 than that which was just shortly before meant by cdps, in the contrast 
 drawn between cap and rveiva.” And how feeble and inexpressive, when 
 placed at the commencement of so energetic a passage, would be the de- 
 scription of the misleaders which this interpretation would yield! Holsten 
 interprets in a similar way, but develops the sense more accurately, and 
 takes év capxi as the sphere in which the evzp. manifests itself, ‘‘all who 
 
 1As to vv. 12-16, see the excursus of 8 In Dion. Hal. iii. 11 we find e’rpocwria ; 
 
 Holsten, 2. Hoang. d. Paul u. Petr. 343 ff. in Symmachus, Ps. exli. 6, evmpotwmtadyaar, 
 2 Comp. on v. 11. Comp. dawompocwzretv, Cic. Att. vii. 21, Xiv. 
 3 Note the critically correct position of 21; cexvompoowmey, Arist. Vud. 363. 
 
 the 7. 8 Ver. 8, iii. 3, v. 17. 
 4 Comp. 2 Cor. v. 12. 10 Riickert ; comp. Beza, Gomarus, Koppe, 
 5 As Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10. Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, 
 6 As Herod. vii. 168 ; Dem. 277. 4; Lucian. Schott, Olshausen, and others. 
 
 Ferm. 51. 11 Comp. Rom. ii. 28. 
 
 7 Comp. Gen. xii. 11. 12 Comp. Wicseler. 
 
CHAP Wily elo. 263 
 
 desire a fair show in the fleshly domain ;” this applies in the concrete to cir- 
 ewmeision, which could have true significance only as a sign of inward right- 
 eousness,! but to which these persons adhered ‘for its fair show of righteous- 
 ness.” But it is not until ver. 13 that caps obtains its reference in harmony 
 with the text to circumcision ; in respect to which, moreover, the idea, that 
 circumcision is the seal of rightcousness, 1s not at all intimated in the connec- 
 tion of our passage. Lastly, Chrysostom and his successors, Erasmus, 
 Calvin, Estius, Grotius, and others, have assigned to év capxi the unmeaning 
 sense xap’ avOpdxoc ; and Hofmann has arrived at the trifling interpretation, 
 that the idea meant was ‘‘a@ pleasing cheerfulness of outward appearance, 
 springing from and testifying to a natural amiability, to which the opponents 
 of the apostle aspired : they would fain appear with the expression of natural 
 amiability.” Thus the description of the opponents placed at the head of 
 this final outburst, so full of holy severity and indignation, would simply 
 amount to the assertion of an amiable bonhommie, ‘‘ good-fellowship,” by which 
 they were impelled. Holsten justly designates this view as inconceivable. 
 [See Note LXXVII., p. 272. ] — avayxdfovow] they are occupied with, busy 
 themselves in, forcing circumcision upon you.* As to the idea of dvayxag. 
 see on Matt. xiv. 22.3— pévov wwa] merely from the (self-interested) motive, 
 that they, ete. —76 otavp@ tov Xpiorov| that is, on account of the cross of 
 Christ, because they preach Christ as erucified. The instrumental dative 
 denotes the cause of the persecution. See Rom. xi. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 12; 
 Bernhardy, p. 101 f. ; Winer, p. 202 f. So most expositors, including 
 Riickert, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hil- 
 genfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann. But others explain the words according to 
 the idea of the rafjuata Xpiorov :* “ne participes fiant suppliciorum Christi,” 
 ‘“‘lest they may become partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” Winer ; comp. 
 Jerome, Luther, Grotius, Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, de Wette, 
 Ewald. The evident reference to v. 11° is decidedly opposed to this inter- 
 pretation, even apart from the singular nature of the idea 76 oravpw 
 doxecbae (Paul would have written raic¢ @Aiecr or the like). 
 
 Ver. 13. They have no other design than merely that stated in ver. 12 
 (iva TH oTavp x.7.2.). For so far from its being their aim, by the enforce- 
 ment of circumcision, to re-establish the observance of the law among you, 
 not even the circumcised (who are in question) themselves, for their own part, 
 keep the law, but dv avOperivyy giAotiuiav tavta wavra yivera brép apeckeiac TOV 
 axiotev, ‘‘ through human ambition all this is done to please the unbeliev- 
 ing,” Chrysostom. —oi sepiretunuévor] is said contemptuously, and with 
 
 1 Rom. iii. 25 f. been to the Jewish Christians an obscure 
 2 See Bernhardy, p. 370. point, and in presence of the Pauline 
 3 Comp. ii. 3, 14. churches a painful wound, by the recollection 
 4 See on 2 Cor. i. 5; Col. i. 24. ‘ of which they were, in a metaphorical 
 
 ®* Holsten holds the peculiar view, that sense, persecuted. But what plain reader 
 what is in y. 11 expressed objectively, re- would have been able to unriddle a sense 
 ceives herea subjective turn: ‘in order that so enigmatically wrapped up—a sense which 
 they (those who are offended) should no more Paul might easily have expressed in clear 
 be persecuted through (the offence at) the words? 
 cross.” The otavpos 7. X. had, in his view, 
 
264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 indignation, of the fraternity of the false apostles, of whom it might at 
 least have been expected that they themselves would combine obedience to 
 the law with their being circumcised.’ But the ground for their non- 
 observance of the Mosaic law is conceived by Paul to be, neither their dis- 
 tance from Jerusalem,’ nor the general impossibility of a complete fulfilment 
 of the law *— both of which would be exculpatory, and wholly unsuited to 
 the idea of the worthlessness of the persons concerned, —but their hypo- 
 critical badness.* It is true that, among the Jews generally, notwithstanding 
 their self-conceit, there was a deficiency in their obedienceto the law ;° but 
 an observance of the law might have been expected at all events from these 
 repiteTunuévot, Who were such champions for circumcision and insisted on it 
 so much (ver. 12). Yet not even they themselves, etc. —iva év rH byer. capki 
 xavy.| The cap£ is not to be here taken again in an ethical sense, as in ver. 
 12 ;° but, according to the close and definite connection with repitéuvecbat, it 
 must be taken as referring to the corporeal nature, so far as it is in it that 
 
 circumcision takes place.’ 
 
 1As at any rate the false teachers are 
 meant, and these were Jewish Christians, 
 the reading vepitewvouevor is plainly absurd. 
 They were, in fact, not subjected to circum- 
 cision (Reithmayr), but circwmcised, and 
 could not therefore be designated, ‘* accord- 
 ing to their quality as Jews” (Moeller on de 
 Wette), aS mepitenvouevor. (present). See 
 especially Reiche, p. 93. The idea that these 
 men were formerly Gentiles, part of whom 
 were still on the point of accepting circum- 
 cision, and that their adherents are included 
 (de Wette), is quite as unhistorical (see Acts 
 xv. 1,5; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Acts xi. 20-22) as the 
 expedient of Hilgenfeld is groundless : that 
 among those false teachers (“the circum- 
 cision-people’’) the act of circumcision had 
 still continued, not merely outwardly in the 
 reception of the newly-born and proselytes 
 (in that case Paul must have said ot wepitép- 
 vovtes), but also inwardly, by virtue of the 
 significance ascribed toit. In his Zeitschr. 
 1860, p. 220, Hilgenfeld appeals to oi mepitep- 
 vowevo. in the Act. Petr. et Pauli, 63; but 
 wrongly, because there (see the sequel) the 
 subject is moral circumcision. The view of 
 Neander is also mistaken, p. 3866. Accord- 
 ing to Wieseler and Matthias, who likewise 
 read wepitewvouwevor, the meprtemvowevor Were 
 those among the Galatian Gentile Christians, 
 who, led away by the pseudo-aposties, 
 allowed themselves to be circumcised. In that 
 case we must with these expositors make 
 the seducers themselves, the pseudo- 
 apostles, the subject of deAovow., But this 
 view is intolerable ; how could Paul enable 
 the reader to guess this change of subject ? 
 The subject of @vAadco. must also be the 
 subject of déAovowv, or else Paul must have 
 written as awkwardly as possible. Conse- 
 
 The emphasis is, however, on ierépa ;* hence 
 
 quently the subject of both the verbs can 
 only be the false apostles, who, however, 
 were mepiteTuymevor, and not mepiTenvopevor. 
 —Hofmann and Holsten are of opinion that 
 the present participle is intended to denote 
 the Jews generally, inasmuch as circumcision 
 wasinuse among them. Against this view 
 it may be decisively urged, that the subjects 
 of the following S%éAovew can be no other 
 than ot mepitenvomevor, and thus likewise the 
 Israelites generally (as Hofmann consis- 
 tently explains it); nevertheless these 
 Bedrovtes (ver. 13) must necessarily be the 
 very same as those to whom the #eAovew in 
 ver. 12 applies, and therefore not the Jews 
 generally, but the Judaistic adversaries. 
 Moreover, to these only is the ovde, not even, 
 suitable, which presupposes in those con- 
 eerned a higher degree of obligation than in 
 the case of others who were bound to obey 
 the law. The forced expedient of Holsten 
 is highly arbitrary: that Paul included the 
 false teachers (consequently, according to 
 our reading and interpretation, the wepitet™ 
 pneevor) in the category of those circumeising 
 themselves (and therefore the mepitenvome- 
 voc). Comp. Stallbaum, ad Huthyphr. p. 12; 
 Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 618. 
 
 2 Theodoret and others ; also Schott. 
 
 3 Jerome, Estius; comp. Usteri. 
 
 4 Comp. ver. 12. 
 
 5 Rom. ii. 17-23. 
 
 6 Wieseler, comp. Ewald. 
 
 7 Eph. ii. 11; Col. ii. 13. 
 
 8 Not on oapxi (Matthias, Holsten), as if 
 Paul had written t7 capki vuev. Comp. 
 2 Cor. viii. 8, Ram. xi. 31, 1 Cor. xv. 31, where 
 the pronoun, rarely used by Paul, is like- 
 wise emphatic. 
 
CHAP: VI.; 14. 265 
 
 Olshausen is the more wrong in finding a contrast—which is quite out of 
 place here—to the souls, which those false teachers ought to have sought 
 after. The antithetic element of 77 iver. lies in the conceit of the meputer- 
 unuévoe as to their own circumcision, as the correlate of which the circum- 
 cision of the Galatian Gentile Christians, to be effected by them, was to be 
 the subject of their boasting. But this sentence of purpose is parallel to 
 the iva 7@ oravpé x.t-A. contained in ver. 12, seeing that the pseudo-apostles 
 in fact by this intended boasting—of their diffusion of theocratic Judaism 
 by the circumcision of Gentile Christians which they procured—thought to 
 avert the persecutions of the Jews ; Theophylact : iva év r@ kataxérrew tiv 
 buetépav cdpka KavyjowvTa a¢ diWackador budv Kai pwabytac buac éyovtec, ‘* that 
 in cutting your flesh they may boast that they are your teachers and have 
 you as disciples.” It is a cavyaofa, inthe face not of heathenism,' but of the 
 non-Christian Judaism, from whose side the persecution on account of the 
 cross of Christ (ver. 12) was threatened. 
 
 Ver. 14. By way of contrast, not to the national vanity of the Jews,? but 
 to the cavyacba: which the pseudo-apostles had in view, Paul now presents his 
 own principle: ‘‘ from me, on the other hand, far be it to glory, except only in 
 the cross of Christ.” — éuot yi yévotro kavy.| mihine accidat, ut glorier, ‘‘ to me 
 let it not happen to glory.” On-this deprecating expression with the injini- 
 tie, comp. LXX. Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16 ; 1 Macc. xiii. 
 5, 9, 10; Ignat. Hph. 12; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3.11: 6 Zed péyore, AaBeiv por 
 yévoito aitév, Anab. i. 9.18 ; Dem. xxxiii. 25 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 
 366. —In the words «i py év 76 otavpm down to kécuw, Observe the defiant 
 enthusiasm, which manifests itself even in the fulness of the expression. 
 How very different the conduct of the opponents, according to ver. 12 ! 
 Nothing but the crossof Christ.is to be the subject of his cavyacfa ; nothing, 
 namely, but the redemption accomplished on the cross by Christ constituted 
 the basis, the sum, and the divine certainty of his faith, life, hope, action, 
 etc.* Thus it isa truly apostolic oxymoron: kavyacba év TH oravpd. The 
 cross is ‘‘ 7d Kabynua Tov Kavynudtor, ‘‘ the boast of boasts,” Cyril. — dv ob 
 éuol Kdouocg éotatp. Kayo TO Kdoum] reveals the cause why he may not glory in 
 anything else: ‘‘ through whom the world is crucified to me, and I (se. éorai- 
 poua) unto the world,” that is, ‘‘by whose crucifixion is produced the 
 result, that no internal fellowship of life longer exists between me and the 
 world : it is dead for me, and I forit.”. By Calvin, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, 
 Hofmann, Holsten, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others, dv ov is referred to the 
 eross. But it is more pertinent to refer it to the fully and triumphantly ex- 
 pressed subject immediately preceding, tov cupiov 7uav'Inoov Xpictow :* through 
 whom, that is, according to the context, by means of whose crucifixion. [See 
 Note LXXVIII., p. 272.] This effect is dependent on the inward fellow- 
 ship with the death of Christ ° commenced by faith, and maintained by the 
 
 1 Holsten. 4 Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Luther, and 
 
 2 Hofmann, in accordance with his in- many others, including de Wette, Ewald, 
 terpretation of ver. 13. Wieseler. 
 
 Comp. Phils iwi WwW fi; 2iCor) yo 15) ff; 5 ii. 19 f.; Rom. vi. 
 
 1 @or: 1. 23; il: 2; e¢ al. 
 
266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Holy Spirit. By this fellowship Paul is transplanted into an entirely new 
 relation of life, and feels that all the previous interests of his life are now 
 stripped of their influence over him, and that he is now completely inde- 
 pendent of them.’— éyo/] for me, denotes the ethical reference of the rela- 
 tion. See Bernhardy, p. 84. —x«écuoc* finds its explanation from ver, 15 
 (obre mepitouy, odTe axpoBvoria), namely, the organic totality of all relations aloof 
 jrom Christianity, looked upon, indeed, as a living power, which exercises 
 authority and sway over the unconverted, but in the case of the converted 
 has become dead through his admission into the fellowship of faith and life 
 with the crucified Lord ; that is, has ceased to influence and determine his 
 thoughts, feelings, and actions. Thus the world is crucified to him by 
 means of the crucifixion of Christ.* — kay 76 xécuw] for the cessation of the 
 mutual fellowship of life is meant to be expressed, and the matter to be 
 thus wholly exhausted. 
 
 ‘Ver. 15. Tdép] introduces an explanatory reason assigned, not for the: 
 Kavyaoba év 7g otravpg,° which has already received its full explanation in 
 the relative sentence v ov «.7.4., but for the just expressed 6? ob éuot Kéopoc 
 x.7.A. This relation of his to the world cannot indeed, according to the 
 axiom oie mepitouy x.t.A., be other than that so expressed. In justification 
 of this reference of yap, observe that repitou# and axpoBvoria comprehend the 
 two categories of worldly relations apart from Christianity, which had so 
 prominently re-asserted themselves in those very Galatian disturbances 
 (comp. v. 6). For neither circumcision availeth, nor uncircumeision, but a new 
 creature :® that is, ‘for it is a matter of indifference whether one is circum- 
 cised or uncircumcised; and the only matter of importance is, that one should 
 be created anew, transferred into a new, spiritual condition of life.” As to the 
 form and idea of kaw7 kricic, see on 2 Cor. v.17. As characteristics of the xacvy 
 xriowc, we find, according to ii. 20, the (7 dé év Zwoi Xprorde ; according to ill. 27, 
 the ‘‘having put on Christ ;” according to v. 6, miotuc dv ayarye évepyoupévn 5 
 according to Eph. ii. 10, the repurareiv év épyore ayaboic ; and according to 
 1 Cor. vii. 19, r/pyow évtoAdv Ocov. In the new man (Col. iii. 10), Christ 
 determines all things ; the new man is cipdvto¢g tic avaordcewe of Christ 
 (Rom. vi. 5), set free by the Spirit from the law of sin and of death (Rom. 
 viii. 2), a child and heir of God (Rom. viii. 16 f.). That this principle, 
 moreover, was that of the Christian point of view, was self-evident to the 
 reader ; without again adding év Xpwor@ ‘Ijcov, as in v. 6 (see the critical 
 
 1 Comp. Phil. iii. 7 ff. 
 
 5 fofmann, Matthias, Reithmayr, and 
 2 Without the article ; see Winer, p. 117. ; 
 
 others. 
 
 3 Comp. Col. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 2 f.; 1 Cor. vii. 
 31, 33, 34; Jas. iv. 4; 1 Johnii. 15 f. 
 
 4 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13; 2 Thess. i. 12; “‘nec 
 malis illius territor, nee commodis titillor, 
 nec odium metuo, nec plausum moror, nec 
 ignominiam formido, nee gloriam affecto,” 
 “T am neither terrified by its evils, nor 
 eratified by its advantages, nor do I fear 
 its hatred, nor do I care for its applause, 
 nor dread its shame, nor grasp after its 
 glory,” Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 
 6 It is stated by Syncell. Chron. p. 27 (ed. 
 Bonn, p. 48), and Phot. Amphil. 183, that 
 Paul derived this utterance from the 
 apocryphal Apocalypsis Mosis. It is pos- 
 sible that the same thought occurred in 
 that book; but it is certain that Paul 
 derived it from his own inmost conscious- 
 ness. It may have passed from our 
 passage into the amoxdAvipus Mwtioéws. Comp. 
 Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offend. Joh. I. p. 232 f. 
 
CHAP: VIL, 16: 207% 
 remarks), Paul has rendered this Christian axiom the more striking by set- 
 ting it down in an absolute form. It stands here as his concluding signal of 
 triumph. ; 
 
 Ver. 16. The heart, full of the great truth in ver. 15, has now a wish of 
 blessing for all who follow it in their conduct. The simple and, carrying 
 on the train of thought and linking it with ver. 15, serves to express this 
 wish. A reference to ver. 14, so as to connect our verse with the wish 
 therein contained,’ is not required by «ai, and is forbidden by the importance 
 of ver. 15, which would in that case have to be reduced to a mere paren- 
 thetical insertion. — The emphasis lies not on rotrw, but on 76 kavéve ;? for 
 it is the very canonical character of the saying in ver. 15 which has to be 
 brought out : ‘who shall walk according to the guiding line, which is here- 
 in given.” We are prohibited from assigning to caver the non liter mean- 
 ing rule, mavim (as is usually done ; see Schott in loc.), by the tigurative 
 ororyqoovolv, Which requires the literal meaning guiding line (2 Cor. x. 13 ff.), 
 that is, in this passage, a line defining the direction of the way ; as such, the 
 maxim expressed in ver. 15 is placed before them. As to oroiyen4 comp. on 
 v. 29. The anacoluthic nominative boo. x.7.2. has rhetorical emphasis, di- 
 recting the whole attention of the readers first to the subject in itself which 
 is under discussion.* The future oroiyjo.* applies to the time of receiving 
 the letter.° Paul hopes that the letter will have a converting and strength- 
 ening effect upon many readers, but makes the question, who should be 
 warranted in applying to himself the concluding blessing, depend on the 
 result. —eipfvy ém airovce Kai éAeoc] se. ein,® welfare (DVI [peace] ; see on 
 Eph. vi. 23; John xiv. 27) on them, and mercy (Tittm. Synon. p. 69f.). 
 Comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2; Jude 2; 2 John 3, in which passages 
 éheoc stands first. Here it follows after, not because Paul intended at first 
 to write eipivy only,’ nor because in éAeo¢ he had specially in view the day of 
 judgment,® which indeed is expressly added in 2 Tim. i. 18, but because 
 he has thought of the effect produced before the producing cause. What 
 welfare it is that Paul wishes—namely, all Messianic welfare—is obvious of 
 itself. The peace of reconciliation forms a part of it. édeoc is, moreover, 
 to be considered as neuter, because Paul throughout so uses it ;° although 
 the neuter form, which very often occurs in the LXX., is but very rarely 
 found in classical authors.!° —In éz’ abrobc is implied the idea that welfare 
 and mercy come down upon them from heaven.!! — kai éxi tov "IopayA tov Ocoi'| 
 That this is a reminiscence of Ps. cxxv. 5, exxviii. 6, could only be as- 
 
 
 
 1 Hofmann. 
 
 2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 19. 
 
 3 Comp. on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14; Johni. 12; 
 Acts vii. 40. 
 
 4 Comp. v. 10. 
 
 5 Comp. Tod Ao7od, ver. 17. 
 
 ® Taken as a wish of blessing, the thought 
 harmonizes more naturally with the conclu- 
 sion of the epistle, than if itis taken as an 
 affirmation (de Wette, éora: or éoriv). Chry- 
 sostom and Theophylact appear to have 
 supplied écrac; but Theodoret takes it as 
 
 wish: érnvéato tov EXcov kK. THY elpyvyy, ‘* He 
 prays for mercy and peace.”’ 
 
 7 So, arbitrarily, Olshausen. 
 
 8 Hofmann. 
 
 9 Even in Tit. iii. 5 it is neuter, according 
 to decisive testimony. 
 
 10 See Dindorf, ad Diod. iii. 18 ; Kiihner, I. 
 p. 396, c. ed. 2. 
 
 11 Comp. Luke ii. 25, 40, iv. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 
 9; Mark i. 10; Acts xix. 6, e¢ al. 
 
 12 Theophylact, Erasmus, and others ; 
 also Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Reiche. 
 
268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 sumed without dealing arbitrarily, if, instead of kai éx? roy Iop. rod Ocoi, 
 Paul had written : eipyvy éxi tov Iopay2.! which, after the instruction given 
 by him mm iy. 21 ff., he might have written without any danger of misunder- 
 standing. Still less can the expression be referred to Ps. Ixxiii. 1 ; for 
 which purpose Hofmann employs an impossible interpretation of the He- 
 brew text of the passage. The Israel of God, that is, as contrasted with 
 Jacob’s bodily descendants as such,’ the Israelites who belong to God as His 
 own, and therefore form the real people of God ideally viewed,? are at any 
 rate the true Christians.* But according as «ai is taken either as explanatory 
 or as conjunctive, we may understand either the true Christians in general, 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians,* or the truly converted Jews.* If we adopt 
 the litter interpretation, we must either ® refer the foregoing éco: and aivtobe 
 to the Gentixe Christians,—a view which is, however, decisively at variance 
 with the upiversal 6cor, and with the description excluding any national 
 referenca, 7 kavéve ToiTw orovy. —or™ we must explain the train of thought 
 as follows: ‘Salvation be upon all true Christians, and more especially (to 
 mention these in particular ; see on Mark i. 5, xvi. 7) on all true Jewish 
 Christians !” But however near Paul’s fellow-countrymen were to his heart 
 (Rom. ix. 1), he not only had no ground in the context for bringing them 
 forward here so specially ; but any such distinction would even be quite 
 improperly introduced—especially in the deeply-impassioned close of the 
 letter—in presence of churches which consisted principally of Gentile 
 Christians and had been involved by Jewish interference in violent contro- 
 versies. And even apart from this, no reader to whom the teaching of the 
 apostle as to the true Israelites was familiar *® could think that rév "Iop. row 
 Ocov referred to Jewish Christians only ; this would be opposed to the specific 
 conception of Paul on this point. We must adhere, therefore, to the expli- 
 cative view of «ai as the correct one,® and indeed, namely, so that it intro- 
 duces an appropriate, more precise description ” of the subjects previously 
 characterized. Hofmann is wrong in objecting that the epexegetical kai is 
 always climactic." Moreover, the designation of all those, who shall walk 
 
 “Comp. Rom: ix. 63 1 ‘Cor. x. 18; Phil. 
 iii. 3. 
 
 2 Comp. also John i. 48. 
 
 3 Not the Jews (Morus), nor even the 
 pious Jews,—those, namely, who have not 
 rejected the gospel out of stubbornness, and 
 permit the hope of their coming to recog- 
 nize the rule expressedin ver 15 (Reiche, 
 p.97 f.). The apostle, according to his whole 
 system, could not understand under the 
 ideal Israel of God any others than believers 
 (iii. 7, 29, iv. 26; Rom. ix. 6-8). To him the 
 kay Ktiots in Ver. 15 Was not conceivable 
 otherwise than as necessarily conditioned 
 by faith (iii. 28; Eph. ii. 10); hence he could 
 not expect of any Jew not yet converted, 
 however pious he might be as an observer 
 of the law, that he would walk according 
 to the canon of ver, 15. 
 
 4 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, 
 Pareus, Cornelius & Lapide, Calovius, Baum- 
 garten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, Winer, 
 Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Wieseler, and others [Alford, Lightfoot]. 
 
 5 Ambrosiaster, Beza, Grotius, Estius, 
 Schoettgen, Bengel, Riickert, Matthies, 
 Schott, de Wette, Ewald, Reithmayr, and 
 others [Ellicott, Eadie]; Usteri does not 
 decide. 
 
 6 With Grotius, Schott, Bengel, Ewald. 
 
 7 With Riickert, Matthies, de Wette, 
 Reithmayr, and others. 
 
 8 See ili. 7, iv. 21 ff. 
 
 91 Cor. iii. 5, viii. 12, xv. 88; John i. 16. 
 
 10 Hartung, Partikell. 1. p. 145f.; Winer, 
 p. 407. 
 
 11 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 838. 
 
CHAP) Vin, LT: 269 
 according to that entirely anti-Jewish rule of conduct, as the Israelites of 
 God, forms as it were the final triumph of the whole epistle over the Juda- 
 istic practices, the very aim of which was to assert the title of the "Iopay 
 xara capxa to the heritage of’ salvation. Hofmann is entirely mistaken in 
 his view that «ai is even, and that the Israel of God are the Jew- Christians, 
 so that Paul expresses the idea that he desired to include even these in his 
 wish. It was, indeed, obvious that in éx’ airoic they could not be, and were 
 not intended to be, ereluded ; but Paul was neither so unwise nor so devoid 
 of tact as expressly to state that self-evident point, as if there could possibly 
 be any doubt about it. By adding this last word, he would only have of- 
 fended the theocratical point of honor (Rom. i. 16). Lastly, Matthias also 
 is wrong in supposing that «ai ér? tov “Iap. tov Ocot begins the new sentence 
 (ver. 17) : ‘‘ And concerning the Israel of God henceforth let no man,” etc. 
 This interpretation ought to have been prevented by the solemn repetition 
 of the preposition, which indeed on the second occasion would acquire 
 quite a different sense (concerning). 
 
 Ver. 17. Tov Aorov] occurring only here in the N. T., very frequent in 
 other authors ; not ceterwm, ‘‘ besides,” so that it would be a formula abrum- 
 pendi, ‘‘ formula of transition,” ’ equivalent to ro Ao7év,* but the genitive of 
 time ;? and that as denoting ‘‘repetitionem ejusdem facti reliquo tempore,” 
 ‘*a repetition of the same deed in the time remaining.” * The sense posthae, 
 ‘‘after this,” might also have been expressed by the acewsative;* but in this case 
 a repetitio perpetua, ‘‘constant repetition,” would be meant.® Calvin ex- 
 plains : ‘‘as for the rest,” i.e., praeter novam creaturam, ‘‘ beside, the new 
 creature.” Comp. Wieseler: ‘‘ quod restat,” ‘‘as to what remains.” In 
 this case, either the genitive would stand absolutely: ‘‘ as concerns what re- 
 mains ;”" or it would be dependent on xérove. But, looking at the frequent 
 use of rod Aorrov as a particle of time, both these explanations would be very 
 unnecessarily far-fetched. This remark also applies to the view of Hof- 
 mann, who strangely attaches rov Aoxot, notwithstanding the want of an 
 antithetical particle, as genitive of the object to xérovec, and conceives 
 "Iopaya as again supplied : on account of the Israel, which is not the Israel of 
 God. Respecting that Israel, in the apostle’s view, he has not to inquire 
 whether it will be injured through the labor to which he is called. As if 
 any such cold, remorseless renunciation could be justly attributed to the 
 apostle who held his ovyyeveic kata capxa so painfully dear,* and strove in 
 every possible way to gain them.® But from the hostile annoyances and 
 vexations, which the reader would readily understand to be referred to in 
 these words, the apostle desires to remain henceforward exempt ; and this 
 
 1 Bengel, Zachariae, and others. 1 Cor. vii. 29; Ken. Anad. ii. 2. 5, iil. 2.8; 
 
 22 Cor. xiii. 11; Eph. vi. 10; Phil. iii. 1, 
 et al. 
 
 3 Kiihner, IT. p. 189) : posthac, henceforward 
 (Xen. Anab. v. 7. 34, vi. 4. 11; Plat. Legg. 
 Vii. p. 816 D, Demos. p. 385 B; Herod. ii. 
 109; and the passages in Wetstein. 
 
 4Hermann, ad Viger. p. 706. 
 
 570 Aourov, Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 41; 
 
 Soph. Zrach. 907, 917. 
 
 6 Hermann, /.c. Comp. Ktihner, ad Xen. 
 Anab. ii. 2. 5. 
 
 76 5€ Aowrdv, 1 Cor. iv. 2, see Heind. ad 
 Charm. p. 89; Matthiae, p. 815. 
 
 SHR OMG Dk lithe, Xe de 
 
 91 Cor. ix. 20. 
 
270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 he demands with apostolic sternness. —éy@ yap «.t.2.] the emphasis is on 
 éy® : it is not the teachers who are hostile to me, these men afraid to suffer 
 (ver. 12), but Z who bear, etc. oriyuara’ signifies marks branded oretched 
 in, which, usually consisting of letters,” were put on the body (especially 
 on the forehead and hands) in the case of slaves, as the device of their 
 masters ;° of soldiers, as the badge of their general ; of criminals, as a 
 sign of their offence ; and among some oriental nations also, as a token of 
 the divinity which they worshipped.4 Here Paul has had in view the 
 marks borne by slaves :° for, according to the immediate context (vv. 14, 
 18), Christ is present to his mind as the Lord ; and also in 2 Cor. xi. 23 he 
 discerns, in the ill treatment which he has suffered, the proof that he is 
 The genitive Incov denotes therefore the Ruler, whose ser- 
 vant Paul is indicated to be by his oriyuara ; and because in this case the 
 feeling of fellowship with the concrete person of his Master has thoroughly 
 pervaded him, he does not write Xpiorov, but’Ijoot.7 Others have explained: 
 ‘‘notae corporis tales, quales ipse Christus gestavit,” ‘such bodily marks as 
 Christ himself bore ;”* but against this it may be urged that Paul has not 
 made use of a word which of itself conveys a complete idea (such as rp 
 véxpwotv, 2 Cor, iv. 10), but has used the significant criyuata, which neces- 
 sarily prompts the reader to ask to whom the person marked® is described 
 as belonging. Therefore ’Ijooi is not'® to be considered as the genitive 
 of the author. —But what was it that Paul bore in his body as the oriyyata 
 The scars and other traces of the wounds and mal-treatment, which he 
 had received on account of his apostolic labors... For in the service of Christ he 
 had been maltreated (2 Cor. xi. 23), and that so that he must have retained 
 
 dtaxovoe Xpiorov.°® 
 
 "Tyc0v ? 
 
 scars or similar indications. 2 
 
 1 gtiyua is paroxytone ; see Lobeck, Par- 
 alip. p. 406. 
 
 2 Ley. xix. 28. 
 
 3In the Hast; but among the Romans 
 only in the case of slaves who were sus- 
 pected or had run away (asa sign of the 
 latter offence, they were by way of punish- 
 ment branded with ® or F. U. G.). 
 
 43 Mace. ii. 29; and Grimm in loc. See 
 Wetstein, p. 287 f.; Lipsius, Zlect. ii. 15; 
 
 Deyling, OQbdss. TII. p. 423 ff.; Spencer, 
 Legg. rit. ii. 14. 1; Ewald, im Apocal. 
 p. 151 f. 
 
 5 Not of soldiers, as Grotius (comp. Cal- 
 vin), and Potter, Arch. II. p. 7, think ; for 
 this must have been suggested by the con- 
 text. Wetstein understands sacras notas, 
 “sacred marks” (Herod. ii. 113: otlyuarta ipa), 
 so that Paul represents Christ ‘wt Dewm, 
 quem Tov Kvpiov kar’ e€oxynv yocat,”’ ‘as God, 
 whom he calls pre-eminently the Lord.” 
 But these sacrae notae are only found among 
 particular nations, such as the Persians and 
 Assyrians (Plut. Zucudl. p.507 E; Lucian, de 
 Dea Syra, 59; comp. also what is related in 
 Herod. ii. 113 about a temple of Hercules in 
 
 Some expositors have, however, believed that 
 
 Egypt, and in the Asiatie Researches, vii. 
 p. 281 f., about the Indians); hence so foreign 
 a custom would not be likely to suggest 
 itself to the apostle, nor could it be under- 
 stood by his readers without some more 
 special indication. 
 
 ® Comp. also Rev. Vii. 3. 
 
 7 Comp. on 2 Cor. iy. 10. 
 
 8 Morus, comp. Borger. 
 
 9 otypartias, also ottypatopdpos, “ bearing 
 tatoo-marks,”? Lid. and Scott], Polyaen. 
 Strat. 1. 24. 
 
 10 With Gomarus and Riickert. 
 
 11 Not as Luther, 1519 and 1524, following 
 Augustine, thought: the taming of the 
 flesh and the fruits of the Spirit; against 
 which the év 76 cwmarti pov is itself decisive. 
 In the Commentary of 1538, he understands 
 “plagas corport suo impressas et passiones, 
 deinde ignita tela diaboli, tristitiam et 
 pavores animi,” ‘the blows and sufferings 
 impressed upon his body, then too the fiery 
 darts of the devil, and sorrow and fear of 
 mind,’”’ which thus throws together very 
 different elements outward and inward. 
 
 12 See 2 Cor. xi. 24, 25. 
 
NOTES. 271 
 
 Paul adduces these oriyuata by way of contrast to the scar of cirewmeision ;? 
 butthis idea is arbitrarily introduced, and in its paltriness alien to the lofty self- 
 consciousness which these words breathe.—Lastly, as regards the sense in 
 which the reference of yap is to be taken, many expositors explain it, with 
 Grotius : ‘‘ satis aliunde habeo, quod feram,” ‘‘I have enough from other 
 quarters to bear.” So, in substance, Vatablus, Bengel (‘‘afflicto non est 
 addenda afllictio,” ‘‘afiliction should not be added to affliction”), Morus, 
 Winer. But what a feeble reason to assign would this be, either as fretful 
 or as even bespeaking compassion, and wholly repugnant at all events to 
 the proud feeling of being marked as the dovAoc of Christ !? And the éyé, so 
 full of self-consciousness in opposition to the false teachers, is inconsistent 
 with this view. No; Paul means*® to say: for J am one who, by being 
 marked as the servant of Christ, is in possession of a dignity, which may 
 justly exempt him from any repetition of molestations (such as had vexed 
 him on the part of the Galatian churches).—On Sacraf{w, comp. Chrysostom : 
 ovK elvev éyw, GARG Bactalo, Gorep Tic Ext TpoTaiowe péya dpovar, ‘‘ He does not 
 say : ‘I have,’ but ‘I bear,’ as if highly regarding them as trophies.” 
 
 Ver. 18. ‘H ydpic tov xvpiov x.7.2.] See on 1. 6. — pera tov rvebuatoc inav] 
 sc. ein. A special design, on account of which Paul did not write merely 
 pe? budv,* or wera TavTwv budv,° is indeed assumed by many expositors (that 
 Paul desired once more to indicate that salvation does not come from the 
 capé),® but cannot be made good ; especially as also in Philem. 25,7 instead 
 of the persons simply, we find that with greater significance and fervor the 
 spirit of the persons (so also at the close of the Epistle of Barnabas) is 
 named, because it is on the rvevua of man (the higher principle of life with 
 the voic)® that the grace of Christ works,? when the Spirit of Christ 
 takes up His abode in the human spirit and so confers His yap/ovata. Paul 
 might also have written werd rovvyov bu., ‘‘ with your souls ;”” but even in 
 that case the gracious operation of Christ would have to be conceived as 
 issuing from the seat of self-consciousness (the rvevua of man). — adeAdo/| 
 The epistle, in great part so severe, ends with a mode of address which still 
 breathes unaltered love (1 Cor. xvi. 24). 
 
 Notres By AMERICAN Eprtor. 
 
 LXXIV. Ver. 6. év réowv ayafoic. 
 
 In support of the usual interpretation that refers this passage to the sharing 
 of temporal goods, Eadie collects the following places where aya#é has such 
 meaning : Luke xii, 18, 19, xvi. 25; and in LXX., 2 Sam. vii. 28 ; 1 Chr. xvii. 
 
 1 Erasmus in his Annot., Beza, Schoettgen, 
 Grotius ; comp. Bengel and Michaelis. 
 
 2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. 
 
 3 “* Veluti trophaea quaedam ostentans,”’ 
 ‘as though displaying some trophies,” 
 Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 
 41 Cor. xvi. 23; Col.iv. 18; 1 Thess. v. 28. 
 
 52 Cor. xiii. 13; Phil. iv. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 
 Ase. ii. 15: 
 
 6 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, and 
 others ; also Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Ols- 
 hausen. 
 
 7 And 2 Tim. iv. 22. 
 
 8 See on Luke i. 46; Rom. i. 4, viii. 10; 
 2 Cor. ii. 18, e¢ al. 
 
 ® Rom. viii. 10, 16. 
 
 10 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 15; 1 Pet. i. 9, 22, ii. 
 125: 
 
2712 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 26 ; 2 Chr. xviii. 12, 17 ; and Lightfoot cites the Epistle of Barnabas, §19: ‘‘ Thou 
 shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbor .. . for if ye are partakers in 
 common of things which are incorruptible, how much more of those things 
 which are corruptible.” With this agrees the recently found ‘* Teaching of 
 the Apostles” (lines 92, 93): ‘Thou shalt not turn away the needy, but shalt 
 share (svyxovvevgjoeic) all things with thy brother.” 
 
 PXOXGV Vier are 
 
 Eadie and Sieffert insist on the necessity of regarding this exhortation as in- 
 tended to enforce the entire section from ver. 1, ‘‘ treating of duties which 
 spring out of love, the fruit of the Spirit, and which are themselves forms of 
 spiritual beneficence or well-doing—duties, however, which one may be tempted 
 to neglect, or regard only in a negative aspect.”’ 
 
 LXXVI. Ver. 11. rndixowg ypdupacw. 
 
 An analogy is found in the bold signature of John Hancock to the Declara- 
 tion of Independence. 
 
 LXXVII. Ver. 12. rizpoowmyjoa: év capt. 
 
 ’ There is much force in Sieffert’s exception that Meyer’s interpretation is in- 
 consistent with the only grammatical construction allowable here, viz., the 
 qualification of the eizpéawroc by év capxi. Meyer's argument would require év 
 capki ovTe¢ OY CapKiKxol vtec. Sieffert explains it as conveying the idea of the 
 sphere of the external, with special reference to circumcision. This latter, on 
 the other hand, seems too narrow. Ellicott interprets év capxi as “ the earthly 
 existence and conditions of man ;’’ Alford, ‘‘in outward things which belong 
 to man’s natural state ;’ Lightfoot, ‘‘in external rites ;’ Eadie, ‘‘ the unrenew- 
 ed nature cropping out under its more special aspect of sensuousness and exter- 
 nalism.” ‘* They who wish to make a fair appearance, according to the stand- 
 ard of the unrenewed nature,” seems to us to be the meaning. 
 
 LXXVIII. Ver. 14. év 76 oravpé Tov kupiov. 
 
 The Revised Version reads ‘‘ through which,’ thus making the oravpw the 
 antecedent ; the marginal reading, however, is ‘‘whom.’’ Meyer’s construction 
 is further supported by Ellicott, Alford, and Riddle, and antagonized by Schmol- 
 ler, Lightfoot, Eadie, Sanday, and Sieffert. The latter claims that when Meyer 
 says ‘by whom, i.e., by whose crucifixion is produced the result,” he virtually 
 acknowledges that the context requires that the reference be to the cross ; and 
 finds in it an excellent antithesis to the assumptions of the Judaizers who, from 
 worldly motives, were unwilling to bear the consequences of the cross. On 
 the other hand, both the immediate proximity of the roi Kupiov 7juav ’Inoov 
 Xprorod, and the grandeur of Him whom it indicates, renders reference to a 
 more remote antecedent very improbable. The question is purely grammati- 
 cal. Either construction ultimately ends in the same idea. o7avpoc is referred 
 by some to the subjective cross, or the afflictions that attend devotion to 
 Christ’s cause, asin Rom. v. 3; but thisis justified neither by the immediate 
 context, cf. v. 12, nor by the argument which is to offset the trust in the law, 
 by faith that finds its ground of salvation in nothing but the death of Christ. 
 
TOTO AIL” MND EX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abba, Father, 175 seq. 
 
 Abraham, his faith, 109 seq., 159 ; the 
 promises to, 122 seq. ; his spiritual 
 seed, 158 seq.; his two sons, 200 
 seq. 
 
 Accountability, personal, 251 seq. 
 
 Advent, Second, of Christ, 13 seq., 38. 
 
 Angels and the law, 132, 160 seq. 
 
 Anathema, 18 seq., 39; justified, 
 20 seq. 
 Arabia, 29 seq., 40 seq. : 
 
 Atonement, of Christ, 12 seq. ; vica- 
 rious, 116 seq., 172, 212 seq. 
 
 B. 
 
 Barnabas, 79. 
 
 Benedictions, 267 seq., 271. 
 
 Benevolence, Apostolic, 48, 74 seq. ; 
 to believers, 258 seq. 
 
 Blessing, spiritual, 267 seq. 
 
 Bondage, Spiritual, 167 seq. ; ceremo- 
 
 nial, 179 seq.; warned against, 
 219 seq. 
 
 C: = 
 Ceremonial observances, 180 seq. 
 
 Christ Jesus, His divinity, 9 ; sub- 
 ordinated to the Father, 9 seq., 
 37 seq. ; His atoning death, 12 seq., 
 38 seq., 172, 212 seq. ; His second 
 advent, 13, 38; His active obedience, 
 85 seq., 97; our justification, 
 87 seq., 114 seq. ; and the law, 91 
 seq.; His atoning love, 93 seq. ; 
 becoming a curse for us, 116 seq. ; 
 as the seed of Abraham, 124 seq., 
 160; as Mediator, 134 seq.; His 
 pre-existence, 170 seq. ; His incar- 
 nation, 171 seq. 
 
 Christianity, its sum and substance, 
 90 seq. ; and Judaism, 169 seq. 
 
 Church, The Christian, its collective 
 opinion, 55 seq. ; triumphant, 207 
 seq. 
 
 Circumcision, in the Apostolic Church, 
 57 seq. ; and Christ, 220, 223 seq., 
 266 seq.; and the law, 220 seq. ; 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 going beyond, 231, 244; urged by 
 the dissembling, 262 seq. 
 Communism, Christian, 253 seq., 271 
 seq. 
 Crucifying the flesh, 241 seq. 
 
 D. 
 
 Damascus, 24; Paul’s sojourn at, 29 
 seq., 40 seq. 
 
 Days, Observance of, 180 seq. 
 
 Discrepancy, alleged, between Paul 
 and Luke, 50 seq., 95. 
 
 Doxology, of Paul, 14. 
 
 EK. 
 
 Election, Divine, 27. 
 
 Envy, illustrated, 190 seq. 
 
 Equality, Spiritual, in Christ, 158 
 seq. 
 
 Exclusiveness, Sectarian, 77 seq. 
 
 F. 
 
 Faith, working righteousness, 93 seq., 
 105 seq., 109, 159, 222 seq.; receiv- 
 ing salvation, 150 seq., 161; and 
 baptism, 156 seq.; in love, 223 seq. 
 
 Fellowship, Christian, 73 seq., 96 ; in 
 suffering, 248 seq.; in teaching, 252 
 seq.; with Christ, 265 seq., 272. 
 
 Festival Seasons, 180 seq. 
 
 Flesh, The, and the Spirit, 235 seq., 
 244 ; the fruits of, 238, 245. 
 
 Forbearance, mutual, 248 seq. 
 
 Forgiveness, 247 seq. 
 
 Fraternal union, 73 seq., 96. 
 
 Freedom, Christian, 62 seq., 95, 206 
 seq., 210 seq.; steadfastness in, 219 
 seq.; in love, 231 seq.; and the mor- 
 al law, 237 seq., 244 seq. 
 
 G. 
 
 Galatia, 1 seq. 
 
 Galatians, The, 1 seq.; their churches, 
 2 seq.; their Judaizing teachers, 3 
 seq.; their fickleness, 15 ; receiving 
 the Holy Spirit, 103 seq.; as sons of 
 God, 155 seq.; welcoming Paul, 186 
 
274 
 
 seq., 214 seq.; converted through 
 Paul, 195 seq.; not always faithful, 
 224 seq. 
 
 Galatians, The Epistle to the, 2 seq.; 
 occasion of its writing, 3; object 
 of its writing, 4; its contents, 4; 
 time of composition, 4 seq.; place 
 of writing, 6 ; its genuineness, 7. 
 
 Gentiles, The, saved by Christ, 118 
 
 seq. 
 
 God, the Father, 10, 37 ; His decrees, 
 26 seq.; no respecter of persons, 
 68 ; His efficacy, 70 ; His promises, 
 122 seq.; His unity, 145 seq.; the 
 knowledge of, 178 seq., 213 seq. 
 
 Good Works, 85 ; and the law, 89 seq. 
 
 Gospel, The, 16 ; its counterfeit, 17. 
 
 Grace of God, The, 94 seq. 
 
 Growth, Spiritual, 196. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hagar, and Sarah, 201 seq., 215 seq. 
 
 Harvest, Spiritual, 257. 
 
 Holy Spirit, The, received, 103 seq.; 
 given unto believers, 175 seq., 218 ; 
 in the Christian life, 235 seq., 242 ; 
 and the flesh, 235 seq., 244; the 
 fruits of, 239 seq. 
 
 Humility, enjoined, 249 seq. 
 
 Hypocrisy, Spiritual, 78 seq., 95. 
 
 ite 
 
 Imputation, 85. 
 Independence, Spiritual, 67 seq. 
 Inheritance, Law of, 177. 
 
 J. 
 
 James, the brother of Christ, 33 ; his 
 Apostolic rank, 71 seq. 
 
 Jerusalem, The new, 206 seq. 
 
 Judaism, 169 seq. 
 
 Judaizing Teachers, 61 seq,, 96. 
 
 Justification by Faith, 53, 84 seq., 93 
 seq., 109, 159, 155 seq., 222 seq.; by 
 the law, 113 seq., 221 seq. 
 
 K. 
 
 ‘Knowledge of God, The, 178 seq., 213 
 seq. 
 
 10. 
 
 Law, The, not justifying, 83 seq., 111 
 seq.; and good works, 89 seq. ; and 
 Christ, 91 seq.; not annulled, 94 
 seq.; does not annul the covenant, 
 120 seq.; its aim and object, 127 
 seq.; its promulgation, 130, 160; 
 ordained through a Mediator, 133 
 seq.; and God’s promises, 149 ; its 
 captivity, 151 seq.; a schoolmaster, 
 
 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 154 seq.; read in the church ser- 
 vices, 199 seq.; fulfilled in love, 
 232 seq.; and freedom, 237 seq., 
 244 seq. 
 
 Law of Inheritance, 
 Roman, 177. 
 
 Leaven, doctrinal, 226. 
 
 Legalism, Jewish, 81 seq.; its cap- 
 tivity, 151 seq. 
 
 Liberty, Christian, 62 seq., 95, 206 
 -seq., 210 seq.; steadfast in, 219 seq. ; 
 in love, 231 seq.; and the moral 
 law, 237 seq., 244 seq. 
 
 Life, moral, 92; in Christ, 92 seq., 
 98; in the Holy Spirit, 235 seq., 
 241 seq. 
 
 Love, in freedom, 231 seq. ; as the 
 royal law, 232 seq. 
 
 Jewish and 
 
 M. 
 
 Mary, the mother of Jesus, her vir- 
 ginity, 33, 41. 
 
 Mediator, The, of the law, 133 seq. ; 
 as Christ, 134 seq. 
 
 Moses, and the Law, 130 seq. ; as a 
 mediator, 140 seq. 
 
 Mount Sinai, 202 seq. 
 
 12 
 
 Parousia, The, 13 seq., 38 ; before and 
 after, 167 
 
 Patience, in well-doing, 256 seq. 
 
 Paul, as founder of the Galatian 
 churches, 2 seq. ; as an apostle of 
 God, 9, 37; salutes the churches, 
 11 seq.; pronounces a curse, 18 
 seq., 39; and justifies himself, 20 
 seq. ; relates his past experience, 
 23 seq. ; his sojourn in Damascus 
 and in Arabia, 29 seq., 40 seq. ; his 
 visit to Cephas in Jerusalem, 31 
 seq., 41 ; visits Syria and Silicia, 34 
 seq. ; preaches the faith of Christ, 
 36 seq. ; his second visit to Jerusa- 
 lem, 43 seq., 95 ; receives revela- 
 tions, 24 seq., 52 seq. ; his indepen- 
 dence, 67 seq. ; as apostle to the 
 Gentiles, 70 seq.; his apostolic 
 recognition, 73 ; resisting Peter, 75 
 seq.; his bodily weakness, 184 
 seq. ; converting the Galatians, 195 
 seq. ; his tender appeal, 197 seq. 5 
 persecuted by the Jews, 228 seq., 
 243 seq.; preaching circumcision, 
 229 seq. ; his handwriting, 259 seq. 5 
 glories in Christ, 265 seq., 272 5 
 blesses the believers, 267 seq. ; his 
 scarred body, 269 seq. ; his parting 
 salutation, 271. 
 
 Persuasion, Spiritual, 225. 
 
 Peter, 71; resisted by Paul, 75 seq. 
 
TOPICAL 
 
 Poor, The, care for, 48, 74 seq. 
 
 Prayer, to the Father, 175 seq. 
 
 Preaching, a divine calling, 28. 
 
 Pedestination, Divine, 166. 
 
 Promises of God, The, to Abraham, 
 122 seq. ; and the law, 149. 
 
 Prophecy fulfilled, 208 seq. 
 
 R. 
 
 Reaping, and sowing, 255 seq. 
 
 Recompense, Moral, 255 seq., 257. 
 
 Redemption, through Christ, 115 seq. 
 
 Regeneration, Spiritual, 266. 
 
 Revelations, of Paul, 24 seq., 52 seq. 
 
 Righteousness, by faith, 93 seq. 105 
 seq., 109, 159, 222 seq., 243. 
 
 S. 
 
 Salvation, in answer to faith, 150, 161 
 seq. ; through Christ, 155 seq. 
 
 Sarah and Hagar, 201 seq. 
 
 Self-glorification rebuked, 250 seq. 
 
 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Selfishness rebuked, 248 seq. 
 
 Sin, and the law, 129 seq., 160. 
 
 Sonship of believers, 173 seq., 176 
 seq. 
 
 Sowing, and reaping, 255 seq. 
 
 Star-worship, 167 seq. 
 
 Strife, among Christians, 234; warn- 
 ed against, 242 seq. 
 
 Subordination, of Christ, 
 37 seq. 
 
 Suffering, Fellowship in, 248 seq. 
 
 9 seq., 
 
 ube 
 
 Titus, 57 seq. 
 
 Treviri, The, 1. 
 
 Truth, not hostile, 189 seq. 
 U. 
 
 Unity of God, The, 145 seq. 
 
 Vie 
 Zeal, impure, 190 seq. ; pure, 192. 
 

 
 - 
 i 
 i 
 ea 
 P 
 * 
 . 
 i 
 ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ : Pi x 
 , x . ; at 
 ' 
 are i i ! ey raj's 
 ety : 4 
 Frisian 
 i r } rs 
 ‘ i 
 i Lira 
 re ne 
 e x 
 ra f3 F,) as 
 * u 
 oy : y k 
 5 aha) : . Site 
 4 vin 
 d ; i? 
 ¢ v4 
 * 
 4 , A Q 
 4 Ny 
 : — 
 i i 
 i. 
 ! 
 y ~ 
 K 
 “th Wy 
 . a rs 
 ‘ 
 ‘ a . 
 ; i . 
 ' i 
 , ' y i Pt: 
 ny j 
 - r mpl es 
 Runes ts 
 i - 3 
 \ 
 \ 
 ; 
 = i 
 aa 
 ; 
 
TO THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 
 
 BY 
 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 REV. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 
 
 WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY 
 NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
 
 HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE EVANGELICAL 
 LUTHERAN CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA, AND LATE PROFESSOR OF THE 
 GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, PENNSYLVANIA 
 COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA, 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 
 
 1884. 
 
ae y fk ie f 
 BY ra oe ins i A 
 ey ' , a 
 Tn fi yy 
 i) Pa! 
 t - s Ay . me 4 the, , \ 
 ; wi : i ; ity. 
 %& Pill a ' 7 
 Z Yaa 
 ae 
 ar 
 i 
 4” ~ 
 i 
 ~ 
 i} 
 
 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, _ 
 
 re - 
 
 By FUNK & WAGNALLS, | = 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C 
 
 - 
 
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 I nave at length the pleasure of issuing the last volume of the English 
 translation of Dr. Meyer’s own part in the great work which bears his 
 name, and of thereby completing an undertaking on which I have ex- 
 pended no small amount of time and labor at intervals for the last eight 
 years. I am aware that I have taxed considerably the patience of the 
 subscribers and of the publishers, but I felt it due to them, as well as to 
 Dr. Meyer, who had entrusted me with the charge of seeing his work 
 faithfully reproduced, that the work should be done with care rather 
 than with haste. 
 
 The present volume has been translated with skill and judgment by 
 Mr. Evans from the fourth edition of the German—the last form, in 
 which this portion of the Commentary had the advantage of Meyer’s own 
 revision. A fifth edition has since appeared (in 1878), under the charge 
 of Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in which he has treated the 
 book in a way similar to that adopted by Dr. Weiss with the Commenta- 
 ry on Mark and Luke, although not altering it to an equal extent. It is 
 difficult to see why he should have followed such a course, for he him- 
 self states that he ‘‘ has never been able to approve the custom of allow- 
 ing other hands to remodel the works of the departed.’’ I have already 
 expressed, in the prefatory note to the volume on Mark and Luke, the 
 grounds on which I take exception to the plan so pursued, and I content 
 myself with here referring to them as equally applicable in principle to 
 the less important changes made by Dr. Schmidt. I find a striking cor- 
 roboration of my remark as to the work manipulated by Dr. Weiss being 
 “to a considerable extent a new book by another author, and from a 
 standpoint in various respects different,’’ in the judgment pronounced 
 by Dr. Schiirer, in a recent review (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 9th Octo- 
 ber, 1880), on the same editor’s treatment of the Commentary on the 
 Gospel of John, when, after mentioning various features of ‘‘ complete 
 independence’’ and ‘‘ thorough remodelling,’’ he states that the result 
 of the whole is ‘‘ an essentially new work.’’ Dr. Schiirer indicates ap- 
 proval of the course pursued ; but it seems to me alike unfair to the 
 memory of Meyer, and uncalled for under the circumstances. It is 
 
280 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 quite open to an editor to write a book of his own on the subject, or to 
 append as much as he deems necessary to his author’s text by way of ad- 
 dition and correction ; but it is not open to him thus to recast an epoch- 
 making work of exegesis, and to retain for its altered shape the sanction 
 of the author’s name. At any rate, I have thought it right, so far as 
 the English reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, 
 the work of Meyer, without addition or subtraction, in its latest and pre- 
 sumably best form as it left his hands. 
 
 I may add, that whatever care may have been bestowed on the revis- 
 ion of the Commentary by Dr. Schmidt has not apparently extended to 
 the correction of the press, for many errors, which have been discovered 
 and corrected by Mr. Evans and myself in preparing the translation, still 
 disfigure the new edition of the German. It is, of course, extremely 
 difficult to avoid such errors in a work of the kind ; and I have no doubt 
 that, notwithstanding the care of the printers, to whose excellent arrange- 
 ments I am much indebted, the reader may light on not a few mistakes, 
 as concerns references, accents, and the like ; but, as Dr. Meyer was 
 not a particularly good corrector of the press, I trust that the English 
 edition may be found in that respect fully more accurate than the orig- 
 inal. 
 
 In the Generai Preface prefixed to the first volume issued (Romans), 
 I stated the grounds that had induced me to undertake the superintend- 
 ence of the work, and the revision of the translation, in the interests of 
 technical accuracy and of uniformity of rendering throughout. And in 
 order that the subscribers may be assured that the promise therein im- 
 plied has been fulfilled to the best of my ability, I think it right, in 
 conclusion, to state for myself (and I believe that the same may be said 
 for my friends Drs. Crombie and Stewart, who lent me their aid at a 
 time when other work was pressing heavily upon me) that I have care- 
 fully read and compared every sentence of the translation in the ten vol- 
 umes which I edited—collating it for the most part in Ms., as well as 
 subsequently on its passage through the press ; that I have not hesitated 
 freely to make such changes on the work of the translators as seemed to 
 me needful to meet the requirements which I had in view ; and that, 
 under these circumstances, I alone am formally and finally responsible 
 for the shape in which the Commentary appears. All concerned in the 
 enterprise have much reason to be gratified by the favor with which it 
 has been received. I have, indeed, seen some exception taken to the 
 style, and to the frequent use of technical terms such as felic, protasis, 
 and the like ; but our object was to translate the book into intelligible 
 English, not to recast its literary form (which, as I have formerly ex- 
 plained, has suffered from the mode in which the author inserted his 
 
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, 281 
 
 successive alterations and additions); and it is, from its very nature, 
 destined mainly for ministers and students, who ought to be familiar 
 with the import of those convenient technical terms. 
 
 At the close of the article by Dr. Schiirer, of which I have spoken be- 
 fore, he asks leave to repeat an urgent wish which he had some years 
 ago expressed, that ‘‘there might be appended to the introduction of 
 each volume of the German Commentary a list of the exegetical litera- 
 ture.’’ He does not seem to be aware that in the English edition this 
 want has been supplied with considerable fulness. I shall be glad to 
 place the lists—all of which were prepared by me, except that prefixed 
 to the Gospel of John, for which I am indebted to Dr. Crombie—at the 
 service (a few errors apart) of any future editors of the original. 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 Guascow CoLieGce, October, 1880. 
 
PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 Since the year 1859, when the third edition of this Commentary was 
 issued, there has appeared hardly any contribution of scientific impor- 
 tance to the exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians. The Commen- 
 tarius Criticus of the late Dr. Reiche contains, doubtless, many good 
 exegetical remarks ; but they are subservient to his main aim, which is 
 critical, and elucidate merely detached passages or expressions ; while 
 the Lectures of Bleek are very far from having the importance which has 
 been justly recognized as belonging to the previous series of Lectures by 
 him on the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 But while thus, apart from various able discussions of particular pas- 
 sages, I was less directly stimulated by new literary apparatus to subject 
 my work to revision, the labor itself was not thereby rendered the lighter. 
 The dies diem docet could not but, in the case of a task so moment- 
 ous, have its title fully conceded ; and it will be found that I have 
 sought to place much ona better and more complete footing, so as to do 
 fuller justice to the great object of ascertaining thoroughly, clearly, and 
 dispassionately the meaning of the Apostle’s discourse. By this I 
 do not understand the discovery of those fanciful illusions [ Phantasma- 
 gorieen| that people call profound. For the latter there is assuredly lit- 
 tle need in the case of Paul, who, with the true penetration characteris- 
 tic of his views and ways of unfolding them, knows how to wield his 
 gifts of discourse so that his meaning shall be clear and palpable and 
 apt; and least of all in the case of this very Epistle, where the Christo- 
 logical teaching rises of itself to the utmost height and embraces heaven 
 and earth. This distinctive character cannot be injured by the circum- 
 stance that the apostolic writing, as a letter to the Hphesians,—such as, 
 according to the critically-attested address, it is and will remain,—con- 
 tinues to be, at all events, an enigmatical phenomenon, and its histori- 
 cal conceivableness in so far an open question. Its elevation above the 
 changes and controversies of Christological formulae and modes of con- 
 ception cannot be thereby affected, and its prominent position in the 
 New Testament as at once a testimony and a test of the truth cannot, 
 amid any such change and strife, be prejudicially endangered. 
 
 Hannover, 10/h Nov. 1866. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 [For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testa- 
 ment, see the list prefixed to the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew ; for 
 those which treat of the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see that 
 which is prefixed to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The fol- 
 lowing list includes only those expositions which relate to the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians. Works mainly of a popularand practical character have, with a 
 few exceptions, been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in them- 
 selves, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the 
 present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by 
 Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended 
 denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued ; + marks 
 the date of the author’s death ; c. = circa, an approximation to it.] 
 
 [Barry, Alfred, Principal of King’s College, London, and Canon of West- 
 minster: The Epistle to the Ephesians, with commentary (Handy 
 Commentary Series), edited by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol). 16°, London, Paris and New York.] 
 Bartus (Bartholomaeus), + 1637, Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Commentarius in 
 Epistolam ad Ephesios. .. . 4°, Gryphisw. 1619. 
 
 Baumearten (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle. See Ganarrans. 
 BauMeGarten-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: 
 
 Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. . . . Herausgege- 
 ben yon Ernst Julius Kimmel... . 8°, Jena, 1847. 
 Bayne (Paul), + 1617, Minister at Cambridge: An entire commentary upon the 
 whole Epistle . . . to the Ephesians. . . . 2°, Lond. 1643. 
 
 BuEeEx (Friedrich), ¢ 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe 
 an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser. . . . 8°, Berl. 1865. 
 
 Boprus. See Boyp. 
 
 Boyp (Robert) of Trochrig, + 1627, Principal at Glasgow and Edinburgh : in 
 Epistolam ad Ephesios praelectiones supra cc. . . . 2°, Lond. 1652, al. 
 
 Bravune (Karl), Superintendent in Altenburg: Die Briefe S. Pauli an die 
 Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper, Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. 
 
 [Lange’s Bibelwerk. ] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867. 
 Translated from the German, with additions [Ephesians], by M. B. 
 Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York, 1870. 
 
 Bucer (Martin), + 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : Praelectiones in Epistolam 
 ad Kphesios habitae Cantabrigiae . . . in lucem editae diligentia Im. 
 Tremellii. 2°, Basil. 1562. 
 
284 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 CHANDLER (Samuel), D.D., + 1766, Presbyterian Minister in London, [See 
 GALATIANS. | 
 
 Cramer (Johann Andreas), + 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Neue Uebersetzung 
 
 des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer Auslegung desselben. 
 
 40, Hamb. 1782. 
 
 Croctus (Johann), + 1659, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarius in Epistolam 
 
 ad Ephesios. 8°, Cassellis, 1642. 
 
 Davies (John Llewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone. See Putp- 
 PIANS and COLOSSIANS. 
 
 Dinant (Petrus), + 1724, Minister at Rotterdam: De Brief aan die van Efeze 
 verklaart en toegepast. 4°, Rotterd. 1711, al. 
 
 Eapiz (John), D.D., + 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian 
 
 Church: A commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 
 sians. 8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1854. 
 
 Exxzicorr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A eritical 
 
 and grammatical commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 
 8°, Lond. 1855, al. 
 
 Esmanrcu (Heinrich Peter Christian), + 1831, Rector at Schleswig : Brief an die 
 
 Epheser tibersetzt. 8°, Altona, 1785. 
 
 Ewaxp (Georg Heinrich August), + 1876, Prof. Or. Lang. at Géttingen: Sieben 
 
 Sendschreiben des Neuen Bundes uebersetzt und erklirt. [Send- 
 schreiben an die Heidenchristen (die Epheser). ] 
 
 8°, Gotting. 1870. 
 
 Frreuson (James), + c. 1670, Minister of Kilwinning. See GALATIANS. 
 Fuarr (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tibingen. See GanaTrans. 
 
 GuvE (Gottlob Friedrich), + 1756, Pastor at Lauban : Grindliche Erliuterung 
 des lehrreichen Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Lauban, 1735. 
 
 Hacenzacu (Karl Rudolph),} 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad 
 Philemonem interpretatus est C. R. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil. 1829. 
 Haruess (Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von), + 1879, President of the Consistory at 
 Miinich : Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 
 8°, Erlang. 1834, al. 
 Heryricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf. See Koppzr 
 (Johann Benjamin). 
 Hopee (Charles), D.D., + 1878, Prof. Theol. at Princeton : A commentary on 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians. 8°, New York, 1856, al. 
 Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), + 1877, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : 
 Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht. 
 Theil iv. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser. iv. 2. Die Briefe an die 
 
 Kolosser und an Philemon. 8°, Nérdlingen, 1870. 
 Hortzmann (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Strassburg : Kritik der Epheser- 
 und Kolosser-Briefe. . . 8°, Leip. 1872. 
 
 HouzHAvseEN (Friedrich August) : Der Brief an die Epheser iibersetzt und erklart. 
 8°, Hannov. 1833. 
 
 KGHLER (C. N.): Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Epheser. 
 
 8°, Kiel, 1854. 
 Koprse (Johann Benjamin), + 1791, Superintendent at°Gotha: Novum Testa- 
 mentum Graece perpetua annotatione illustratum. Voll. i.—iv. 8°, 
 Gitting. 1778-83. [Vol. vi. Epp. ad Galatas, Ephesios, Thessaloni- 
 censes. Editio tertia emendata et aucta. Curavit H. Chr. Tychsen. 
 Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), + 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna: Der 
 
 Brief an die Epheser iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 
 8°, Frankf. a. M. 1789. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 285 
 
 Lacus (Daniel), + 1678, Prof. Math. at Greifswald : Commentatio quadripartita 
 
 super Epistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Gryphisw. 1664. 
 Licutroor (Joseph Barber), D.D., Bishop of Durham. See Puinipprans and Co- 
 lossians. 
 
 Locks (John), + 1704. See GALATIANS. ; 
 Luruer (Martin), + 1546, Reformer: Die Epistel an die Epheser ausgelegt, aus 
 seinen Schriften herausgegeben von Chr. G. Eberle. 8°, Stuttg. 1878. 
 
 Masor [Mayer] (Georg), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Enarratio Episto- 
 
 lae Paulii scriptae ad Ephesios. 8°, Vitemb, 1552. 
 Marrutes (Conrad Stephan), Prof. Theol, at Greifswald : Erklarung des Briefes 
 Pauli an die Epheser. .. . 8°, Greifsw. 1834. 
 Meter (Friedrich Karl), + 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Commentar iiber den 
 Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1834. 
 Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig. See 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 Mouscuuus [Mevussiin] (Wolfgang), + 1573, Prof. Theol. at Berne. See GaLaTrans. 
 
 Passavant (Theophilus) : Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes 
 
 Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Basel, 1836. 
 Porp (G. C.) : Uebersetzung und Erklarung der drei ersten Kapitel des Briefs 
 an die Epheser, nebst einer kurzen Hinleitung.... 4°, Rostock, 1799. 
 
 Roreitt (Herman Alexander), + 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Commentarius 
 
 in principium Epistolae ad Ephesios. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1715. 
 Et commentarii . . . pars altera, cum brevi Epistolae ad Colossenses 
 exegesi. Ed. Dion. And. Roell. 40, Traj. ad Rhen. 1731. 
 Roxttock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh : In Epis- 
 tolam Pauli ad Ephesios commentarius. 40, Edin. 1590, al. 
 Royaarps (Albertus): . .. Paullus’ Brief aan de Ephesers schriftmatig ver- 
 klaart. 3 deelen. 4°, Amsterd. 1735-38. 
 Riickert (Leopold Immanuel), + c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Der Brief Pauli 
 an die Epheser erlautert und vertheidigt. 8°, Leip. 1834. 
 
 ScHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die Epheser, 
 Philipper, Colosser. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Lange’s 
 
 Bibelwerk, IX. ] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862. 
 Scamp (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Paraphrasis super 
 Epistolam ad Ephesios. 40, Strassb. 1684, al. 
 
 ScHNAPPINGER (Bonifacius Martin Wunibald), + c. 1825, Prof. at Heidelberg : 
 
 Brief an die Epheser erklirt und erliutert von Bonifaz yom heil. Wun- 
 
 ibald. 40, Heidelb. 1793. 
 
 Scutirze (Theodor Johann Abraham), + 1830, Director of the Gymnasium at 
 Gera : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. 
 
 8°, Leip. 1778. 
 
 SpreneR (Philip Jakob), + 1705, Consistorial-Rath at Berlin: Erklarung der 
 
 Episteln an die Epheser und Colosser, . . . 4°, Halae, 1706, al. 
 Srrvart (Peter), + 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentarius in Episto- 
 lam ad Ephesios. 49 Ingolstad. 1593. 
 
 Stier (Rudolph Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Hisleben : Die Gemeinde in 
 Christo, Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1848-49. 
 
 Tr (Salomon von), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden. See Romans. 
 
 Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Bibl. Interpretation at 
 New York : The Epistle to the Ephesians in Greek and English, with 
 an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856. 
 
 TycusEn (Thomas Christian), + 1834. See Korrz (Johann Benjamin). 
 
286 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 Varasuus [VASTEBLED] (Francois), + 1547, Prof. Heb. at Paris : Annotationes in 
 Novum Testamentum. [Critici Sacri. ] 
 
 Weiter (Hieronymus), + 1572, Superintendent at Freiberg: Commentarius 
 in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. 8°, Noriberg, 1559. 
 Wiesincer (J. C. August). See PHinIpPprans. 
 
 ZacHanrray (Gotthilf Traugott), + 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel. See Ganatrans. 
 Zancuius (Hieronymus), + 1590, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commentarius in 
 Epistolam ad Ephesios. 2°, Neostadii, 1594. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SEC. 1.—READERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE IS ADDRESSED. 
 
 commerce, arts, and sciences, and the seat of the world-renowned 
 worship of Artemis,—which, formerly one of the principal settle- 
 ments of the Ionian population, has, since its destruction by the 
 Goths, had its site marked only by gloomy ruins, and now by the 
 small village of Ajasaluk, or, according to Fellows, Asalook,’— Paul 
 planted Christianity (Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1, etc.) ; and his successful labors 
 there, during a period of nearly three years, placed him in the close confi- 
 dential relations to the church, of which his touching farewell to the elders 
 (Acts xx. 17 ff.) is an imperishable memorial. The church was in its founda- 
 tion a mixed one, composed of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts xix. 
 1-10, xx. 21) ; but at the later date, when our Epistle was composed, the 
 Gentile-Christian element, which already appears from Acts xix. 26 exten- 
 sively diffused, so greatly preponderated, that Paul could address the 
 church @ potiori as a Gentile-Christian one ; see i. 12f., ii. 1 ff., 11, 19, iv. 
 17, iii. 1. Hence it must not be inferred from this, that the Epistle could 
 not have been addressed to the Ephesian church.? 
 
 Our Epistle is expressly addressed, in i. 1, to the Christians at Ephesus.* 
 For the words év ’E¢éow are so decisively attested, that they cannot be de- 
 prived of their right toa place in the text, either by isolated counter- 
 witnesses, or by the internal grounds of doubt as to the Ephesian destina- 
 tion of the Epistle. Among the manuscripts, % has év ’E¢éom only from the 
 hand of a later corrector ; B has the words only in the margin, and (not- 
 withstanding Hug, de antig. Cod. Vat. p. 26) not from the first hand ; * 
 
 
 
 1 See, generally, Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. ete., 1842; Anger, wiber d. Laodicenerbrief 
 113 ff.; Pococke, Morgenl. III. p. 66 ff.; von (Beitr. z. Hinl. in’s N. T.1I.), 1843. Reiche, 
 Schubert, Reise in das Morgen. I. p. 284 ff. ; in his Comment. crit. in N. T. II. 1859, has 
 Guhl, Zphesiaca, Berol. 1842; Fellows, the most fully and thoroughly controverted 
 Journal written during an Excursion in Asia the view of the Epistle being destined for 
 Minor, London, 1838, p. 274 f. [See also Ephesus, and the genuineness of the words 
 Discoveries at Ephesus, by J.T. Wood, who ev “Epéow. Comp. also Weiss in Herzog’s 
 discovered the site of the Temple of Arte- Hncyki. XIX. s.v. ‘‘ Epheserbrief.”’ 
 mis in 1869.—Ed. | 4See Tischendorf in the allg. K.-Zeit. 
 
 2 Reiche, Bleek, and others. 1843, No. 116, and in the Stud. wnd rit. 
 
 3 See Liinemann, de ep. ad Eph. authentid, —_ 1847, p. 133. 
 
288 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 while in the Cod. 67, proceeding from the twelfth century,’ it was placed 
 certainly in the text by the first hand, but was deleted by a second hand 
 (which betrays generally an affinity with B). The evidence of the versions 
 is unanimous for év ‘E¢éow ; but in the Fathers we find undeniable indica- 
 tions that the omission in B s*, and the deletion in Cod. 67, are founded 
 upon older codices, and have arisen out of critical grounds. For Basil the 
 Great, contra Hunom. ii. 19,° says : roic "Edecioue éxiotéAAwv ¢ yvyciog jvopé- 
 voe T@ bvtt, ‘* writing to the Ephesians as being united truly by knowledge 
 to Him who is” (that is, to Him who is existent, in the absolute sense) dv 
 émiyvocewc, bvTag avtove idialdévTwe @vouacev eimav’ TOt¢G dylioLtg TOlg OvGaLD 
 kal meotoicg Ev Xptots *Inoov. Otto yap kai of xpd yudv Tapadeddxact, 
 Kal jpeic év Toi¢ TaAaiowe TOV avttypadav ebphKauev, ‘he calls them in a special 
 sense those who are, saying, To the saints roi¢ otce and the faithful in 
 Christ Jesus. For thus those before us have transmitted it, and we have 
 found it in the ancient copies.” From this passage it is clear that Basil 
 considered it indeed certain that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians, 
 but looked upon the words év ’Edésw as non-genuine, to which conclusion 
 he had been led not merely by way of tradition, but also through the old 
 Mss. existing in his time, which he had himself looked into, and which had 
 not éy ’Edéow.* It has, however, been incorrectly asserted that Jerome also 
 did not find év ’Edéow in Mss., but knew it merely as a conjecture.* He 
 says, namely, oni. 1 :° Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant ex e0, quod 
 Moysi dictum sit, ‘‘Some, with an excessive refinement, think from what 
 was said to Moses” [Ex. ili. 14] : haec dices jiliis Israel: qui est misit me, 
 
 etiam 0s, qui Hphesi sunt sancti et fidelis, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos.* .. . 
 
 1 According to others, including Reiche 
 (Comm. crit. p. 102), even from the ninth or 
 tenth century; but not from the year 1331, 
 as Credner, Hinl. I. 2, p. 397, states. This 
 year belongs to the Codex 67, which con- 
 tains the Acts and Catholic Epistles. See 
 Griesbach, II. p. xv. ; Scholz, II. p. x. 
 
 2 Opp. ed. Garnier, I. p. 254. 
 
 3 We must candidly recognize this as the 
 result of the words of Basil. It is a parti- 
 san and mistaken view to assert that, in 
 making the above quotation of the address 
 of our Epistle, he had not included év 
 °Efdéeow, because he had previously said rots 
 *Edectous emiatéAAwy, and that his appeal to 
 tradition and the old mss. applied only to the 
 article tots before ovevy (l’Enfant, Wolf), or 
 to otow (Wiggers in the Stud. wv. krit. 1841, 
 p. 423 f.). In opposition to l’Enfant, it may 
 be urged that Basil must necessarily have 
 written tovs ovras previously, because 
 the genuineness and the stress of the article 
 (which is still wanting in Cod. 46) would 
 have been in question; in opposition to 
 Wiggers, that not the slightest critical trace 
 of a previous omission of otcvy is to be found; 
 while, against both, we may urge the deci- 
 sive consideration, that it is in the highest 
 
 degree arbitrary to assume that in the case 
 of averbal critical citation, such as Basil 
 here gives with so earnest and emphatic a 
 statement of his reason for doing so (oUt 
 yapx.7.A.), words were passed over, because 
 they would be obvious of themselves, and 
 words, too, which were so far from being un- 
 important, that in fact it was only their ab- 
 sence that could warrant the metaphysical 
 explanation of rots otow, and did beyond 
 doubt give rise to it. And if Basil were 
 concerned only with rots or ovow, why, 
 then, has he not merely cited the passage 
 as far as ovov, but also added the kai moots 
 ev X.1., so unimportant for that metaphys- 
 ical conception of tots cdovv, and—strangest 
 of all—omitted just the év ’"Epéow which 
 stood between? An inconceivable parsi- 
 mony! No; no reader could understand 
 the ovrw yap «.7.A. otherwise than of the 
 form of address just diterally cited in the 
 TOls aylols Tots OVELY Kat TLCTOLS ev X.,’1., from 
 which the recension which was then current 
 differed, in that it contained év "Ed¢éeow. 
 
 4 Bottger, Beitr. 3, p. 37; Olshausen. 
 
 5 Opp. ed. Vallars. VII. p. 545. 
 
 6 Probably (see the scholion from Origen 
 in Tischendorf) this explanation proceeded 
 
INTRODUCTION. 289 
 Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et jfideles sint, 
 seriptam arbitrantur, ‘‘ These words shalt thou say to the children of Israel, 
 He who is hath sent me, that the saints and faithful at Ephesus are ad- 
 dressed by a term descriptive of essence. Others, indeed, suppose that the 
 epistle was written not simply to those who are, but to those who are at 
 Ephesus, saints and faithful.” But this ‘‘seriptam arbitrantur,” ‘ they 
 thought it written,” does not refer to the fact that these ‘‘ alii,” ‘‘ others,” 
 had thought that the readers of the Epistle were the Ephesians ; to Jerome, 
 on the contrary, év ’E¢éow is quite an undoubted part of the text (sanctis 
 omnibus, qui sunt Ephesi, ‘‘to all saints who are at Ephesus,” is his reading), 
 and he only adduces two different explanations of roic oiow, by which, 
 however, év ’Edéow is not affected. According to the one interpretation, 
 the Christians at Ephesus were designated as existing in the metaphysical 
 sense ; according to the other, roi¢ oto was taken in the usual simple 
 sense of eivaz, and consequently the Epistle was regarded as directed not to 
 the evistent Ephesian Christians, but to the Christians who were to be found 
 at Ephesus. ‘Thus Jerome has not mentioned the omission of év ’Edéow, and 
 therefore probably was not aware that the opinion of those ‘‘ quidam” had 
 originated from the very reading without év ’Edéow ; on which account he 
 looked upon this opinion as a curiosity. Hence he furnishes, almost con- 
 temporaneously with Basil, an important counterpoise to his testimony. 
 But if Basil in his time stands alone, he has a precursor, whose testimony 
 points back to a considerably greater antiquity, in Tertullian, who says, 
 contra Mare. v.11: ‘‘Praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios 
 praescriptam | habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos, ‘‘ 1 pass by here another 
 epistle, which we have, addressed to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the 
 Laodiceans ;” and at ver. 17: ‘‘ Heclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad 
 Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando 
 interpolare gestiit, ‘‘According to the true testimony of the church, we hold 
 this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans, But 
 Marcion had sometimes a strong desire to interpolate the title” (¢.e., to make 
 it otherwise, alter it), quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem 
 de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam, ‘‘as if 
 in that he had been a very diligent inquirer ; but the question of the title 
 is of no account, since the apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to some.” Ac- 
 cording to this, in Tertullian’s time the Epistle was acknowledged by the 
 orthodox church, and by Tertullian himself,* as an Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 
 from Origen, since it looks quite like him, 
 and he wrote a commentary on the Epistle, 
 
 to the address and salutation, which are, in 
 fact, an integral part of the epistolary text 
 
 which was used by Jerome. 
 
 1 That is, swperscribed. Comp. for example, 
 Geliius, v. 21, ‘“‘epistola . . . cui titulus prae- 
 scriptus est,” ‘‘ the epistle to which the title 
 is prefixed.” The words ‘‘ ad Ephesios,” “to 
 the Ephesians,” and ‘‘ ad Laodicenos,” ‘‘to 
 the Laodiceans,”’ are the “ ipsissima verba,”’ 
 “very words,” of the prefixed ¢itulus prae- 
 scriptus. Hence titulus, “ title,’ and prae- 
 scrivere, ‘‘ prefixed,” are not to be referred 
 
 19 
 
 itself (against Harless, Limemann, and 
 others, and Laurent in the Jahrb. fiir 
 Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 131). See also Reiche, 
 Comment. crit. p. 109. The reading perscrip- 
 tam in the above passage of Tertullian has 
 evidently arisen from praescriptam (which 
 is contained in the editions of Pamela 
 and Rigaltius) not having been understood. 
 
 2Comp. cont. Mare. iv. 5, de praescrip. 
 haer. 36. 
 
290 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 and only heretics like Marcion regarded it as addressed to the Laodiceans ; 
 but Tertullian cannot have read or known of év’Egéow, i. 1, because other- 
 wise he would not have spoken merely of a change in the superseription,’ and 
 would not have appealed to the ‘‘ veritas ecelesiae,” ‘‘truth of the church,” 
 but to the tert. It has been objected, indeed (see especially, Harless and 
 Wiggers, and compare also Liinemann), that this is an inference from the 
 critical standpoint of owr time, and that it would have been quite natural 
 in Tertullian summarily to bring in the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae,” ‘“‘truth of the 
 church.” But this would only have been natural for him in the event of the 
 question relating to a falsification of the text by Marcion. The question 
 here concerns a falsification of the title, which, if the words év ’Eg¢éow had 
 stood in the text, would have been at variance with the text ; and what 
 would have been in that case more natural than to appeal tothe apostolic ép 
 ’Edéow ? ~The invocation of the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae” serves precisely to prove 
 that an apostolic év ’Edéow was not known to Tertullian. This at the same 
 time applies in opposition to the remark of Wiggers, I. 1, p. 429, that 
 Marcion could not have read anything else than év ’E¢éo in the address, if 
 he had discovered anything to be changed in the superscription, which was 
 naturally (?) of the same tenor (7 mpd¢ ’E@eciovg éxiotoAy). No, he not merely 
 may, but must have read in the address nothing at all of the place for which 
 the Epistle was destined ; otherwise he must have falsified the address also, 
 and not merely the traditional swperseription—which is not to be assumed, 
 since Tertullian brings a charge against him merely as concerns the titulus, 
 ‘* title,” and, on his own part, betrays no knowledge whatever of an- 
 iv ’Ed¢éow in the address. How, then, could Tertullian dismiss the falsifica- 
 tion of Marcion with the evasive nihil autem de titulis interest cum ad omnes, 
 ‘*the question of titles is of no account,” etc., if he had before him in 
 the apostolic text év ’Edéow, before which the title pic Aaod:xéacg would at 
 ence have broken down? Little as it fell in with Tertullian’s purpose to 
 assail Marcion at length on account of his falsification of the title, since he 
 was occupied in confuting his dogmatic errors, surely it would have re- 
 quired no more words to dispose of the falsifier of the title by an appeal to 
 the text, than to get rid of the matter with the superficial nihil autem de 
 titulis, ete. And how could Marcion himself (evidently on the ground of 
 Col, iv. 16) have hit upon the idea of changing the title of the Epistle, if 
 he himself had read év ’Hdéow in i. 1? Dogmatic reasons, which at other 
 times determined the heretic in his critical proceedings, did not exist here 
 at all. If, in accordance with all this, the testimony of Tertullian, as well 
 as the procedure of Marcion, to which he bears witness, is adverse to the év 
 "Edéow 3 that, on the other hand, of Ignatius, ad Hph. 12, is not to be used 
 either for or against, whether we look at his words in the shorter or the 
 longer recension. ? 
 
 1 Praescriptam, titulum; comp. on this TavToTe €v Tats Senoecty avTov hYN- 
 
 last, de pudic. 29, al. provevec vuov (yulg. near), “ye are 
 2 According to the longer recension (in initiated into the mysteries of the gospel 
 Dressel, p. 832): “Yuets 6 IavAov ouupvo- with Paul the holy, the martyred, who is 
 
 Tat €oTé HylagwEevov, pcmapTupnuevov...o0s always mindful of you (vulg. of us) in his 
 
INTRODUCTION. 291 
 
 But although, when the matter is thus cleared up, Basil on the ground of 
 older mss. rejected év ’Edéow, and Marcion and Tertullian did not read the 
 words, they are yet to be most decidedly retained as original, for the follow- 
 ing external and internal reasons (in addition to the attestation, upon which 
 we have already remarked, of all other still extant witnesses, and especially 
 of the versions) :—(1) The entire ancient church has designated our Epistle 
 expressly as Epistle to the Ephesians (Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3 ; Clemens Alex. 
 Strom. iv. 8, p. 592, ed. Potter ; Tertullian, Origen, and others, even as 
 early as the Canon Murat., and Valentinus in the Philosoph. Or. vi. 84) with- 
 out even a single voice, with the exception of Marcion’s, being raised against 
 this view. But if the words év ’E¢éom bad been wanting from the outset, and 
 the Epistle had thus borne on the face of it no place of destination, such a 
 consensus would have been quite as inexplicable in itself as at variance with 
 the analogy of the other Epistles, in which throughout the judgment of the 
 church as to the first readers coincides with the superscription, where there 
 is one, and beyond doubt depends upon it. (2) In all his Epistles Paul 
 designates in the address the recipients most definitely, even when he does 
 not write to the Christians of a single town (1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1), or to 
 a single church (Gal. i. 2). Accordingly, our Epistle, if fairly regarded in 
 accordance with the address, should év ’Eg¢éow not be genuine, would be 
 marked out as a catholic one, without any limitation whatever of locality or 
 nationality of the readers,—a view with which the contents (i. 15, ii. 11, 
 iii. 1, iv. 17, etc.) as well as the mission of Tychicus (vi. 21) would be de- 
 cidedly at variance. (8) On each occasion, when St. Paul in the address has 
 used roic¢ otc, it serves to specify the locality of the readers. See Rom. i. 
 7: tolc ovow év ‘Pouy ; Phil. 1. 1: roic ovow év OcAimmore 3 1 Cor. i. 2: 
 év Kopivm, and even so 2 Cor. i. 1. Compare the addresses in the Ignatian 
 Epistles. (4) If Paul had written roi¢ dyioue toic obow Kai mioroic, We should 
 have a form of address, which does not even admit of any tolerable expla- 
 nation. It would yield the meaning : to the saints, who are also (not merely 
 saints, but also) believing." But what a flat and inappropriate severance of 
 the ideas ‘‘ saints and believing,” which should rather be conjoined into unity 
 (comp, Col. i. 2)! With the apostle there are no saints, who are not also 
 
 TH OvOX 
 
 prayers.” Following the reading yar, makes mention of you in his whole letter! 
 
 Credner here concludes that our Epistle 
 was not directed to the Ephesians alone. 
 But it would apply to ‘ the Pauline Chris- 
 tians in general,” so that it would not at 
 all contain a reference to the individual 
 Epistle. According to the shorter recen- 
 sion, the passage runs thus: IlavAov x.7.A., 
 Os €v Taon EmLOTOAH MYUNMOVEVEL 
 vpa@v, “of Paul, who in every epistle ad- 
 monishes you.”’ Here év ragy emcatoAy does 
 not mean, in the whole Epistle,—a linguis- 
 tically erroneous interpretation which, 
 though still defended by Harless and re- 
 peated by Dressel, would yield a quite irrel- 
 evant meaning ; for how strange to say to 
 A, who has received a letter from B: B 
 
 This is surely obvious of itself, and is not 
 at all a point appropriate to be dwelt upon! 
 On the contrary, é€v macy émictoAy Means: 
 in every Epistle; so that Ignatius does not 
 mean our Epistle alone, nor yet by vpeav 
 specially the Ephesians as such, but the 
 Ephesians as Pauline Christians generally 
 (as regards category), and hence could say : 
 he makes mention of you in every Epistle. 
 It is not difficult to see how, in the words 
 under consideration, the longer recension 
 is related as explanatory to the shorter. 
 
 1 Tt is not necessary that in this case otouv 
 should stand after morots. Comp. Johni. 
 49, iv. 9; Acts vii. 2; Eph. ii. 1, etc. 
 
292 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 believers. The explanation of Meier is chargeable with the same inappro- 
 priateness : to the saints, who are also faithful (since the unfaithful have 
 ceased to be saints) ; and, moreover, it is to be taken into consideration 
 that ricroic is not defined to have the sense of faithful by the context, but 
 rather, when used in the address, and connected with év X. ’I., most natu- 
 rally presents the sense of believing, as in Col. i. 2.1 Credner, Hinl. I. 2, 
 p. 400, translates : to the saints, who are in fact also believers, and this is held to 
 mean : to the saints, who are true believers ; in the mouth of Paul equiva- 
 lent to Pauline Christians. But, in this case, roic obo could not, without 
 risk of being misapprehended, dispense with a defining addition (in fact), 
 or Paul at least must have written roi¢ Kai obow rioroic, in which case by 
 means of «ai the special emphasis of oto might be indicated (who are not 
 merely called believers, but aiso are so). Yet even thus the expression 
 would not be clear, and the meaning : to the Pauline Christians, would be 
 purely imported. In a context, where Pauline and anti-Pauline Christians 
 were spoken of, the reader might without further indication understand 
 under true believers the former ; but not in the address, where this ref- 
 erence is not suggested by anything, and the less so, seeing that this con- 
 trast does not come once under discussion in the Epistle itself. Schneck- 
 enburger and Matthies attach toic¢ otc to roi dyiowc. The latter? explains: 
 toi¢ ovowv, who are there (namely, in Asia Minor, whither Tychicus was jour- 
 neying to visit them), which imputes to Paul a strange clumsiness. But 
 Schneckenburger ? renders : to the saints, who are in fact such. But even thus 
 Paul, in order to obviate misunderstanding (and in the address of an official 
 writing at any rate people express themselves definitely and clearly), could 
 not have dispensed with some defining adjunct (77 fact) to roic obow 3 and, 
 even apart from this, how unsuitable would the address be, whether we ex- 
 plain the true saints as standing in contrast to the nominal Christians or to 
 the Jews! The former would yield an indefinite designation of the readers, 
 and would contain an exclusion and separation unsuited to the apostolic 
 spirit and working. And the latter would be quite out of place, since the 
 Epistle has nothing at all to do with the contrast to Judaism. All expla- 
 nations without év’Edéow are fanciful impossibilities, unless we keep to the 
 first-given simple translation of the words. Weiss does this in Herzog’s 
 Encykl. X1X. p. 480 ; rejecting év ’E¢éow, he makes the saints, who are believers 
 also on Christ,* to be said of the New Testament saints in contrast with those 
 of the Old Testament. But this contrast would itself be quite without any 
 motive in the contents of the Epistle ; indeed, in the xai (a/so) there would be 
 implied a side-glance at the unconverted Jews, which would be out of place 
 and unsuitable. 
 
 1 This also holds in opposition to Bott- 
 ger’s views, Beitrdge, 3, p. 29 ff.: to the 
 saints, who there ave also faithful, in which 
 the otow presents a contrast to the apostate 
 Jewish-Christians, who had been faithful. 
 Such a contrast would necessarily, from 
 the very nature of the case, have been 
 spoken of in the Epistle itself—We may 
 
 add that already the Gothic version has 
 translated motots, faithful (“ triggnaim”’). 
 
 2 Comp. Bengel. 
 
 3 Beitrage, p. 133. 
 
 4 So in substance also Reiche, Comm. crit. 
 p. 122: ‘‘ sanctis, tisdemque fidemin Christum 
 profitentibus,” ‘‘to the saints, and the same 
 professing faith in Christ.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 293 
 
 Tn view of all that has been said, we must defend év ’Edéow, 1. 1, as decid- 
 edly genuine. But wherefore was it omitted at so early a period’ in a por- 
 tion of the codices? Certainly this omission was not a mere transcriber’s 
 error ;* for not only is such an error in itself improbable at the very main 
 point of the address, but it would not have obtained any considerable diffu- 
 sion. Further, the possible reason, which may account at Rom. i. 7 forthe 
 absence of év ‘Péu7y in various Mss., namely, through a transcript of the Epis- 
 tle for public reading in another particular church, is here at any rate im- 
 probable, since the manuscripts not containing év’E¢éow must have been cir- 
 ‘culated in very different regions (Asia and Africa) and in very considerable 
 number. This latter fact might point to the hypothesis that, by omitting 
 év Egéow, it was sought to give to an Epistle so general in tenor and weigh- 
 ty, the impress of a Catholic one.* But, in point of fact, the apostolic Epis- 
 tles directed ad quosdam, ‘‘ to some,” were already of themselves regarded 
 as written ad omnes, ‘‘ to all,” 4 and hence there was no need of the proced- 
 ure indicated. Equally inadmissible, moreover, is the view (see below), 
 that from the very first in a portion of the manuscripts the place for the 
 local name was left vacant, and thereby év ’Edéow was omitted.® Nor yet 
 can we accept the dogmatic reason, that the name of the place was expunged 
 with a view to favor the metaphysical explanation of roi¢ oiaw, specified in 
 Basil and Jerome, since the converse alone is natural, namely, that the met- 
 aphysical interpretation of roic oiow arose from the fact of the text being al- 
 ready deprived of the év ’Edécw, 
 
 The omission would rather appear due to ancient historical criticism. 
 From the contents of the letter at a very early period the inference had been 
 drawn, that it was addressed to persons who were as yet personally unknown 
 to the apostle, and still novices in Christianity.° And how naturally did 
 this lead to the view that the Ephesians had not been the recipients, and so 
 to the striking out of év’Egéow ! The text written without év’Egéow was 
 soon laid hold of to support the metaphysical explanation of rote oiowv, which 
 had arisen out of it ; and the favor and diffusion which the latter received 
 
 1Marcion, Tertullian, the old mss. in ten this Epistle to them ;’’ and also in Eutha- 
 
 Basil. 
 
 2 Liinemann. 
 
 3 Comp. Wieseler, 
 Zeitalt. p. 438. 
 
 4 Jerome, c. Mare. v. 1%. 
 
 5 Schott, Zsag. p. 279, suggests that per- 
 haps Paul himself had commissioned ‘ly- 
 chicus to have copies for other churches 
 made at Ephesus, and to have the names 
 of these other churches inserted therein in 
 place of the €vy E¢eow, which came from 
 himself; and that a copyist had left a blank 
 for the future insertion of the name, which 
 he had forgotten thereafter to fill up. 
 
 ® Historical traces of this ancient view 
 are to be found in Theodoret, Praef.,andon 
 i. 15, who relates ‘‘ that some had asserted 
 that Paul pydérw tois “Edecious teOeapevor, 
 “never having seen the Ephesians,’ had writ- 
 
 Chronol. des apost. 
 
 lius (@p. Zaceagni in Collect. mon. vet. ecel. 
 p. 524) : n mpos “Efecious.. . is ev TH Tpoypahy 
 TO pvaTYpLov exTiveTat, TapamAnciws TH Tmpos 
 “Pwpatous: audorepors be e& akons yvwpijmots, Kat 
 €loly avTat Tpos aVTLOLATTOAHY apxal KaTHXOUME- 
 vw kal TLsT@Y Eioaywyat, ‘the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, in whose introduction the mys- 
 tery is presented, just as in that to the Ro- 
 mans: to both known by hearing, and 
 they are in distinction elements for cate- 
 chumens and introductions for believers.” 
 Comp. also the Synops. script. sacr. in Atha- 
 nasius, Opp. III. p. 194, ed. Bend.: tavtnv emo- 
 Te\Aer aro ‘Pans, ovTw MEV a’TOUS EwpaKws, 
 akovaas S€ povov wept avtav (Tay “Edectwv), 
 ““ Tle writes this from Rome, not as yet hay- 
 ing seen them, but only having heard of 
 them ”’ (é.e., of the Ephesians). 
 
294 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 from its accordance with the taste of the age necessarily contributed to the 
 spread of the text which was denuded of the év’E¢éom. The omission of 
 these words, thus originated and diffused, could not indeed do away with 
 the correct ecclesiastical tradition of the Epistle being destined for Ephesus, 
 or frustrate the preservation of év ’Egéom and the triumph of that original 
 reading (supported as it was by all the versions), which had been already 
 achieved by the time of Jerome; but it did make it possible for Marcion, 
 seeing that he already found év ’Egéow no longer in the text, to alter, in 
 opposition to tradition, the title zpd¢ ’Egeoiovg into rpd¢ Aaodixéac, regarding 
 the Epistle on the basis of Col. iv. 16 as addressed to the Laodiceans—in the 
 service of the same criticism, under which, only handled in a negative sense, 
 év ’Egéow had disappeared. 
 
 But, it is said, the contents—quite general in tenor, without personal 
 reminiscences and references, without salutations (not even Timotheus and 
 Aristarchus are mentioned, as in Col. i. 1, iv. 10 ; Philem. 24), without any 
 trace of that close intimacy in which Paul had stood to his Ephesian con- 
 verts, as a father to his children '—are of such a character that the Epistle 
 of itself betrays that it was not directed to the Ephesians ; and the passages, 
 i. 15, ili. 1-4, iv. 21, point to readers who had not been in any personal con- 
 nection with the apostle. Mainly based on this internal character of the 
 Epistle, we find two hypotheses concerning the readers for whom it was 
 destined :—I. Following Marcion, Grotius, Hammond, Mill, Pierce, du Pin, 
 Wall, the younger Vitringa, Venema, Wetstein, Paley, e¢ a/., including, re- 
 cently, Holzhausen and others (see on Col. iv. 16), as well as Ribiger,’ have 
 supposed 3 that the Epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans, as being person- 
 ally unknown to the apostle (Col. ii. 1). While this hypothesis * falls of 
 itself, if the genuineness of év ’Edécw is established, it may, moreover, be 
 urged in opposition to it—(a) that from Marcion’s procedure we may not in- 
 fer an Asiatic tradition. For the ecclesiastical tradition is quite unani- 
 mous in regarding the Ephesians as readers of the Epistle; there is no 
 trace of deviation ; the heretic stands alone with his adherents, without 
 any anticipation or echo of his critical paradox. (6) Since, according to 
 Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Laodiceans had at the very first become 
 known in two different churches,—in Laodicea and Colossae,—and 
 without doubt was disseminated from both by copies, it is the more 
 incomprehensible how the Ephesians could appropriate to themselves 
 
 1 Jt is arbitrary and contrary to the man- 
 ner of the apostle to assume, with Wurm 
 (in the Zvib. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 98), that 
 Paul, because of painful experiences which 
 he had had in Ephesus, avoided mention of 
 previous occurrences. How altogether dif- 
 ferent is his procedure, especially in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians ! 
 
 2 Christologia Paul. p. 48. 
 
 3 See, in opposition to this assumption, 
 also Satori, wiber ad. Laodicenerbrief, Liibeck, 
 1853, and especially Reiche, p. 131 sqq. 
 Reiche, however, considers our Epistle as 
 
 identical with that mentioned in Col. iv. 16 ; 
 in his view it was destined not merely for 
 the Laodiceans, but also for Hierapolis and 
 other churches of that region, and thence had 
 no place specified in the opening address ; 
 but Paul had orally imparted to Tychicus 
 more particular directions as to that point. 
 See, in opposition to the alleged encyclical 
 destination of the Epistle, generally what is 
 said below under II. The view of Weiss is 
 essentially similar to that of Reiche. 
 4 To which Baur, p. 457, is also inclined. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 295 
 the Laodicean letter, and how universal ecclesiastical tradition could 
 support this view without meeting with opposition in the church itself. 
 The appeal to the earthquake, which, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiv. 27, 
 in the year 60* destroyed Laodicea,’ yields no result, since, according to 
 Tacitus, U.c., Laodicea was soon restored ; and the Christian church there 
 cannot have perished (Rev. iii.), still less the knowledge of the Epistle 
 which Paul had written to them. No doubt, in view of Col. iv. 16, there 
 must have been an affinity of contents between the Epistle to the Laodiceans 
 and that to the Colossians, which seems to tell in favor of the identity of 
 our Epistle with the former ; but may not Paul, besides our Epistle and that 
 to the Colossians, have written a third kindred in its contents ? which has 
 perished, like a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), one to the Philip- 
 pians (see on Phil. iii. 1, Remark), and perhaps also others, which have left 
 no traces behind. (c) If our Epistle is the Epistle to the Laodiceans, it must 
 have been written before the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. iv. 16), which, 
 according to § 2, is not to be assumed. Indeed, at Eph. vi. 21 and Col. iv. 
 7, there might possibly be not even meant one and the same journey of 
 Tychicus (which yet forces itself on us so undeniably in pursuance of the 
 words and the geographical relations), seeing that Paul, in the Epistle to the 
 Colossians (iv. 15), directs the Laodiceans, and an individual among them, 
 to be saluted,—which, from the nature of the case, he would hardly have done, 
 if he had been sending to them at the same time a etter, and that by so 
 trusted a fellow-laborer,* who, besides, had to travel by way of Laodicea to 
 Colossae (see on Col. iv. 16, Remark). (d) What Holzhausen says of Col. 
 ii. 2, that it was written with a consciousness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 is purely imaginary. Following Beza,* and Ussher,® Garnier,’ Bengel, 
 Benson, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Ziegler,* Justi,® Stolz, Haenlein, 
 
 1 According to Eusebius, Chron., and Oro- 
 sius, Hist. vii. 7, only at a later date ; see 
 Wieseler, p. 455. 
 
 2 According to Eusebius and Orosius, 
 Colossae and Hierapolis also. 
 
 3 This enigma would only admit of solu- 
 tion from the domain of conjecture. The 
 easiest thing would be to say, that Paul, 
 when he had the Epistle to the Colossians 
 with his salutation to the Laodiceans al- 
 ready completed, had only then resolved to 
 send further with Tychicus «@ detier to the 
 Laodiceans, in drawing up which he was 
 aware that Tychicus would reach Laodicea 
 before Colossae. But with all hypotheses, 
 which are not made in the consistent fol- 
 lowing out of an ascertained fact, the 
 ground falls away under our feet. Others 
 have asserted that Paul wished to repeat 
 the salutations, or that he had only, as he 
 was writing to the Colossians, heard about 
 Nymphas through Epaphras; but these, 
 after all, are nothing but suppositions, 
 which, moreover, are invalidated by the 
 
 fact that our Epistle is to be placed «after 
 that to the Colossians (see § 2). Bertholdt 
 considers the salutation in Col. iv. 15 mere- 
 ly as introduction to the subsequent com- 
 mission (‘“‘have the letter brought to the 
 Laodiceans with my salutation’). But 
 how utterly in opposition to the connec- 
 tion ! 
 
 4See, in opposition to it, 
 p. Xxxix.—Il. - 
 
 5 Who, on the subscription to the Epistle, 
 expresses the conjecture that it was sent 
 not so much ad Ephesios ipsos proprie, 
 “properly to the Ephesians themselves,’ 
 as rather to Ephesus, ‘‘ ut ad ceteras Asiaticas 
 ecclesias transmitteretur,” ‘“‘that it might 
 be transmitted to the other Asiatic 
 churches ;” and that hence, probably, arose 
 the partial omission of ev “Efpéegw, 
 
 6 Tn his Annales ad ann. 64. 
 
 Tad Basil. l.c. 
 
 § In Henke’s Magaz. IV. 2, p. 225 ff. 
 
 9 Vermischte Abhandlungen, I. p. 81 fi. 
 
 Harless, 
 
296 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Schmidt, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Flatt, Hemsen, Schott, Feilmoser, 
 Schrader, Schneckenburger, Neander, Riickert, Credner, Matthies, Meier, 
 Harless, Béttger, Anger, Olshausen, Thiersch,! Guericke, Lange, Bleek, 
 and others have, though with manifold variations in detail,? regarded 
 our Epistle as a circular letter. In that case Ephesus has mostly been in- 
 cluded in the circle of churches concerned, but sometimes—as by Koppe, 
 Haenlein,* Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Reiche—entirely excluded ; while 
 Laodicea and its neighborhood have been in various ways brought in (accord- 
 ing to Credner, ¢.g., one copy of the letter was sent to Hphesus to be circulated 
 among the churches on the west coast of Asia Minor ; and another copy 
 to Laodicea, to be circulated among the churches in the interior), in fact, 
 have even been regarded as the locality for which the Epistle was primarily 
 and specially destined ; Bleek being withal of opinion that the Ephe- 
 sians only got it to read from Tychicus on his journey to Phrygia, and re- 
 tained for themselves a copy of it. But, in opposition to the view of any 
 sort of encyclical destination, we may decisively again urge—(a) the univer- 
 sal and undivided ecclesiastical tradition, which does not exhibit the very 
 slightest trace of such a destination. Indeed, both the orthodox and Mar- 
 cion are here at one, since both name only one church as the receiver of the 
 Epistle. And when we remember what a high honor any church could not 
 but consider it to have received an apostolic writing, the utter disappear- 
 ance of all knowledge that our Epistle had belonged to other churches, or 
 had been claimed by them as their property, would be quite inconceivable. 
 (6) Even apart from the circumstance that Paul does not in the Epistle give 
 the slightest hint of any encyclical destination for it, the words of the address 
 év ’Edéow, which cannot critically be dislodged, expressly testify against it. 
 Paul could not thus address it, if he had intended it for more extended cir- 
 culation, or even for other localities.t How very differently he knew how 
 to stamp on the face of the Epistles to the Corinthians the body of readers 
 for whom they were intended! But if the év ’Edéc@ is held to be spurious 
 
 1 Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 145 sqq. 
 
 2 See Liinemann, p. 33 sqq. 
 
 3 Who has even lighted on the Pelopon- 
 nesus | 
 
 4 This holds also in oppostion to the form 
 which Harless has given to the matter. 
 The readers, in his view, were daughter- 
 churches of Ephesus, or Christians scattered 
 about the country, who had first been made 
 acquainted with the gospel from Ephesus, 
 and of whom Paul had received intelligence 
 through the Ephesians. To these Christians 
 he had forwarded the Epistle through the 
 Ephesian church. But as the Ephesian 
 church itself might also extract benefit and 
 edification from it, the apostle had wished 
 that the Epistle should be publicly read to 
 the principal church and remain with it. 
 Harless conceives of Tychicus as giving the 
 following message to the Ephesians: ‘J 
 
 bring to you here aletter which concerns you 
 all, but specially the Gentile Christians, of 
 whom you have spoken to the apostle. Take 
 care that the letter, when it has been read with 
 you, should also come into their hands, ye who 
 know best the ways and means for that end ; 
 and bring me to them, in order that I, in ac- 
 cordance with the apostle’s commission, may 
 tell them what Ihave told you concerning his 
 condition.” Thus the letter would primari- 
 ly and mainly have applied to readers ovzt- 
 side of Ephesus, and Paul would have ad- 
 dressed it rots otow “EN “Edéom? He would 
 have suppressed its principal destination, 
 and would have placed as the address only 
 a mediate and subordinate one? No, Paul 
 would have known how really to express in 
 the opening address the relation which 
 Harless has merely presupposed, if he had 
 so conceived of it. See also Reiche, p. 127. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 297 
 (against this view, sce above), then the address, which with év ’Egécw is too 
 limited for a circular letter, would without these words be too wide for the 
 purpose ; for then no local definition of the readers whatever would be indi- 
 cated, and the Epistle would present itself not as an encyelical, but as a 
 catholic’ Epistle. (c) If, with Riickert and Olshausen, we should assume that 
 Paul, in the several copies which he gave to Tychicus, had left blank the 
 name of the place in order that it might be subsequently filled up with the 
 names of the churches concerned,’ or that at least in some copies a vacant 
 space was left to be filled up at pleasure,* this is (a) altogether an arbitrary 
 transplanting of a modern procedure from the counting-houses of the present 
 day back into the apostolic age, from which we have circular letters indeed, 
 but no trace of such a process of drawing them out, the mechanical 
 nature of which would hardly square with the spirit of the apostolic 
 age. And (3) would not the Epistle, even if every church concerned had 
 received a copy provided with its own name, have yet remained a circular 
 letter ? Thus, indeed, in the individual church-names of the different copies 
 there would have been just so many contradictions to the proper destination 
 of the Epistle. Why, then, should not Paul—in case of his giving to 
 Tychicus the alleged circular letter in several copies—have named in every 
 address uniformly the recipient churches as a whole? (y) It would have 
 been utter folly 4if Paul in a portion of the copies had left the name of the 
 place blank, to be filled up according to pleasure in a manner which had not 
 already been fixed. Could he write i. 15 ff., vi. 22, without having quite a 
 definite conception what churches he had in view? (0) If only the name 
 was to be left blank, why was év also omitted ? why did not the copies run 
 Toic ovou év . (©) How inexplicable, that only copies 
 with éy ’Egéc, and, in addition, those having no name whatever, should 
 have had the good fortune to be preserved and distributed ! Each of the 
 churches in question would have sought to preserve and to multiply the 
 copy addressed to it under its name ; and different traditions with regard to 
 the readers would inevitably have been current at a very early date in the 
 church side by side. (¢) If Laodicea was in the circle of churches in ques- 
 tion, Colossae also was so (Col. iv. 16). But Colossae did not get the 
 alleged circular letter through the despatch of a copy intended for the Co- 
 lossians, and addressed to them, but had to procure for itself the Laodicean 
 
 
 
 . Kal WioTolc K.T.A. 2 
 
 Hpistle from Laodicea (Col. l.c.). 
 
 1 Success cannot attend the attempt men- 
 tally to supply the local destination of the 
 letter (that disappears with the rejection 
 of év’Eféow) from any other quarter in deal- 
 ing with so singular and nameless an ad- 
 dress. Weiss, /.c. (comp. Reiche), thinks 
 that Paul had given information to Tychi- 
 eus for what circle of churches in Asia 
 Minor the letter was intended; but that 
 the later tradition had appropriated it to 
 the chief town and chief church, and had 
 completed the address accordingly. But 
 that premiss is arbitrarily assumed, and 
 
 These arguments tell at the same time 
 
 this bold stroke of tradition would hardly 
 have gained universal assent, especially in 
 view of its enigmatic relation to the con- 
 tents of the Epistle. If Ephesus did not 
 from the first stand in the text, as Marcion 
 did not read it, the latter would haveacted 
 with more tact in having recourse to Laodi- 
 ced. 
 
 2 Ussher first suggested this, followed by 
 Garnier, Bengel, Eichhorn, Hug, and others. 
 
 3 Moldenhauer, Michaelis, Bertholdt, 
 Hemsen, and others. 
 
 4 Comp. Matthaei, ed. min. III. p. 298. 
 
298 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 against Bleek’s hesitating conjecture, that Paul in the Epistle, which was 
 primarily intended for Laodicea, Hierapolis, etc., had left a gap after roic 
 odow, because, at the time of writing the letter, he was not yet able to specify 
 all the several churches ; as likewise against Anger’s view, that the circular 
 letter, primarily destined for Ephesus, had at the same time been destined 
 for the daughter-churches of Asia, and among these, also for Laodicea ; 
 that Tychicus had to bring it first to Ephesus, from whence it was to make 
 its way to the other churches, and so to Laodicea, and from thence to 
 Colossae. In opposition to this view, see Zeller’ and Wieseler.? Similarly 
 Laurent,? who assumes that Paul had intended the Epistle for the two 
 churches, Laodicea and Ephesus, but had only despatched one copy for the 
 two, in which he left the designation of the place open. Thus copies with 
 designations of the place had arisen through transcripts, some with éy Aaod:- 
 keg, some with év ’Edécw, the latter of which obtained the upper hand. 
 But from the evidence of Tertullian (see above) we cannot gather that he 
 had seen Mss. with év Aaodixeia. Besides, there would subsist no reason at 
 all why Paul, if he had written to these two churches, should not also have 
 mentioned both of them in the address. 
 
 In accordance with the foregoing discussion, no other critical procedure 
 in ascertaining the readers of the Epistle rests on a historical basis but that 
 adopted by most of the later commentators, which arrives at the conclusion 
 that our Epistle was directed to the Ephesians and to no further church, in 
 pursuance of the genuine év ’E¢éow, and in agreement with the primitive 
 and universal tradition of the church. So among the later commen- 
 tators Whitby, Wolf, Cramer, Morus, and more ,recently Rinck,* Wurm,* 
 Wiggers,° Wieseler.7 We must, however, candidly confess that, while 
 the difficuities of the individual passages i. 15, iii. 1-4, iv. 21, may 
 be elucidated by their exegesis, the tone and contents of so general 
 a tenor, the absence of any reminiscences of personal connection with 
 the readers, the want of salutations, etc., in an Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, remain more surprising than would be the case in any other 
 Epistle. The appeal made by Wiescler® to the elevated and didactic char- 
 acter of the Epistle is not sufficient to explain this strange phenomenon ; 
 we lack the historical information for this purpose, and scientific modesty 
 and prudence prefer to confess in this case the non liquet, rather than to 
 
 1 Theol. Jahrb. 1844, I. p. 199 ff. 
 
 2 Chronol. d.ap. Zeitalt. p. 442 sq. 
 
 3In the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 
 p. 131. 
 
 4 Sendschr. der Koriniher, p. 31 ff., and in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 948 ff. 
 
 5 Inthe Zvb. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 97 f. 
 
 6 Yet he also takes up the view (already 
 expressed by Beza in his remarks on the 
 subscription), that the apostle has not 
 merely regarded the word spoken to the 
 Ephesians as spoken to them, but has 
 desired and designed a diffusion of the 
 Epistle among, and a knowledge of it in, 
 wider circles, so that under the one church 
 
 1866, 
 
 he is addressing the whole body of Asiatic 
 Christians, which had Ephesus as their 
 mother-church and centre. But against 
 this view it must be urged—apart from the 
 circumstance that St. Paul says nothing 
 whatever of this supposed design—that in 
 all the other Epistles too he might presup- 
 pose their being communicated to wider 
 circles, and yet is not thereby withheld from 
 entering into particulars, sending saluta- 
 tions, and the like. Im the Stud. u. Avit. 
 1841, p. 412 ff. 
 
 7 Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 443. 
 
 Sp, 449. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 299 
 
 construct hypotheses which, as has been shown, fall to pieces of themselves.’ 
 There must have existed historical circumstances which occasioned the Epis- 
 tle to receive the strange form that it undoubtedly has, but we are not 
 
 acquainted with them. 
 
 It is very natural, however, to think of the phe- 
 
 nomenon in question as, in part at least, causally connected with the mission 
 
 of Tychicus. 
 
 In accordance with vi. 21 f., Paul may have reserved all de- 
 
 tails to be orally communicated by the latter, who seemed specially fitted 
 for this purpose, since he, as an inhabitant of Asia,? as a witness of Paul's 
 farewell to the presbyters (Acts xx. 4), and also named elsewhere as an em- 
 issary to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12), was undoubtedly very accurately acquainted 
 with the relations of Paul to the Ephesians ; while on the part also of 
 the apostle himself there might be special motives (based possibly on the 
 accusation brought against him by the Jews, Acts xxi. 28, 29, and on the 
 covetousness of the venal Felix, Acts xxiv. 26), arising from the conditions 
 of his imprisonment and surveillance, for his deeming it advisable by way 
 of precaution to compose his Epistle to this particular church, with which 
 
 he was on the most intimate footing, 
 and special circumstances. 
 
 without setting forth personal relations 
 Nevertheless, this Epistle, as an apostolical 
 
 letter to the Ephesians, with its so general, and, even in various particulars, 
 surprising contents, remains an enigma awaiting further solution ; and we 
 must confess that if Ephesus had not been given as the place of destination, 
 criticism would least of all have been likely to light upon this church among 
 the Asiatic churches known to us. [See Note I., p. 308. ] 
 
 SEC. 2.—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION. 
 
 St. Paul was a prisoner when he wrote the Epistle, iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20. It 
 has always been the prevailing opinion that this imprisonment was the cap- 
 
 tivity af Rome, narrated in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 But David Schulz,‘ 
 
 and after him Schneckenburger,+ Schott,* Béttger,® Wiggers,’ Thiersch,*® 
 Reuss, Schenkel,” and Zéckler," have decided in favor of the captivity at 
 
 1This holds also of those hypotheses, 
 which do not keep to the view of the Chris- 
 tian church at Ephesus as such, regarded as 
 a whole, being the readers of the Epistle. 
 Thus Neudecker (#in/. p. 502) holds that the 
 Epistle is directed to that portion of the 
 church which had been converted by the 
 disciples of the apostle after he had left 
 Ephesus; and Liinemann conceives that 
 Paul has written to a church which had 
 been founded but a short time before in the 
 immediate neighborhood of Ephesus, and 
 which was so closely bound up with the 
 Ephesian Church that it might be considered 
 as a part of it. Such hypotheses are strik- 
 -ingly and decisively disposed of by the 
 simple and definite tots otow év “Edéow, 
 which does not admit of any more limited 
 interpretation than the addresses tots ovat 
 év “Péun, Rom. i. 7; tots ova. év BiAtwzo1s, 
 
 Phil. i. 1, ete. 
 2 Perhaps even from Ephesus. In Acts 
 
 xx. 4, Tychicus and Trophimus are named 
 
 as ‘of Asia,” but the latter at least is defi- 
 
 nitely designated in xxi. 29 as an Ephesian. 
 3Jn the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 612 ff. 
 
 4 Beitr. p. 144 f. 
 
 5 Graul (Lips. 1836) wrote in opposition to 
 Schulz and Schott. 
 
 6 In connection, doubtless, with his 
 hypothesis that that Roman imprisonment 
 only lasted a few days. 
 
 7 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 436 ff. 
 
 8d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 176. 
 
 ® Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T. § 114. 
 
 10 Comp. adso Weiss in Herzog’s Hncykl. 
 NOD pow yalsy 
 
 In Vilmar’s Pastoral-theol. Blatt. 1863, 
 1) FUG ae 
 
 ar Taal CR a 
 ‘ 
 
300 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Caesarea. And rightly so. Not, however, as if the friends of Paul, who 
 are named in the contemporary letters to the Colossians and to Philemon 
 (Col. iv. 9-14 ; Philem. 10 ff., 23 f.), could not have been with him at Rome, 
 as has been sought to be inferred from the Epistle to the Philippians, which 
 only (i. 1) mentions Timotheus ;! nor, again, on account of pac épav, Pki- 
 lem. 15, which expression as contrasted with aidviov by no means presupposes 
 merely a quite short separation of the runaway Onesimus from his master ; 
 nor yet because Paul at Rome could not have obtained sufficiently accurate 
 information concerning Colossae, for this might, in fact, have been got 
 sufficiently by means of Epaphras (Col. iv. 12) ;—but, (1) because it is in 
 itself more natural and probable that the slave Onesimus had run away from 
 Colossae as far as Caesarea, than that he should have fled, at the cost of a 
 long journey by sea, to Rome, the more especially as the fugitive was not 
 yet a Christian. The objection,* that in the great city of Rome he would 
 have been more secure from being tracked by the fugitivarti, who were every- 
 where on the look-out for runaway slaves, cannot be maintained, since this 
 police-agency was certainly most to be dreaded in the capital itself and in 
 the company of a state-prisoner. (2) If our Epistle and the Epistle to the 
 Colossians had been sent from Rome, then would its bearer Tychicus, who 
 was accompanied by Onesimus (Col. iv. 8, 9), have arrived at Ephesus first, 
 and then at Colossae ; and accordingly we might reasonably expect that 
 Panl would have mentioned to the Ephesians along with Tychicus (Eph. vi. 
 21, 22) his companion Onesimus (as he does in Col. iv. 8, 9), in order by that 
 means to prepare for his beloved Onesimus a good reception among the 
 Ephesians. If, on the contrary, Tychicus started with Onesimus from Cae- 
 sarea, he arrived by the most direct road, in keeping with the design of the 
 journey of Onesimus, first at Colossae, where he left the slave with his mas- 
 ter, and thence passed on to Ephesus ; accordingly Paul had, in the circum- 
 stance that Onesimus did not go with Tychicus to Ephesus, a natural reason 
 for not including a mention of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephesians. * 
 It is not enough to explain this non-mention from the general absence of 
 individual references in our Epistle (Wieseler), since here the question con- 
 cerns a single passage, which és really of an individual and personal tenor. 
 (3) In Eph. vi. 21, iva 62 eidjre kai ipeic, this cai indicates the conception 
 that, when Tychicus should come to the Ephesians, he would have already 
 fulfilled the aim here expressed in the case of others. And these others are 
 the Colossians (Col. iv. 8, 9), with regard to whom, therefore, Paul knew 
 that Tychicus would come jirst to them, which again tells in favor not of 
 Rome, but of Caesarea, as the starting-point. If the messenger had been 
 despatched from Rome, and so had proceeded from Ephesus to Colossae, we 
 should then have expected the «ai at the corresponding passage in the 
 Epistle to the Colossians.* Further, (4) Paul, in Philem. 22, asks Philemon 
 
 1 Jn any case the Epistle to the Philippians 24), Acts xxvii. 2. 
 
 was written later. But these friends might 2 See Wieseler, p. 417. 
 just as well have been with the apostle at 3 Comp. Wiggers, /.c. p. 440 ff. 
 Rome as at Caesarea, as certainly was the 4 Wiggers appeals to ver. 22, holding, 
 
 case with Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10; Philem. namely, that Paul could not legitimately 
 
INTRODUCTION. 501 
 
 to prepare a lodging for him, and that, too, for speedy use.’ This, on the 
 one hand, presupposes the fact that his present place of imprisonment was 
 much nearer to Colossae than the far distant Rome, especially considering 
 the slowness of navigation in those days ; on the other hand,—and this is 
 withal the main point,—we must assume, in the light of this request, that 
 Paul thought of coming from his place of imprisonment, after the speedy 
 release which he hoped for, direct to Phrygia, and in particular to Colossae 
 unto Philemon, without making any intermediate journeys, since otherwise 
 there would be no motive for the request as to the immediate preparation of 
 a lodging for him at the house of Philemon simultaneously with the taking 
 back of Onesimus. But now it is plain from Phil. ii. 24 that Paul, when he 
 was lying a prisoner at Rome and was there hoping for his liberation, intended 
 to journey to Macedonia (not to Spain, to which his views had been directed 
 earlier, Rom. xv. 24),—which, after what has been said above, is not in 
 keeping with the bespeaking of a lodging with Philemon. This bespeaking, 
 on the other hand, is quite appropriate, if Paul was at Caesarea. From 
 that place, after the speedy release which he hoped for, he intended to 
 journey through Phrygia and Asia generally, and next to carry out his 
 old plan, which was directed to Rome (Rom. i. 10 ff.; Acts xix. 21). 
 Whether at this time he still entertained his earlier plan of a journey fo 
 Spain (Rom. xv. 24 ; at Phil. ii. 24 he had given it up), is a matter of indif- 
 ference for our question. But it is certain that Paul at Caesarea, consider- 
 ing his gentle treatment and the lax prosecution of his trial under Felix, 
 might hope for speedy liberation (Acts xxiv. 23, 26). It has been main- 
 tained” that neither the freedom to preach (vi. 19 ; Col. iv. 3 f. is not here 
 relevant), nor the conversion of Onesimus (Philem. 10), suit his condition at 
 Caesarea, but that they suit only his position at Rome according to Acts 
 xxvili. 30 f. ; but this is to assert too much, for the notice at Acts xxiv. 23 
 leaves sufficient scope for our recognizing such activity on the part of the 
 captive Paul even in Caesarea. Comp. Introd. to Col. § 2. 
 
 If, accordingly, Paul composed the Epistle in Caesarea, the date of its 
 composition is either A.p. 60 or A.D. 61. 
 
 Finally, the question whether this Epistle or that to the Colossians was first 
 written, is not to be answered on a psychological basis * by considering their 
 inner relationship and peculiar character, because in that case there is too 
 much scope left for subjectivity,—as, indeed, on such grounds some have 
 
 
 
 
 
 have written dv érenwa mpods vas eis avTo 
 tovuto «.7T.A., if Tychicus must, in the very 
 nature of the case from his being destined 
 for Colossae, have come to Ephesus. But 
 wrongly. For even if Tychicus, in virtue 
 of the direction of his journey (from Rome 
 to Colossae), would necessarily have been 
 brought by the way of Ephesus, he might 
 nevertheless have merely passed through 
 it, if St. Paul had not expressly given him 
 orders for the definite object of Eph. vi. 22, 
 and entrusted him with commissions to the 
 church. The fact that Tychicus must nec- 
 
 essarily have travelled by way of Ephesus 
 would not therefore exclude the truth of 
 the €meuwWa mpds vuas «.7.A. We may add, 
 that from Rome the travellers might have 
 reached Colossae, without even touching 
 at Ephesus,—by way of Miletus possibly,— 
 so that Paul, if Rome be presupposed as the 
 starting-point, might the more fitly write 
 these words. 
 
 1 See on Philem. /.c. 
 
 2See Wieseler, p. 420, Guericke, and 
 others. 
 
 3 As, e.g., by Credner, § 157, who holds that 
 
302 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 found the Epistle to the Ephesians the earlier;’ nor yet by inferring, with 
 Hug, from the non-mention of Timothy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that 
 this Epistle was written earlier than the letters to the Colossians and to 
 Philemon, because in the latter Timothy shares in the salutation, and must 
 thus have have joined Paul later.?- But that the Epistle to the Colossians 
 was written before that to the Ephesians, is to be assumed for the following 
 reasons : (1) As Colossae was the first and nearest goal which Tychicus, in 
 company with the Colossian Onesimus, would reach from Caesarea (sec 
 above), it could not but be the most natural and obvious course for the apos- 
 tle to write the letter to the Colossians sooner than the letter which was to 
 be delivered only at a further stage of his friend’s journey ; (2) kat tpeic, 
 vi. 21, refers to the passage Col. iv. 7, and presupposes that Paul had al- 
 ready written and had in his recollection this latter Epistle. If, indeed, 
 the Epistle to the Laodiceans were identical with the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, then, according to Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Colossians would 
 
 necessarily be the later. But see § 1, and on Col. iv. 16. 
 
 SEC. 3.—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 After previous expressions of doubt on the part of Schleiermacher* and 
 Usteri, de Wette has come forward more decidedly than before, assailing 
 the genuineness of the Epistle ;* and the critics of Baur’s school ® relegate 
 the Epistle to the age of Gnosticism and Montanism, whereas de Wette ° 
 still allows it to belong to the apostolic age, and to a gifted disciple of 
 the apostle as its author. So too Ewald; 7 he denies that it was written by 
 Paul, but yet places it much nearer to the great apostle than the Pastoral 
 Epistles ; while Weisse ® lightly characterizes it as an unapostolic paraphrase 
 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians was written 
 earlier—(1) Because its aimis the more gen- 
 eral, and that of the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians, as the special, is subordinate. (2) 
 Because the former, as directed (according 
 to Credner’s view) to unknown Pauline 
 Christians in Asia, would have required the 
 most mature consideration, whereas the 
 Epistle to the Colossians would be much 
 more easily drawn up, since Paul had 
 Epaphras and Onesimus with him—and so it 
 eould not fail but that a portion of the ideas 
 laid down in the former Epistle would be 
 transferred also to the latter, in such wise 
 that what was there general in tenor would 
 assume a special form. (3) Because in our 
 Epistle the expression is more abstract, ete. 
 —It would not be difficult, with equal 
 plausibility, to invert the relation, and to 
 represent the more special, the easier, and 
 more concrete as psychologically antecedent 
 to the more general, more difficult, and 
 more abstract shape. 
 
 . 
 
 1 Cornelius & Lapide, B6hmer, Credner, 
 
 Schneckenburger, Matthies, Anger, Guer- 
 icke, Reuss, and others that to the Colos- 
 sians (Schleiermacher, Harless, Neander, 
 Meier, Wiggers, de Wette, Bleek, Weiss). 
 
 2 We might, in fact, with equal right infer 
 the converse, viz., that Timothy had, at the 
 writing of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 already left Paul again and had journeyed 
 to some other quarter, so that this Epistle 
 would be the later—as Schott really judges 
 it to be. 
 
 3 Vorl. vib. Hinl. I. N. T. p. 165 f., 194. 
 
 4 Bveget. Handbuch, zweite Aufl. 1847, and 
 Finl., fiinfte Aufl. 1848. 
 
 5 Schwegler, krit. Miscellen zum Epheseror., 
 in Zeller’s theol. Jahrb. 1844, 2, p. 378 ff.; 
 nachapostol. Zeitalt. Il. p. 3830 ff., 3875 ff.; 
 Baur, Paulus, p. 418 ff., comp. also his 
 Christenth. ad. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 104 ff. 
 
 ® Comp. Schleiermacher. 
 
 7 Sendschr. ad. P. p. xii.; Geschichte a. apost. 
 Zeit. n. 243 ff. 
 
 ® Dogmat. I. p. 146. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 303 
 of the Epistle to the Colossians, and Hausrath' speaks of it as an Epistle to 
 the Laodiceans retouched by another hand. 
 
 De Wette’s reasons, in addition to his finding the destination for Ephesus 
 unsuitable, are as follow : that the Epistle, which is devoid of all specially 
 distinctive character in its aim and references, is so dependent on the Epis- 
 tle to the Colossians, which is almost a mere verbose amplification of it, as 
 to be out of keeping, when divested of the reference to the false teachers. 
 Such a copying from himself is unworthy of the apostle ; the style, too, is 
 un-Pauline, overladen as it is with parentheses and accessory clauses, in- 
 volving a want of connection (ii. 1, 5, ii. 1, 13), copious in words but poor 
 in thoughts ; so, too, are the divergences in particular expressions,” as well 
 as in the thoughts, doctrinal opinions, and mode of teaching.? But (@) 
 while the absence of any concrete and direct peculiarity of character in its 
 aim and references is surprising, it is altogether unfavorable to any doubts 
 as to its genuineness, partly because the bringing out at all of a writing 
 under an apostle’s name and authority makes us presuppose more definite 
 tendencies and more readily recognizable conditions as aimed at in it ; partly 
 because, in particular, the circumstances of the Ephesian church, and the 
 close relationship of the apostle to them, must have been so generally 
 known, that a non-apostolic author would either have deliberately taken 
 account of and employed them, or else, if the design of his undertaking 
 permitted it, would have made another and happier selection of an address 
 than this very év’Edéow. He who could prepare under the name of the 
 apostle an Epistle of so throughly Pauline a tenor, must have been quite 
 able to imitate him in the mention and handling of concrete circumstances, 
 and would, by such an omission of those matters as is apparent in our Epis- 
 tle, neither have satisfied himself nor have answered his design of person- 
 ating Paul—so much would he have failed in acting his part. The very 
 fact that the Epistle, as an Epistle to the Ephesians, had its genuineness so 
 generally recognized by the ancient church, is, when we consider the gen 
 eral nature of its contents, which always remains mysterious, a doubly valid 
 evidence that this recognition has historically arisen out of immediate and 
 objective certainty. Further, (6) as regards the relation of the Epistle to 
 that to the Colossians, there appear, as is well known, many resemblances in 
 
 1@, Ap. Paulus, 1865, p. 2, 138. 
 
 By 20s ala Oy llls LO} 
 vi. 12; Ta mvevpatika, Vi. 123 SiaBodos, iv. 
 27, vi. 11 (elsewhere only in1 and 2 Tim.) ; 
 koop.oKxpatwp, Vi. 12; cwtyprov, Vi. 16. Words 
 differently used: otxovoyta, i. 10, ili. 2,9; 
 puotyptoyv, Vv. 82 (as in Rev. i. 20, xvii. 5, 7) ; 
 mAjpwua, i. 23(comp. Col.i. 19, ii. 9); evAoyla, 
 j. 3; aidv,ii. 2; meptrotnots, i. 14; afOapoic, 
 Vi. 24; pavOdverv, iv. 20; gwrigey, iii. 9; 
 mAnpovobat ev, V. 18; Az. eis, iii. 19; the com- 
 binations BactAcia tod Oeod Kat Xprorod, v. 
 5; To @€Anua ToD Kupiov, y.17. Interruption 
 and resumption of the construction, iii. 2- 
 14; the constructions tote ywookortes, V. 5; 
 tva doBjra, v.33; tva with the optative, 
 
 2 ‘ey tols émovpaviots, i. 
 
 i. 17, iii. 26. Frequent omission of the article 
 before defining additions, i. 3, 15, ii. 7, 11, 
 15, 21 f., and other passages; diffuseness 
 and pleonasm, i. 19, vi. 10, iii. 18; ii. 6 f., 21 
 (év Xpiore Incod), and various other points.” 
 
 3‘*Unbecoming appeal of the apostle to 
 his insight, iii. 4; putting together of the 
 apostles and prophets, ii. 20, iii. 5; arbitrary 
 use of the passage in the Psalms at iv. 8; 
 quotation of a non-biblical passage, v. 14; 
 the conceptions of demonology, ii. 2, vi. 12; 
 the characteristics of God, i. 17, iii. 9, 15; 
 the laying stress on Old Testament promise, 
 y. 2f.; the dissuasion from theft, iv. 28 ; the 
 un-Pauline salutation. vi. 23 f.” 
 
304 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 
 
 matter and form—some even literal—between the two Epistles.’ This may, 
 however, be sufficiently explained, in part subjectively from the fact that 
 Paul had just written the Epistle to the Colossians before writtng to the 
 Ephesians, so that his mind was still full of and pervaded by the ideas, 
 warnings, and exhortations which he had expressed in the former ; in part 
 objectively, from the fact that the state of affairs at Ephesus must have 
 been well enough known to the apostle to induce him to repeat various 
 portions of the writing which he had just composed for another Asiatic 
 church, and that to Such a degree that he considered it fitting even to re- 
 produce various things word for word from the Epistle to the Colossians, 
 which lay before him. To declare this a course unworthy of the apostle is 
 rash, since we have no other pair of letters from his hand issued so contem- 
 poraneously and under the influence of so similar a train of thought. But 
 while certainly several elements from the Epistle to the Colossians have 
 been amplified as to verbal expression in ours, there are also several that are 
 reproduced in a more concise form (e.g., i. 15-17 compared with Col. i. 3, 4 ; 
 Eph. ii. 16 with Col. i. 20 ; Eph. iv. 32 with Col. iii. 12 f., and others) ; 
 and those amplifications admit of natural explanation from renewed dwelling 
 on the same thoughts, in which Paul did not proceed mechanically, and a 
 mind such as his easily had recourse to more words rather than fewer in 
 setting forth the subject afresh. At any rate, de Wette’s judgment of it 
 as almost nothing but a verbose amplification, is exaggerated, seeing that the 
 two Epistles present in their course of thought, tenor, and mode of treat- 
 ment very essential differences,* and the conclusion that a pseudo-Paul was 
 at work would, at all events, be too hasty, so long as it was not from other 
 sufficient grounds clear that Paul could not have been himself the amplifier. 
 On the other hand, it is scarcely conceivable of an amplifying imitator, that 
 one so intimately acquainted with the apostle’s ideas and diction, should 
 have chosen a single Pauline Epistle for the sole and often literal basis of his 
 
 1 Eph. i. 7, comp. Col. i. 14. Eph. iv. 29, comp. Col. iii. 8, iv. 6. 
 sr i. 10, "a te i. 20. ae Peal acils ce $e) CTs 
 emit = isd; 4 se iv.82) it Die 
 ik, 02h x Cin 27: Oy ae cs COT, 
 Oi tants Dale ia A tealy oO vind: " ) yihlenee 
 pela. s Bore sala] Out. aaa}, ss to ibos 
 ae emUBT Tail el - i Tea eee vite fs se iiT6s 
 Seva. 55 = BO hy ae? CC eaveRl oy * Silvers 
 Othe, TG a Se eld. SS evi LO), amin ce Alispl Gite 
 othe alae, a oe ts .2(): ss svarel: Beattie 1s} 
 aia bh ee Ie bi ee Bee ay Dah, ce Tide 
 So allie, re Py 12a evens s SC T20: 
 O25 shits oe ve Hen enters Se yi x4 tt be tity ale 
 Sh witty 7/5 ss CPs TRB) ebay, USS aval saat, Ss * iiin2enhe 
 Ho arbby {a} ie ea eT Cy Meee “ sevivenle 
 omlynel o St a0) Peo ttshiiny a 66 iy oie 
 “Sine: ey Hon rik, SP ab Pallin, oe Sevenvebs 
 ened heirs ti ies os eesti l ate See the table in de Wette, p. 286 ff. Comp. 
 CO arhyg Tas & Me abe ag Bemmelen, Diss. de epp. ad Eph. et Col. inter 
 aha alt), so Seeeriin denb: se collat., Lugd. Bat. 1808, 
 SPT liveneeites an ae SOs aliits Chri 2See Harless, p. lxix. ff.; Liinemann, de 
 
 iv. 25 f£. x ee Hilt Ep. ad Eph. authentid, etc , p. 10 ff. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 305 
 
 work ; for thereby he would merely have imposed an unnecessary restriction 
 on himself, and have increased the probability of his fiction, made up 
 though it might be in the best sense, being recognized as such. A man, 
 who could think and write in so Pauline a manner as that wherein the por- 
 tions not parallel to the Colossian Epistle are thought and written, might 
 with ease have given to his pretended apostolic treatise a shape quite dif- 
 ferent and not so palpably exhibiting any single source. (¢) With respect 
 to the objections taken to the style of the Epistle as too diffuse, loaded with 
 parentheses and accessory clauses, carrying with it a want of connection 
 (ii. 1, 5, iii. 1, 18), verbose, and poor in new ideas, it is to be observed, 
 first, and generally, that this verdict is an unfavorable judgment resting on 
 taste and subjective in character ; and, secondly, that in its individual con- 
 crete references it relates to a certain peculiarity of the Epistle, which yet 
 is not un-Pauline, seeing that, in fact, the unity of mould and flow, the 
 pectus atque indoles Paulinae mentis, ‘‘the heart and character of the Pauline 
 mind,”? which pervades it from beginning to end,’ leads us more fairly and 
 justly to set down the greater diffuseness, and what is called overloading, 
 to the account of the apostle himself, deeply moved as he was by his subject. 
 There is greater diffuseness certainly, but how natural is this, when we con- 
 sider the general character of the grand subject-matter and of its evolution, 
 and the absence of casual contents! There are a number of parentheses 
 and accessory clauses certainly, but not after an un-Pauline fashion, and 
 natural enough to a writer so full of the ideas concerned and the collateral 
 thoughts suggested by them. Nowhere is there in reality want of connec- 
 tion, as it is the province of the exposition to show. A poverty of new 
 ideas is merely apparent in proportion to the standard of the expectation 
 cherished @ priori ; the letter abounds in many-sided modifications and ex- 
 panded statements of thoughts which were vividly present to the writer’s 
 mind, in part from the Epistle to the Colossians, but a rich accession of new 
 ideas was neither withal intended nor called forth by dialectic controversy 
 (as to the copiousness of diction, see above). As respects (d) the particular 
 divergences of style, aza& Aeydueva are found in every Epistle of Paul, as 
 well as other peculiar modes of expression, as may readily be conceived in 
 the case of a letter-writer having so delicate and comprehensive a mastery 
 of the Greek language ; but no one of the proofs brought forward by de 
 Wette (which are in part inappropriately selected, and, on the other hand, 
 might have had their number increased), is at variance with the idiosyncrasy 
 of the apostle. And, further, (¢) ara£ voobueva are not appropriate grounds 
 for doubting the genuineness of a writing in dealing with one whose mind 
 was so inexhaustibly rich, and whose conception moved with such admirable 
 Freedom and many-sidedness in the Christian sphere, as was the case with 
 St. Paul. Everything which is adduced as surprising in conception and 
 doctrine may be psychologically and historically explained as standing in 
 
 1 Erasmus. ac pectus,” ‘‘In this epistle of Paul there 
 2 *“*Tdem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, is the same fervor, the same depth, and 
 eadem profunditas, idem omnino spiritus altogether the same spirit and heart.” 
 
 20 
 
306 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 full accord with the pure Pauline Gospel (see the exposition), and the ob- 
 jections which are taken to the mode of teaching find analogies in other 
 Pauline Epistles, and rest upon aesthetic presuppositions, which in a his 
 torico-critical examination of the New Testament writings supply us with 
 but very uncertain criteria, seeing that in such a case modern taste is much 
 too easily called in as an extraneous ground influencing the judgment. 
 The more candidly de Wette speaks out as to the Epistle not having been 
 composed in the apostolic age, and makes a gifted diseiple of Paul to be its 
 author, the more insoluble he makes the riddle, that such an one should 
 have left his treatise without trace of individual historical relations of the 
 apostle to the Ephesians, which it would have been so easy for him to inter- 
 weave. Lastly, the reasons urged by the school of Baur, according to 
 which this Epistle and the companion Epistle to the Colossians, forming a 
 spurious pair, are held to be a product of Gnosis in opposition to Ebionit- 
 ism,’ are disposed of, when the exposition, dealing in a strictly objective 
 manner, demonstrates in the very places which have been called in question 
 simply Pauline contents. See, in opposition to Baur’s contrast, specially 
 Klépper,? and with regard to the Christology of our letter and that to the 
 Colossians, Riibiger.* The more decisive in that case becomes the weight, 
 which the external attestation by uninterrupted church-iradition throws 
 into the scale. This attestation has been even dated back to the Apostolic 
 Fathers ; but in Ignatius, Hph. 12, the Epistle is not at all directly men- 
 tioned,* and in Polycarp, Phil. 12, where it is said: ‘‘ut in his seripturis 
 dictum est : Jrascimini et nolite peccare, et : Sol non occidat super iracundiam 
 vestram,” ‘‘that in these writings, it is said: ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ 
 and ‘ Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,’” there is no quotation of 
 Eph. iv. 26, but rather, as in his scripturis, ‘‘in these writings” (comp. imme- 
 diately before : in sacris literis, ‘‘in the Holy Scriptures”) and the intervening 
 et, ‘‘and,” prove, the citation of two Old Testament sayings, namely, Ps. iv. 5 
 and Deut. xxiv. 13, 15, though the connecting of these two passages may be 
 based on a reminiscence of our Epistle.* Apart from the citations in the 
 interpolated Ignatian letters, the undoubted and express ecclesiastical attes- 
 tation begins with Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3, and v. 14. 3, and is not inter- 
 rupted by any contradiction.* Even the Valentinians already in Irenaeus, 
 
 1 Comp. on Col. Introd. § 3. 
 
 2 De orig. epp. ad Eph. et Col., Gryph. 
 1853. 
 
 3 De Christologia Paulina, p. 42 ff.; Lange, 
 apost. Zevtait. 1. 1, p. 11% ff. Lange, how- 
 ever, wrongly defines the Christological 
 distinction of the two Epistles, p. 117, to the 
 effect, that in the Ephesian letter Christ is 
 the Omega, in the Colossian the Alpha, of 
 all things. In both letters He is the A and 
 the ©, but in the Colossian letter the Chris- 
 tological theme stands in the foreground, 
 and is treated more sedulously and more 
 comprehensively. 
 
 4 See above, § 1. 
 
 ©The general question, whether at this 
 
 date Apostolic Fathers adduce New Testa- 
 ment sayings with ws yéypamrat, ypady, and 
 the like, does not therefore pertain to us 
 here. Specially important in this relation 
 is the citation in Barnabas 4, in regard to 
 which Credner, Beitr. I. p. 28, has been mis- 
 taken in answering that question in the 
 negative, as the Codex Sinaiticus showed. 
 The citation from Barnabas is certainly not 
 to be referred to a written source generally 
 (Weizsiicker), nor even to 4 Esdr. viii. 3, 
 which passage is heldto be confounded 
 with Matth. xix. 30 (Volkmar). 
 
 6 Marcion held it as Pauline, but as ad- 
 dressed to the Laodiceans. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 307 
 
 i. 8. 5, cite Eph. v. 13 expressly as a saying of Paul, and in the Philosoph. 
 of Origen, vi. 34, as ypad7. 
 
 Remark. — The apparent resemblances to the first Epistle of Peter of ex- 
 pressions and thoughts in the Epistle to the Ephesians ! are too little character- 
 istic adequately to justify us in presupposing a dependence of our Epistle on 
 that of Peter.2 We should rather assume the converse, when we remember 
 how strictly Paul preserved and acutely vindicated his apostolic independence; 
 but it is quite sufficient to take our stand on the creative power of the church- 
 language formed by Paul, from which Peter was neither able nor willing to 
 hold himself aloof, while it remains an open question whether he had read 
 Hpistles of Paul. 2 Pet. (iii. 15 f.) is not genuine. 
 
 SEC. 4.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS. 
 
 We are unable to perceive from the letter itself any special occasion given 
 for it on the part of the Ephesians ; hence it seems to have been called forth 
 by mere accident through the mission of Tychicus and Onesimus to Colos- 
 sae—an opportunity, which Paul made use of to send Tychicus also to Ephe- 
 sus, in order not only to supply the Christians there with (oral) news of 
 him, and to obtain news of them, but also to address to them a written dis- 
 course, partly on the glory of redemption and of their state as Christians, 
 partly on the conduct in keeping with it, in order to strengthen and further 
 them in steadfastness and unity of faith and Christian morality ; yet not 
 so, that the proper aim of the Epistle * is to be discerned in the irenic sec- 
 tion iv. 1-16. There are no traces of Ephesian false teachers, similar to 
 those at Colossae,* in the Epistle (for iv. 14 f. may be explained from the 
 general experience of the apostle, and v. 6 relates to moral seductions) ; 
 neither is a precautionary regard to such theosophy and asceticism ° at any 
 rate capable of proof, since in the Epistle itself it is not at all hinted at. 
 Bengel well says : ‘‘Singulare haec epistola specimen praebet tractationis 
 evangelicae in thest . . . inde nullum speciatim errorem aut vitium refutat 
 aut redarguit, sed generatim incedit,” ‘‘ This epistle furnishes a unique speci- 
 men of evangelical treatment thetically . . . hence he refutes or reproves 
 no error or vice specially, but proceeds generally.” Paul may, however, 
 have had in the background the thought of the possible approach of that 
 Gnostic danger, though he did not consider it necessary or suitable at this 
 time to furnish an express reference or warning to that effect. 
 
 As regards contents, the Epistle divides itself into a predominantly dogmat- 
 ic and a predominantly hortatory portion. The dogmatic portion is a lofty ° 
 
 1See Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 426 ff., 5 See Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 135 ff.; 
 who has, however, adduced under this Olshausen; comp. also Meier and Weiss. 
 head far too much. Suypnrav ahodpa yeuer TOY vonLaTwY Kat 
 
 2 Weiss, who considers both genuine; wzepdycwv: & yap pndapod cxedov épbéyéato, 
 Schwegler, whoregards both as spurious. TavTa evtavda Sydor, “He is exceedingly full 
 
 3 de Wette. of thoughts and lofty things; what he 
 
 4 This in opposition to Michaelis, Haen- almost nowhere utters, that he here ex- 
 lein, Flatt, Schott, Neudecker, and others. plains,’’ Chrysostom. 
 
308 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 effusion over the glory and blessedness of the redemption effected through 
 Christ, to which also the readers, formerly Gentiles, had attained, and there- 
 after over the relation of the apostle to this saving dispensation, and to the 
 share of the readers therein (chap. i. ili.). The hortatory portion summons 
 them to a conduct worthy of their calling, and, first of all, to Christian 
 unity (iv. 1-16) ; and then to a moral walk opposed to their previous Gen- 
 tile life—which is illustrated in detail as concerns very diversified conditions 
 and relations (iv. 17—-vi. 20). By way of conclusion, Paul refers, as regards 
 his personal relations, to Tychicus, of whose mission he specifies the object 
 (vi. 21 f.), and ends witha double benediction (vi. 23 f.).—Luther (in his 
 editions of the N. T. down to 1537) reckons the Epistle among ‘‘ the gen- 
 uine and noblest books of the New Testament, which show to thee Christ, 
 and teach everything which it is necessary and good for thee to know, even 
 though thou shouldest never see or hear any other book or doctrine.” 
 
 Note By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 I. ev ’Egéow. (See p. 299.) 
 
 Meyer is supported also by Alford (who answers at length, vol. ili. pp. 13-18, 
 the contrary arguments of Conybeare and Howson), Eadie, Ellicott, Words- 
 worth, Braune, Riddle, Scrivener (Introd. to Criticism of N. T., Second Ed., 
 p. 101). On the other hand, see Schaff (Church History, I., p. 779), and Westcott 
 and Hort, in Appendix to N. T., pp. 123 sqq. The latter would retain the reading 
 in different type, as “ a legitimate but unavoidably partial supplement to the 
 true text, filling up a chasm which might be perplexing to a reader in later 
 times.” 
 
CHAP. I. 309 
 
 ITlavaov éxictoln zpos Eqeciovs. 
 
 ABDEFGEK 8, min. have the shorter and older superscription: zpoc 
 "Edeciovc. I, min.: tov dyiov axoo7bAov LavAov éExiotoAy mpoc ’Edec. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1. év ’E¢éow] See Introd. §1. Tisch. has put it in brackets. — Ver. 3. év 
 before Xpioré is wanting only in some min.,—an omission, which, although 
 followed in the editions of Erasmus, Steph. 3, and Beza, and approved of by 
 Mill, is not at all deserving of notice as a various reading, — Ver. 6. év 7] AB 
 N* min. Chrys. (alic.) have 7c. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick., and rightly so. The attraction was resolved partly 
 by the simple 7 (so Theophy]. Ambrosiast.), partly, in keeping with the preva- 
 lence of év in the context, by év 7, which latter is defended by Reiche on insuffi- 
 cient grounds. — Ver. 10. ta év Toi¢ oipavoic] The ré read in Elz. after 7a is, on 
 decisive evidence, deleted by the later editors (except Harless). But in place of 
 év, BD EL g* min. Theodoret, Dam. Oecum. Tert. have éxi, which Lachm. 
 [Tisch. Treg. Hofm.] and Riick. have rightly received. The usual form of con- 
 ception, év Toi¢ ovpavoic (comp. iil. 15), superseded the apparently unsuitable 
 éxi, At Col. i. 20, many min. Chrys. and Theodoret have likewise ér? roic¢ otp- 
 avoic, where é7i, indeed, is too weakly attested, but has most probably come 
 from our passage. — Ver. 11. é«Anpdfmuev] A D E F G, It. have éxAjOnuev. 
 Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Riick. But Matth. Harless, 
 Tisch. Reiche [Treg. Hofm. Ewald, Holtzm.] have rightly defended the still more 
 considerably attested Recepta as the more difficult reading, glossed by é«A7Onuev. 
 The gloss is to be derived from Rom. viii. 13 : od¢ dé mpodpice, TobTOvG Kai ExadAece. 
 —Ver. 12. ric before ddénc is, following Griesb., deleted by the more recent 
 editors (except Harless) on preponderating evidence. An addition easily sug- 
 gested ; comp. ver. 14.—Ver. 14. ¢] A B F G L, min. Athan. Cyr. Euthal. 
 Chrys. (in the text) have 6. So Lachm. and Rick. But 6 was, on account of 
 the preceding rvevua, the more easily introduced and retained, since by that 
 means the old opinion, that 6¢ applies to Christ, was met. — Ver. 15. tijv ayamnv 
 THv] Lachm. has only 777, following A B x* 17, Cyr. (alic.) Jer. Aug. (alic.). A 
 copyist’s error, and how easily caused by the repetition of the r7v! If the 
 addition had been made from Col. i. 4, jv éyere would have been inserted in- 
 stead of the second r7v. — Ver. 16. The second juov is wanting in ABD &, 
 min. Cant. Goth. Hil. ; F and G have it after rovovpevoc. Deleted by Lachm. 
 and Riick. A defining addition, which was first written in the margin, and 
 then inserted, sometimes before, sometimes after tovotuevoc. — Ver. 18. xapdiac] 
 Elz. has dvavoiac, against decisive testimony. An interpretation. — xa‘] is want- 
 ing in AB D* FG &* 59, It. Goth. Ambrosiast. Victorin., and is deleted by 
 Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.j and Riick., but came to be more readily left out than 
 
310 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 added, because the concluding «ai only comes in afterwards. — Ver. 20. évjp- 
 ynoev| Lachm. reads évjpynxev, after A B, Cyr. Procop.; and rightly so. The 
 aorist, in itself more in current use, was suggested by the aorists following, And 
 the attestation is strong enough, since the vss. and Latin Fathers cannot be 
 taken into account.—éxa6icev] Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick. read xaficac, 
 following A B 8, min. Slav. Vulg. Cyr. utr. Euseb. Procop. Tert. Jer. Ambr. 
 Pel. An attempt to help out the construction. — oipavoic, instead of éxovpaviore, 
 though adopted by Lachm., is too feebly attested by B, Victorin. Hilar. — Ver. 
 23. 7a] is wanting in Elz., but has been, upon decisive evidence, restored by 
 Bengel, Griesb. and the later editors ; comp. ver. 22. 
 
 Contents.—After the usual address and apostolic salutation (vv. 1, 2), 
 St. Paul begins with an ascription of praise to God for the salvation in Christ 
 (ver. 3), which he sets forth (a) as already lovingly predestined by God in eter- 
 nity to the praise of His grace (vv. 4, 5) ; (0) as brought about by the death 
 of Christ (vv. 6, 7) ; then (¢) asmade known according to the purpose of the 
 divine kindness, to unite all in Christ (vv. 8-10) ; and lastly, (d) as really 
 appropriated according to the predestination of God (ver. 11) ; this latter 
 in respect as well to those who had been Jews (ver. 12) as to those who had 
 been Gentiles (vv. 18, 14), both of whom were destined to the praise of 
 the divine glory.—Wherefore, since the Gentiles also had attained to such 
 happiness, he too, after having heard of their faith and love, ceases not to 
 give thanks for his readers, when making mention of them in his prayers, 
 in order that God might enlighten them by His Spirit concerning the hope 
 to which their cailing exalted them, the glory of the future salvation, and 
 the greatness of the divine power in the believers (vv. 15-19), which power 
 they were to recognize by what God had wrought in the case of Christ, 
 whom He had raised from the dead and exalted above all, and had given 
 Him as Lord over all to be Head to the church, which is His body—that which 
 is filled by Him, who filleth all with all (vv. 20-23). 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Aca OcA#u. Ocov] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. —roi¢ dyiowe] See on Rom. i. 
 7. — Kal mioroic év X. ’I.] furnishes, with roic dytou, the completeness of the 
 conception, hence it is not an epexegesis,’ but an appended clement, and xaé 
 is the closely copulative and. Comp. Col. i. 2. It is not, however, the 
 conception of fidelity and perseverance which is appended,® but the notion of 
 faith in Christ, since in the address, where the persons are to be designated 
 very distinctly, roic dyiowe alone would not yet characterize the readers ex- 
 pressly as Christians. Comp. Phil. i. 1. —év Xpor6 "Ijooi'] does not belong 
 to dyiow and moroic, so that it would denote the sphere, within which the 
 Christians are saints and believing,*® for otherwise (comp. on Col. 1. 2) Kai 
 mstoic would be quite superfluous and a tame and heavy addition, inasmuch 
 as the notion of dyioc év Xpiot@ presupposes the notion of miorb¢ év XpioT@ 5 
 but merely to moroic : fidem in Christo reponentibus, i.e. ‘to those reposing 
 faith in Christ.” Comp. i. 15, and see on Mark i. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — Ver. 2. 
 ‘See on Rom. i. 7. 
 
 1 Beza, Vorstius, Calovius, and others. ready Calovius. 
 2 Grotius, Locke, Baumgarten, Rosen- 3 Harless; comp. Boyd, Storr, Opuse. I. 
 miller, Meier; see, on the other hand, al- p. 121, Meier, Schenkel. 
 
CHAP. T:, 3. 311 
 
 Ver. 8. EvAoyyréc] praised (113), sc. ety. Comp. Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. i. 3; 
 Luke i. 68; 1 Pet. i. 3; 1 Kings xv. 39. It is prefixed here, since, as in 
 most doxologies (see on Rom. ix. 5), in keeping with the emotion of the 
 heart which breaks forth in songs of praise, the emphasis lies on it. Where 
 the stress in conformity with the context rests upon the person, this is pre- 
 fixed, as at 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Jobi. 21; Ps. lxviii. 19, cxii. 1, 
 2; Rom. ix. 5. The second Epistle to the Corinthians begins also with an 
 ascription of praise to God, and the general character of that now before us 
 cannot, in view of the general contents of the Epistle (comp. 1 Pet. i. 3 ff.), 
 appear un-Pauline (in opposition to de Wette), especially as the thanksgiv- 
 ing which has reference to the readers comes in afterwards in ver. 15 f. —6 
 Oed¢ Kai TaTHp Tov Kupiov K.t.A| God, who at the same time is the Father of Jesus 
 Christ. See on Rom. xv. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia in Cramer’s Catena. Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, and 
 others, including Michaclis, Koppe, Rtickert, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek 
 [Ewald, Hofmann, Braune], have incorrectly attached rot kvpiov 7dr also to 
 6 @edc. It is true, indeed, that there is no objection to the idea ‘‘ the God 
 of Christ” in itself, and ré before cai would not be at all necessary, as 
 Harless thinks (see iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25, al.) ; but against it stands the fact 
 that 6 Oed¢ Kai xatip, even without a genitive, was a stated Christian 
 designation of God (comp. on Rom. xv. 6), in which case raz7jp only, and 
 not Gdc, requires a complementary genitive (v. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ;-Jas. 1. 
 27, iii. 9). Moreover, the expression the God of Christ stands so isolated in 
 the N. T. (see on ver. 17), that we may not attribute to it any such cur- 
 rency, as it must have had, if it were contained in the formula 6 Oed¢ kai 
 matyp Tov Kupiov x.7.A. [See Note IL., p. 350.] — 6 eiAoyhoac yuac| Aorist: by 
 the work of redemption. Observe the ingenious correlation of the passive 
 evioyntéc and the active eiAoyjcac, as well as the dilogia, by which the for- 
 mer denotes the blessing in word, and the latter the blessing in deed (comp. 
 Rom. xv. 29 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5 f.; Gal. iii. 8,9, 14 ; Acts iii. 26). uae applies 
 to the Christians generally, not to Paul,’ against which view the unsuitable- 
 ness of such a thanksgiving of the apostle for himself at the head of the 
 Epistle, as well as the actual plurality of persons in the whole context (vv. 
 4, 11, 12), and «ayo, ver. 15, are decisive. —év rdoy evdoyia mvevuatixh| In- 
 strumental : by His imparting to us every spiritual blessing ;? none has He 
 withheld from us. This, however, is not to be explained as Blessing, which 
 concerns our spirit,® but : proceeding from the Holy Spirit, because the dis- 
 tinctively Christian benefits are meant, and these are yapiopata. Comp. 
 Rom. i. 11, xv. 29; 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff. This blessing is wrought by God from 
 heaven through the communication of the Spirit (ver. 13; Gal. iii. 5; 
 1 Cor. xii. 6, and elsewhere), hence God is praised for it. We may add that a 
 contrast to the earthly benefits promised to the Jews in the Old Testament,‘ or 
 to the typical blessings of the Jews and the empty possessions of the Gentiles, ° 
 
 1 Koppe. ler ; Koppe and Riickert are undecided. 
 2 Comp. Test. XI. Patr. p. 722: ebdoy. év 4 Grotius and others, including recently 
 ayabots, Holzhausen. 
 
 ®* Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Rosenmiil- 5 Schottgen. 
 
312 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 is foreign to the context. Paul denotes the matter in a purely positive 
 form as it is, according to its characteristic nature; hence there is not in 
 mdoy any contrast to merely sporadic blessings in the O. T. The eidoyia con- 
 sists in the most varied expressions, as in grace, truth, peace, joy, love, 
 hope, consolation, patience, and all Christian virtues as the fruit of the 
 Spirit (Gal. v. 22; Rom. v. 1 ff.). Compare ray ayafov 76 év juiv, Philem. 
 6. —év toic éxoupavioic] local : in the heavenly regions, in heaven. Comp. ver. 
 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, vi. 12. Against the instrumental rendering, according to 
 which it is understood, as a more precise definition of the spiritual blessing, 
 of the heavenly possessions,’ we may urge, not the article,*—which would 
 very appropriately denote the category, —but the fact, that Paul has not 
 added dyatoic or yapicuac, just because in our Epistle év roi¢ éxovpaviose is 
 constantly a designation of place.* The local év roic érovpavio is referred, 
 either to God, so that heaven appears as the seat where the divine blessing 
 is being prepared*—but how idle and self-evident that would be ! or to jueic, 
 so that heaven, as the seat of our woAirevua (Phil. iii. 20), would be the scene 
 of the divine blessing. So Pelagius, Beza (who leaves a choice between the 
 two views), Grotius (who says that the blessings place us et spe et jure in 
 coelo, ‘‘ both by hope and right in heaven”), Baumgarten, Koppe, Rickert, 
 and others. The aorist would not be at variance with this view, since the 
 matter might be set forth proleptically in accordance with an ideal mode of 
 looking at it (comp. ii. 6). But the whole explanation is far-fetched and 
 opposed to the context ; for rvevuarex@ shows that Paul has not thought of 
 our having received this blessing in the heavenly rodirevua, seeing that the 
 Holy Spirit is received on earth as the present earnest of the heavenly herit- 
 age (vv. 13, 14). Accordingly, the third reference remains the only correct 
 one, under which év roic éxovpavioi is attached as « local definition to eiAoyia 
 with every spiritual benefit in heaven, so that, because the Holy 
 Spirit is in heaven, as is God Himself 6 tiv karouxiay éxovpavior éyov (2 Mace. 
 iii. 39), the blessings also of the Spirit are regarded as to be found in heaven 
 and brought down thence to us. See Heb. vi. 4. [See Note IIL, p. 850 seq. | 
 —év Xpior@] for in Christ lay the ground of that evAoye7 accomplished in our 
 case ; not out of Christ, but in Him lay the cause that God blessed us with 
 every spiritual blessing, since His act of redemption is the causa meritoria, 
 ‘“‘meritorious cause,” of this divine bestowal of blessing. Comp. ver. 4. 
 
 TVEVMATLKH * 
 
 1 These would not be possessions, which where else in the N. T., is surprising. In 
 
 have reference to the heavenly life, but 
 possessions which are to be found in heaven 
 and are imparted to us. For émrovparios al- 
 ways means “/o be found in heaven.” See 
 Wetstein, I. p. 44%; Bleek on Heb. iii. 1, 
 p. 375. Comp. ta émt tots ovpavois, ver. 10. 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Lu- 
 ther, Castalio, Piscator, Vorstius, Homberg, 
 Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Bleek, 
 and others. 
 
 2 In opposition to Riickert, Harless, Ols- 
 hausen. 
 
 * The expression év tots érovpaviots, which 
 occurs five times in this Epistle and no- 
 
 the ease of any writer, no doubt, a phrase 
 not incurrent use with him at other times 
 may be accidentally and temporarily sug- 
 gested to him, the use of which he involun- 
 tarily appropriates and soon again as invol- 
 untarily abandons ; yet it remains a sur- 
 prising fact that the expression év Tots ézov- 
 paviocs is not also used in the Epistle to the 
 Colossians written at the same time, where 
 there was no lack of opportunity (i. 5, 16, 
 20) for the use of the expression, although 
 the two Epistles exhibit so much verbal af- 
 finity. 
 4 Deza, Boyd, Weiss. 
 
CHAP, I, 4. 313 
 
 Ver. 4. Further amplification of 6 etAoyhoac x.7.A. on to ver. 14. See the 
 contents. — xaléc] even as, denotes that that eiAoyeiv has taken place in con- 
 Sormity with the fact that, ete., and is consequently argumentative ; see on 
 1 Cor. i. 6; John xiii. 84. — éFeAéEato yuac| He has chosen us (from the col- 
 lective mass of men) for Himself (sibi). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 27; Rom. ix. 11, 
 xi. 5, 7, 28; John xv. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 9 f. Entirely without reason Hof- 
 mann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 2238, denies that éx2éyecba here has reference to 
 others not chosen, and asserts that it applies only to that which we, in the ab- 
 sence of election, should not have become. This is according to the very 
 notion of the word quite impossible. "ExAéyec#ar alzoays has, and must ef logical 
 necessity have, a reference to others, to whom the chosen would, without 
 the é«doy7, still belong. Even in Acts vi. 5, xiii. 17; 1 Tim. v. 21; Ex. 
 xvii. 25; Deut. iv. 37, it sets forth the distinctive separation from the 
 remaining mass, just as also Christ, as one who is chosen out from all that 
 is man, is called the éxAexréc of God (Luke ix. 35, xxiii. 35). — év ait@] for 
 in nothing else and in no one else than in Christ, whose future work of re- 
 demption God has foreknown and decreed from eternity (Acts xv. 18 ; Rom. 
 Xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Pet. 1. 20, al.), lay the ground, that the electing 
 grace (Rom. xi. 5) chose us (comp. ill. 11) ; hence God had, as respected 
 the subjects to be affected by the election, to deal, not in any arbitrary 
 manner, but according to His zpéyvworc, ‘ foreknowledge,” of the same (prae- 
 cognovit credituros, i.e., he foreknew who would believe). See on Rom. 
 vill. 29. Christ is not, however, here conceived of as Himself chosen 
 God, and we as included in Him (év ait), as Hofmann, p. 229, thinks ; 
 but, as the more precise explanation in ver. 5 shows, the divine act of our 
 election has in Christ its determining ground, so that to us by this act there 
 is assigned and allotted no other than the salvation to be gained through 
 Christ (who in the fulness of the times was out of His pre-existence to be 
 sent as Incarnate and was to accomplish the work of salvation). Apart from 
 this connection of the divine, election with Christ we should not be chosen ; 
 but in Christ lay for God the causa meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” of our 
 election.’ The reference of éy ai7 to God? is to be rejected on account of 
 the utter superfluousness of this definition, and on account of the preceding 
 év XptotG. — rpd KataBorjc xdopuov] thus before all time, already in eternity. 
 Comp: Col. i. 15 ff. ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Matt. xxv. 34; also 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; 
 2 Tim. i. 9. The expression is nowhere else found in Paul ; but see Matt. 
 xii. 35 ; Luke xi. 50 ; John xvii. 24; Heb. iv. 3; 1 Pet. i. 20; Rev. xiii. 
 8. [See NotelV., p. 351. ]— elvac jude dyiove x.t.4.] Infinitive of the design: in 
 order that we should be, etc.? The predicates adyzoc and auopoc (blameless, Herod, 
 
 1 Beyschlag (Christol. d. N. T. p. 141) finds 
 in ev a’tm the thought, ‘‘ that the divinely 
 conceived prototypes of perfected believers 
 are from eternity posited by God in the One 
 Prototype of humanity acceptable unto 
 Him, as the countless multiplications of 
 
 _ the same, to be thereupon brought through 
 the historically realized One Prototype to 
 their realization and perfection.” In op- 
 
 position to this view we may simply urge 
 the context, according to which év aire de- 
 notes Christ as the personal ground of the 
 éxAoyn made before all time, in so far as He, 
 as Reconciler, is the bearer of the divine grace, 
 vv. 6, 7. 
 
 2 Al. Morus, Holzhausen: with Himself, 
 in His heart. 
 
 3 See Winer, p. 298 f. 
 
314 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 ii. 177 ; Theoc. xviii. 25) exhaust the conception positively and negatively.’ 
 It is not, however, to be explained of the holiness conditioned by morality 
 and virtue,? in which case reservations on account of human imperfection are 
 often arbitrarily inserted, nor is it referred, as by Riickert, to the zdeal point 
 of view of the apostle ; but rather of the holiness and blamelessness brought 
 about through the atoning death of Christ by means of the dixacooivy Ocov 
 thereby attained (Rom. iii. 21 ff., v. 1 ff., viii. 1, 33 ff ; 1 Cor. vi. 11; 
 Heb. x. 10, 14, 29), in favor of which the very ¢iva: (not yivecfar) and the 
 whole context are decisive (vv. 5, 6, 7). We may add that, if the emphasis 
 with which our Epistle brings into prominence the holiness of the Church 
 (comp. v. 27) is to be held as betraying the standpoint of the second cen- 
 tury,® for which especial reference is made to iii. 10, 31, with equal reason 
 the like suspicion may be thrown even on the most fully acknowledged 
 Epistles (such as the Epistles to the Corinthians). [See Note V., p. 351 seq. | 
 —xarevoriov abtov| before God’s eyes, judice Deo (Col. ii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 20, iv. 
 5). It is God’s judgment, which has made the reconciled holy and blameless, 
 and that by imputation of faith unto righteousness ; thereupon He gives to 
 them every cbAoyia rvevuatixh, ver. 8. The reference of airé¢ successively 
 recurring to different subjects cannot surprise us ;* and so it is not to be writ- 
 ten abrov (as Harless still does), but airot, from the standpoint of the author. *® 
 —éy ayary] is attached by many to ver. 4, so that it is connected either 
 with éAéEaro,° but in how isolated and awkward a way ! or with eiva: jac 
 dyiove «.7.A.,7 80 that év aydry would be the ground, or rather the element 
 (evangelit 7d av, ‘‘all of the gospel,” says Grotius, ‘‘ lies in love”), of the 
 holiness and blamelessness. But this is not compatible with the correct ex- 
 planation of dyiove cat audpovc, asa state brought about by the iracthpiov of 
 Christ, according to which, not év aydry, but év ricrer, would have been a 
 definition of the element of holiness in keeping with the context. Hence 
 the connection with zpoopicac, ver. 5, remains as the only correct one.” The 
 only one of the objections made to this view which is plausible is that of 
 Matthies and Meier, that the following xara ray ebdoxiay Tov OeAnudto¢ avTou 
 would render the preceding év dydryin this connection superfluous. But see 
 on ver. 5. 
 
 Ver. 5. Love was the disposition of God, in which He through this our 
 election predestined us to viobecia. Hence this divine motive is prefixed 
 with emphasis, quite in keeping with the character of ascription of praise 
 
 YComp. Plut. Pericl. p. 178 D: Bids .. . 
 ka@apos Kal auiavtos, and see on Col. i. 22; 
 Eph. v. 27. 
 
 2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Pisca- 
 tor, Grotius, Calixtus, and many others, in- 
 cluding Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Meier, 
 Schenkel. 
 
 3 See Schwegler, in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, 
 p. 382. 
 
 4 Winer, p. 135. 
 
 5 Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 276; Kiihner, 
 ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 49. 
 
 ® Oecumenius, Thomas, Flacius, Olearius, 
 
 Baumgarten, Flatt, and others. 
 
 7 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Lu- 
 ther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Gro- 
 tius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others, including 
 Riickert,—but with hesitation,—Matthies, 
 Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
 8 So the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, Augustine, Estius (but with 
 hesitation), Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, 
 Koppe, and others, including Lachmann, 
 Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Tischendorf, 
 Schenkel, Bleek. 
 
CHAP. I., 5. 315 
 marking the discourse. Consequently: in that He in love predestined us. 
 Homberg has indeed conceived the relation of the time of rpoopicag to 
 é£eAéEato as : ‘‘ postquam nos praedestinavit adoptandos, elegit etiam nos, ut 
 simus sancti,” ‘‘ after he predestinated us for adoption, he elected us to be 
 holy;” but the usual view correctly conceives zpoopicac as coincident in 
 point of time, and accomplished simultaneously with é&eéfaro, so that it is 
 regarded as the modus, ‘‘ mode,” of the latter (see on yrupicac, ver. 9). For 
 the predestination (the rpoopifew) is never elsewhere distinguished from the 
 election as something preceding it ; it rather substantially coincides with it 
 (hence at Rom. viii. 29 only the expression zpodpice is used, while in viii. 33 
 only ixdexroi are mentioned), and only the zpéyvwoi, ‘‘ foreknowledge,” is 
 prior, Rom. l.c.1_ It is, we may add, purely arbitrary to distinguish é£e2é£aro 
 and zpoopicac, so that the former should apply to individuals, the latter to the 
 whole.* Both verbs have in fact the same objects (jac, which denotes the 
 persons) ; see on Rom. viii. 29. [See Note VI., p. 352.]— The zxpo in 
 mpoopicac, ‘‘ beforehand,” points to the future realization. Certainly the predes- 
 tination has taken place before the creation of the world (ver. 4) ; but this is 
 not expressed by zpo, which rather looks always towards the future setting 
 in of the thing predestined. See Rom. viii. 29 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. i. 11; 
 Acts iv. 28 ; Heliod. p. 298, 14, p. 266, 15 ; Sopater in Walz, Rhet. V. 
 p- 152, 20. — ic vioteciav dia "Incov Xpiorod eic aitév| are to be taken closely 
 together : unto adoption through Jesus Christ in reference to Him,—that is, 
 He has destined us to stand in the relation of those assumed as children through 
 mediation of Jesus Christ to Him (to God). Comp. Rom. viii. 29. That 
 viobecia 18 nowhere merely childship,* but adoption,* see on Rom. vii. 15 ; 
 Gal. iv. 5. viofecia is never predicated of Christ Himself ; for He is the 
 born Son of God (Rom. vill. 3; Gal. iv. 4), who procured for His own the 
 assumption into the place of children (whereby they became de jure His 
 brethren, Rom. viii. 29). The pre-eminence of Christ is therefore essential, 
 not merely prototypal, as of the head of humanity ;° He is the povoyevije. 
 Through adoption believers have passed out (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.) of their 
 natural state, in which by sin they were liable to the wrath of God (ii. 3), 
 and have entered into the state of reconciliation, in which, through the 
 mediation of the reconciling death of Christ (vv. 6, 7), by means of the 
 faith in it which was counted to them for righteousness (Gal. iii. 26 ; Rom. 
 iv. 5, 23 f.) they have forgiveness of sins, and are heirs of the Messianic 
 blessedness (ver. 14; Gal. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 10, 11, 17), as a guarantee of 
 which the Holy Spirit is given to them (ver. 14 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; Rom. viii. 16).— 
 cic avtév| does not apply to Christ,® since Christ is mediator of the adoption, 
 
 1Comp. Lampsing, Pauli de praedestinat. 
 decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 70. See on this 
 use of the aorist participle, Hermann, ad 
 Viger. p. (74; Bernhardy, p. 883; Winer, 
 p. 321. 
 
 2 Schenkel. 
 
 3 As Meier and Bleek still take it here, 
 following Usteri. 
 
 4Even the old theocratic vio@ecia was 
 
 adoption ; for the Jews were as such, and 
 not as men generally, the chosen and pecu- 
 liar people to whom the Messiah was prom- 
 ised. See on Rom. ix. 4. 
 
 5JIn opposition to Beyschlag, Chrisiol. d. 
 ANF FE 50s ZAI 
 
 6 Anselm, Thomas, Castalio, Vorstius, 
 Menochius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others, 
 including de Wette. 
 
316 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 and this is a relation to God. This simple sense of reference toward is to be 
 maintained, and we must not introduce either ad gloriam gratiae suae, ‘‘ to 
 the glory of his grace,” ’ or ‘ bringing our race ei¢ avrov.”* At varianee with 
 linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, and Calixtus take it for év éav76, and dis- 
 cover in it the independence of the divine rpoop:ouéc ; and Grotius, Wolf, 
 Baumgarten, Koppe, Holzhausen, Meier hold it as equivalent to sibi, At 
 himself (‘Cas children, who rightly belong to Him as His own,” Meier). 
 Comp. also on Col. i. 20. — We may add that here, too, we must not write® 
 airéy, but airév. [See Note VIL. p. 352.] Comp. above on karevoriov 
 abrov. —Kata tyv evdokiav Tov OeAjuatog avtov (not atrov) : conformably to the 
 pleasure of His will, just as it was the purpose of His will. Comp. Matt. x1. 
 26; Luke x. 21. So Vulgate, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, Flatt, and others, 
 including Riickert, de Wette, Bleek. It may also signify : according to 
 the benevolence of His will.4 But this notion is already and more strongly 
 contained in éy dyaz7y ; and the element which is here meant, of free self- 
 determination, independent of all human desert, as regulative of the zpoopi- 
 tev, is clearly pointed to in the parallel by jv rpoéGero év aitG. Comp. also 
 Vier leew Oniurnreste: 9: 
 
 Remarx.—Predestination is not made dependent on any sort of causa 
 meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” on the part of man (comp. ver. 11), but is simply 
 an act of free divine kindness, whose determination has its causa impulsiva, 
 ‘‘impelling cause,” only in Christ ; so that, in the case of the predestined sub- 
 jects, faith is set forth as the causa apprehendens, ‘‘ apprehending cause,” of the 
 salvation destined for them kata rpéyveow (Rom, villi. 29) ; and with this Rom. 
 ix., when rightly apprehended, agrees. The conditions mentally supplied by 
 expositors (as e.g., Grotius, who finds in our passage ‘‘decretum ejus, quod 
 Deus facere vult, si et homines faciant quod debent,”’ ‘‘ his decree that God wishes 
 to act, provided men also do what they ought; comp. already Jerome) remove 
 the relation out of the sphere of the divine eiJoxia Tov OeAnuatog into that of 
 dependence on human self-choice, and consequently into the domain of the 
 accidental. The notion of absolute decree, however, breaks down before the 
 mpoyvwcic as the necessary premiss of the divine éxAoy7—a premiss, which 
 doubtless involves the necessity of morally restricting the truncus aut lapis, 
 block or ‘‘stone,’’ of the Formula Concordiae (comp. Luthardt, Lehre vom freien 
 Willen, p. 272). 
 
 Ver. 6. As love was the disposition serving as motive for the divine predesti- 
 nation (ver. 5), so is the glorifying of the divine love (which, however, is 
 here designated in accordance with its distinctive peculiarity, because it 
 refers to sinners, ii. 1 ff., as grace) its divinely conceived ultimate aim, 
 not, as Grotius would have it, consequens aliud, ‘‘ something consequent.” 
 Comp. 2 Cor. i. 203 Phil. i. 11. —eic éravov d6En¢ tHe yapitog abrow (not 
 aitov) means neither to the glorious praise of His grace,‘ nor to the praise of 
 
 1 Piscator ; comp. Schenkel. 4See, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. 
 
 2 Theophylact. p. 369 ff. So Harless, Olshausen, Baumgar- 
 
 3 With Beza, Stephanus, Mill, Griesbach, ten-Crusius, following older expositors. 
 Knapp, Meier, and others. 5 Grotius, Estius. 
 
CHAP: 1.53% 317 
 
 His glorious grace,! the one of which is just as arbitrary as the other ; but : 
 to the praise of the glory of His grace. 'The quality of the grace, its glory— 
 its greatness laudably evincing itself—is brought into prominence as the 
 object of the praise to be bestowed on it. Bengel already in his day aptly 
 distinguished the notions ; ‘‘ Primum nascitur laus gratiae,” ver. 7, ‘‘ inde 
 laus gloriae,” ‘‘the praise of grace arises first, then the praise of glory.”— 
 d6Ene without the article may not surprise us on account of the genitival defi- 
 nition that follows. See Winer, p. 118 f. — 7 éyapirwoev judg év 7H Hyar. | 
 7¢ is attracted by the preceding r7¢ ydprtoc,* instead of 7.4 Xapitdw Means: 
 gratia aliquem afficere, ‘‘to treat any one with grace ;” and, according as 
 the ydpic is conceived of subjectively as love-worthiness, or objectively as the 
 divine grace, the sense may either be : to make love-worthy, as Chrysostom ® 
 and his followers,® Cornelius & Lapide, and many Roman Catholics,’ have 
 taken it, understanding thereby not merely the reconciliation, but also the 
 positive sanctifying, the justitia inhaerens, ‘‘ inherent righteousness ;” or : 
 to grant grace (as it is taken usually). In the former sense,* the word occurs, 
 Niceph. Prog. ii. 2 ; Symm. Ps. xvii. 28 ; Ecclus. xviii. 17; also Ecclus. 
 ix. 8 in Cod. A ; and Clem. Alex. Pued. ii. 11 ; in the latter sense, in Luke 
 1.28 ; Test. XII. Patr. p. 698. The latter is here decidedly correct, since 
 the preceding ric yapitoc, especially with 7c as the reading, permits no devi- 
 ation from that meaning, just as ver. 7 sets forth simply the work of pardon- 
 ing grace. — év TO nyatnuévw| Christ as the vid¢e r7¢ ayarne abrov, ‘‘ the son of 
 his love,” Col. i. 18 (comp. Matt. iii. 17), is car’ é&oy7, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the 
 beloved of God, and in Him has God shown us grace, 7.e., in the fact that He 
 gave Him up to death for us (ver. 7), He has brought home to us His grace. 
 Comp. ii. 18 ; Rom. viii. 39 ; 2 Cor. v.19. The designation of Christ by 
 6 yyarhuwevoc Makes us feel the greatness of the divine grace. Comp. Rom. 
 Vill, 62, v. 8 ff. ; John iii. 16; 1 Johniv. 9 f. 
 
 Ver. 7. More precise elucidation, on the basis of experience (éyouev), of 
 what had just been said, éyapir. quae év TO Hyar. —év 6] so that in Him our 
 possession of the redemption has its ground. He it is, without whose per- 
 son and work we should not have been redeemed ; ywpi¢ Xpiorov (ii. 12), no 
 arodttpwore. Comp. Rom. iii. 24. The relative has, as is often the case,° 
 argumentative significance. Comp. here especially iii. 12. — rv aroatbrpwow] 
 the redemption, namely, from God’s wrath and penalties, which before our 
 entrance into faith we had incurred through sin (Rom. i. 18, iii. 23, v. 5 ff., 
 vii. 7 ff. ; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6, al.), as those who were under the dominion of 
 
 1 Luther, Castalio, Beza, and most expos- 5 Chrysostom says: Just as if one were 
 itors, including Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Holz- to make a sick or famished man into a 
 hausen, Meier. beautiful youth, so has God made our soul 
 
 2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 53 f.; Held, ad beautiful and love-worthy for the angels 
 Timol. p. 368. and all saints and for Himself. 
 
 3 xapiv xaptrovv is conceived of as ayamnv § Comp. also Luther. 
 ayarav, ii. 4; John xvii. 26; comp. Dem. 7 Including Bisping. 
 
 306, 28: xapitas xapigeaOar. 8 See Wetstein, I. p. 651. 
 4 Comp. iv.1; and see on 2 Cor. i. 4; Hom. ® See, generally, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phil. 
 
 Zl. xxii. 649; Arist. Pl. 1044: ts bBpeos fs p. 195 f.; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. Il. p. 371. 
 UBpiGopa, 
 
318 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the devil (Col. i. 18; Acts xxvi. 18). The purchase-price (1 Cor. vi. 20, 
 vii. 23 ; Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45) through which Christ, in voluntary 
 obedience to God’s gracious counsel, accomplished this azoAtiTpworc, was His 
 blood, which He shed as an iAaoripuov, ‘‘ a propitiation,” for the benefit of men 
 (Rom. iii. 25, v. 8, 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 21; Col. i. 21, 1. 13 f.). On arodbrpaorc, 
 as the effect of the atoning ‘death, in which case the blood of Christ is 
 always conceived of as the purchase-price, see Rom. 111. 24. —6ca rod aiparoc 
 avtov| by means of His blood, a more precise definition of the preceding év @. 
 Paul might have written év 76 aiware abrod (11. 13) ; but he in general prefers 
 an interchange of prepositions (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 11 ; Rom. iii. 30; Gal. ii. 
 16 ; Philem. 5), to which he was here specially led by his epexegetic pur- 
 pose (comp. ili. 12 ; 1 Thess. ili. 7). — rv ddeow tov tapatTwudtor] apposi- 
 tion to tiv axoditpworr, the essence of which is the forgiveness of sins obtained 
 on account of the death of Christ. As to the distinction between rapecic 
 (Rom. iii. 25) and ddeore (used by Paul also in Col. i. 14), see on Rom. iii. 
 25. —.1év rapartwouatwv denotes always the actual individual sins (ii. 1 ff. ; 
 and see on Rom. v. 20) ; hence Paul has not mentally included a forgive- 
 ness of inborn sinfulness.’ [See Note VIII., p. 352.]—kxara rév rAovrov rie 
 yapitoc avtow] is not to be resolved into an adjective (‘‘ gratia liberaiissima, ” 
 ‘by his most liberal grace,” Koppe) ; but the riches, i.e., the great fulness,* 
 of the divine grace is that, in consequence of which we have in Christ the 
 redemption. It is to be noted that here, as well as in ver. 6, the reference 
 to the divine grace serves to wind up one element of the discourse, and (by 
 jc) to annex another. As to rAovroc tHe yapitoc (il. 7, ili. 16), see on Rom. 
 ii. 4. Wemay add that Lachmann, Riickert, Tischendorf [Westcott and 
 Hort] have the form 76 riAovroc, following A B D* E (?) 8* min., to which 
 also F G fall to be added with the transcriber’s error tov rAovroc ; and 
 rightly.° 
 
 Ver. 8. "He ézepiocevoer cic yuac] 7¢ stands by attraction (comp. ver. 6), 
 not for 7,4 so that érepicc. would be intransitive, — for the attraction of the 
 dative, rare even in classic authors,® is not found in the N. T., not even in 
 the passages adduced by Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 247, — but for jv, so that 
 éxepioc. is transitive (2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8; 1 Thess. ili. 12) : which He has 
 made abundant, has shown in an exceedingly high degree (ap6évac éféyee, 
 ‘‘ungrudgingly shed,” Theophylact), toward us. If, with Calvin and 
 Beza,° we should not assume any attraction at all, but should take the geni- 
 tive as at Luke xv. 17, there would result the sense, unsuitable to what 
 follows (yrwpicag x.t.A.) : of which He had superabundance towards us. —év 
 radon cogia Kai gpovgcer] is not’ to be attached to yrwpicac, because it would 
 thus, like éy aydry in ver. 5, denote the attribute of God operative in the 
 yvepiferv, Which, on account of acy (see below), is not admissible. If, 
 
 2 Olshausen. 5 Kriiger, Gramm. 51. 10. 8, and Grammat. 
 2 Codex 17 has 70 7A7 80s. Unters. III. p. 274 f. 
 3 See on 2 Cor. viii. 2, Remark; and see ® Comp. also Holzhausen. 
 
 Winer, p. 64. 7 With Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, 
 
 4 Camerarius, Calvin, Piscator, Erasmus, Homberg, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, 
 Schmid. Griesbach, Koppe, Holzhausen, Scholz. 
 
CHAP +i, Os 319 
 
 again, we should, with Chrysostom,' regard it as the state of men brought 
 about by yvupicac x.7.4., this would be forced, and, as concerns the sense, 
 there might be urged against it the circumstance that, in the making known 
 of the divine mystery, Paul had to set forth, not the divine display of 
 grace in itself (this was given in the work of redemption, vv. 6, 7), but the 
 display of grace as revealed. Hence it was necessary that there should be 
 added to jc éxepioc. eic ju. a definition, and this is év rdcy cod. x. dpov.: 
 which he has displayed abundantly towards us by every kind of wisdom and dis- 
 cernment (with which He endowed us, comp. Col. i. 9), in that He made 
 known to us, etc. Observe here withal the elimaz, in which, rising from 
 the simple je éyapirwoev juac, ver. 6, the apostle now, at this further display 
 of grace, says : 7¢ ézepicoevoev eic judc. Riickert,? although connecting it 
 with jc érepioc. ele ju., incorrectly holds the divine wisdom to be meant, 
 and takes the sense to be, that God has with highest wisdom and discern- 
 ment dispensed His grace over us. Not only would this introduce here 
 something remote from the point,—since in the whole context Paul is com- 
 mending only grace as such, and not any other attribute along with it,—but 
 the words themselves are opposed to it, not indeed by @povjce: in itself, 
 which * might be used also of God (1 Kings iii. 28 ; Prov. iii. 19 ; Jer. x. 
 12), but certainly by cdc. For raca cogia does not mean summa sapientia, 
 ‘‘the highest wisdom,” but every kind of wisdom, which, according to a 
 popular mode of expression, like our ‘‘all possible wisdom,” * can be said 
 only of men. The rodrvroikcidog copia, ill. 10, is not analogous,® but 
 denotes the absolute wisdom according to its manifold modes of manifesta- 
 tion.* [See Winer, § 18: 4] —xai ¢povgce] Comp. 1 Kings iv. 29: éédoxe 
 Kbpiog dpévnow TO Larwuov kai cogiav ToAAgv 3 Dan. li. 21: dove cogiay roic 
 Gogolg Kai gpdvycw Toic eidéce obveoww 3 Joseph. Antt. ii. 5. 7, vill. 7.5. &pd- 
 vyowe is an aptitude, which proceeds from wisdom (7 dé cogia avdpi tikred 
 épévyowv, Prov. x. 23), in connection with which the distinction is to be 
 noted, that cogia is the general notion” which embraces the collective activity 
 of the mind as directed to divine aims only to be achieved by moral means 
 (comp. on Col. i. 9) ; whereas ¢pévycre denotes the more special notion of 
 the morally determined intelligence, the insight of practical reason regulating 
 the dispositions érorjun ayafov kai xaxov, ‘‘ understanding of good and evil,” 
 Plato, Def. p. 411 D 5 suc aAnfije pera Adyou mpaxtiKy rept Ta avOpdrw dyad x. 
 xaxa, ‘* A true practical habit exercised by the reason with respect to things 
 good and evil to man,” Arist. Hth. vi. 5. 4). See, especially, also Cic. Off. 
 1. 43. Comp. on gpévyorc, which Paul has not elsewhere, Luke i. 17 ; Beck, 
 bibl. Seelenl. p. 62. 
 
 Ver. 9. In that He has made known to us the mystery of His will. The 
 aorist participle signifies an action coincident and completed at the same 
 time with érepico. See oni. 5. —zjuiv] applies, as in the whole connection, 
 
 1 Comp. Michaelis and others. >In opposition to de Wette. 
 2Comp. Jerome, Castalio, de Wette, and § [See Winer, § 18: 4.] 
 
 others. T émvaT7py Ociwy Te Kal avOpwrivwv mpayj.a- 
 3 In opposition to Harless and Schenkel. tov, “ understanding of divine as well as of 
 
 4 Theile, ad Jacob. p. 7. * human things,” Sext. Emp. adv. phys. i. 13. 
 
320 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 to Christians generally ; but in this case the extraordinary kinds of making 
 known, which individuals among them had experienced (such as Paul him- 
 self, who was instructed 6? droxadiyswc, Ui. 3; Gal. i. 12), are left out of 
 account. —7d pvorhp. Tov OeAgu. aitov] tov OeAju. is an objective genitive. 
 And the mystery with which the divine will is occupied, is the counsel of re- 
 demption accomplished through Christ, not in so far asit is in itself incompre- 
 hensible for the understanding, but in so far as, while formed from eternity, 
 it was until the announcement of the gospel hidden in God, and veiled and 
 unknown to men. See Rom. xvi. 25 f. ; Eph. iii. 4 f., 9, vi. 19; Col. 1. 
 26. By the prophets the mystery was not disclosed, but the disclosure of 
 it was merely predicted ; here atthe proclamation of the gospel the prophetic 
 predictions became the means of its being disclosed, Rom. xvi. 25 f. — kara 
 tiv evdox. avtov] belongs not to 7d vor. Tov bed. ait.,' in which case it would 
 stand in a tautologic relation to tov 6eA. ait., but rather to yrwpiocac x.T.A., 
 stating that God has accomplished the making known in pursuance of His 
 Sree self-determination. Comp. on ver. 5. — iv rpoébero év abt] would be in 
 itself redundant, but serves for the attaching of that which follows ; hence 
 no comma is to be placed after ai7é. It is not, however, to be written as 
 uiTo,”? since here the airéc cannot appear as the third person, as would be 
 the case if the text had run in some such form as kata rv rodfeow avrov, and 
 as was previously the case with the thrice occurring airov. If ai7 were to 
 be read, a subject different from God would be meant ; as, indeed, Chry- 
 sostom and his successors, as well as Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, 
 in reality understood it of Christ, although the latter only comes in again 
 at ver. 10, and that by name. — zpoéOero] set before Himself (Rom. i. 18), 
 purposed (namely, to accomplish it) in Himself, i.e., in His heart (anthropo- 
 pathic designation). This purpose, too (mpééecic, ver. 11), is to be con- 
 ceived as formed before the creation of the world ; without this idea, 
 however, being expressed by po, which is not even to be taken tempo- 
 rally, but locally (to set before oneself), comp. on rpoyerpifoua, Acts. li. 20. 
 There is incorrectness, for the very reason that év ait¢ does not apply to 
 Christ, in the translation of Luther (comp. Vulgate) : ‘‘ and has brought 
 Sorth (herfiirgebracht| the same by Him,” though zpoé#. in itself might 
 have this meaning. See on Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 Ver. 10. Eic oixovopiav tov rAnpou. tev Karp. | Unto the dispensation of the ful- 
 Jilling of the times, belongs not to yvwpicac,* but to the immediately preceding 
 jv mpoélero év aitG, Which is inserted solely with a view to attach to it eic¢ 
 oixov. k.T.A. ; and eic does not stand for év,* but denotes what God in form- 
 ing that purpose had in view, and is thus telic : with a design to.° With the 
 temporal rendering, usque ad,® we should have to take zpoéfero in a pregnant 
 sense, and to supply mentally : ‘‘consilio secretum et abditum esse voluit,” 
 ‘‘He wished it to be secret and concealed in his counsel,” 7 which, however, 
 
 1 Bleek. Piscator, and others. 
 2 As by Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf 5 [See Winer, § 49.] 
 
 [Westcott and Hort, Eng. Rey. Version]. 6 Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, Estius, Er. 
 3 Bengel. Schmid, Michael., and others. 
 
 4 Vulgate and several Fathers, also Beza, 7 Erasmus. Paraphr. 
 
CHAP. 1., 103 B21 
 with the former explanation is superfluous, and hence is arbitrary here, 
 although it would in itself be admissible (Winer, p. 577). — oixovoyia} house- 
 management (Luke xvi. 2), used also in the ethico-theocratic sense (1 Tim. 
 i. 4), and specially of the functions of the apostolic office (1 Cor. ix. 17 ; 
 Col. i. 25), here signifies regulation, disposition, arrangement in general, in 
 which case the conception of an oixovéuo¢ has receded into the background.’ 
 — The rAfpopa rev Karpov, id quo impleta sunt tempora, ‘‘ that wherein times 
 are fulfilled” (comp. on iii. 19) is not in substance different from 76 rAqpapya 
 Tov ypévov, Gal. iv. 4 ; nevertheless, in our passage the pre-Messianic period 
 running on from the beginning is conceived of not as unity, as at Gal. l.c., 
 but according to its different sections of time marked off by different epochs, 
 the last of which closes with the setting in of the Messianic work of redemp- 
 tion, and which thus with this setting in become full (like a measure), so 
 that nothing more is lacking to make up the time as a whole, of which they are 
 the parts. This tA/paua is consequently not, in general, tempus justum, ‘‘ the 
 right time,” ? but the fulness of the times, i.e.,that point of time, by the setting 
 in of which the pre-Messianic ages are made full,* that is, are closed as com- 
 plete.* Fritzsche ° conceives it otherwise, holding that 76 rAjpwua is plenitas, 
 “fulness,” the abstract of wA/pyc, hence 7A. 7. x. plenum tempus, ‘‘ the full 
 time,” of rAnpecc kacpot. But while rA7jpoua doubtless signifies zmpletio, ‘‘ ful- 
 filling,” like wAjpwor, in Ezek. v. 2; Dan. x. 3 ; Soph. Trach. 1203 ; Eurip, 
 Tro. 824, it never denotes the being full. — Now, in what way is the genitive- 
 relation oixovouia tov xAnpauatoc to be understood? A genitive of the object ® 
 Tov TAnpou cannot be, inasmuch as it may doubtless be said of the wA/pwua 
 TOV Kap. AS a point of time fixed by God : dé comes (Gal. iv. 4), but not : i 
 4s arranged, oixovoueira. Harless takes the genitive as eperegetic. But a 
 point of time (xAjp. tr. karp.) cannot logically be an appositional more pre- 
 cise definition of a fact (oixovowia). The genitive is rightly taken as express- 
 ing the characteristic (temporal) peculiarity, as by Calovius : ‘‘ dispensatio 
 propria plenitudini temporum,” ‘‘the dispensation peculiar to the fulness 
 of the times.” Comp. Riickert. Just as kpiow peyddAnc juépac, Jude 6. 
 Hence : with a view to the dispensation to be established at the setting in of the 
 Sulness of the times. 
 Tov vidv avrov, ‘‘ when the fulness of the time came God sent forth his Son,” 
 Gal. /.c., and on His emergence rerAjpwrar & Karpéc, ‘‘ the time is fulfilled,” 
 Marki. 15. There was no need that the article should stand before oixov. 
 just because of the complete definition contained in the following genitive. 
 
 For, ére 7A0e 76 TAHpwua Tov yodvov, éaréaTecdAev 6 Odc 
 
 1 Comp. iii. 2; Ken. Cy7. v. 3. 25; Plut. 
 Pomp. 50 ; frequently in Polyb. (see Schweig- 
 haeuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 402; comp. also 
 2 Mace. ili. 14; 3 Macc. iii. 2; Act. Thom. 57). 
 
 2 Morus: at its time. 
 
 3 The apostolic idea of the mAjpopna tev 
 kaipav excludes the conception of a series 
 of worlds without beginning or end (Rothe). 
 See Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 170 ff. 
 
 4Comp. Herod. iii. 22: oydaxovta 8 érea 
 Cons mAjpwua avipt pakpotatov mpoxéerOar, 
 
 al 
 
 “eighty years are appointed as the longest 
 fulness of life to man” (implementum vitae 
 longissimum, 2.é., dongissimum tempus, quo 
 impletur vita,‘ the longest fulness of life, 7.¢., 
 the longest time in which life is fulfilled”), 
 and see on Gal. iy. 4; Wetstein on Mark i. 
 alley, 
 
 5In Thesauri quo sacrae N. T. glossae 
 illustr. specim., Rostock 1839, p. 25, and ad 
 Rom. Il. p. 4738. 
 
 ®§ Menochius, Storr, Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
B22 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Comp. on ver. 6. It would only be required, if we should have mentally to 
 supply to oixovouiay a genitival definition, and thus to make it an independent 
 idea, as is done by many,’ who explain it as administrationem gratiae, ‘‘an ad- 
 ministration of grace,”—a view which is erroneous, just because a genitive 
 already stands beside it, although oixovoyia tov rAnpmatoc Tov Kaipov, taken to- 
 gether, is the Christian dispensation of grace. This genitival definition 
 standing alongside of it also prevents us from taking, with Luther, ée¢ 
 olkovoniav (se. Tov wvotypiov) as: ‘‘ that it should be preached ;” or from supply- 
 ing, with Grotius and Estius,? rye eidoxiac avtotd with oixov., in neither of 
 which cases would there be left any explanation of the genitive sense appli- 
 cable to tov TAnpwuarog t. x. Quite erroneous, lastly, is the view of Storr, 
 Opuse. I. p. 155, who is followed by Meier, that oixovouia row ramp. Tt. x. 8 
 administratio eorum quae restant temporum, ‘‘the administration of those | 
 times that remain.” For to take 7. Ap. 7. x. in the sense of religua tempo- 
 ra, 1.€., novi foederis, ‘‘the remaining times, 7.e., of the new covenant,” is 
 in the light of Gal. iv. 4, Mark i. 15, decidedly to misapprehend it. [See 
 Note IX., p. 852 seq. ] — avaxedatadoacba ta ravta év TO Xptot@ | epexegetical 
 infinitive, which gives information as to the actual contents of that oixovouia : 
 (namely) again to gather up together, etc. Therein the arrangement designated 
 by olxovouia 7. TA. 7. x. Was to consist. This connection is that which nat- 
 urally suggests itself, and is more in keeping with the simple mode followed 
 in the context of annexing the new portions of the discourse to what imme- 
 diately precedes, than the connection with rpoééero,* or with 7d pvorhp. Tod 
 fez. avtov.t We may add that Beza, Piscator, and others have taken eic¢ 
 oikov. T. 7A. 7. k. Along with avaxedad. as one idea ; but ia that case the pre- 
 ceding jv xpoéfero év ait@ must appear quite superfluous and aimless, and 
 el¢ olkovou. K.T.A., by being prefixed to avaxegad., irrelevantly receives the main 
 emphasis, which is not to be removed from dvaxegaA. — dvaxedadracdoacbat] 
 kedadacov in the verb xedadacdw Means, as it does also in classical usage, chief 
 thing, main point ;° hence xedaradw : summatim colligere, as in Thue. iii. 67. 
 5, vi. 91. 6, vill. 53. 1; Quinctil. i. 6. Comp. ovyxedadAaovoba, Ken. Cyr. 
 vill. 1. 15 ; Polyb. ili. 3. 1, 7, iv. 1. 9. Consequently dvaxedadaéw : swmmuia- 
 tim recolligere, ‘‘recapitulate summarily,” which is said in Rom. xii. 9 of 
 that which has been previously expressed singulatim, ‘‘ individually,” in sep- 
 arate parts, but now is again gathcred up in one main point, so that at 
 Rom. l.c. év rottw 76 Adyw denotes that main point in which the gathering 
 up is contained. And here this main point of gathering up again, 
 unifying all the parts, lies in Christ; hence the gathering up is not 
 verbal, as in Rom. l.c., but real, as is distinctly apparent from the objects 
 gathered up together, ra éri roic obpavoic x.7.A. It 1s to be observed withal, 
 (1) that dvaxedada. does not designate Christ as xedaa7 — although He really 
 is so (ver. 22)—so that it would be tantamount to tr piav Kedadqy ays, 
 
 
 
 1 Wolf, Olshausen, and others. to indicate by the name ‘mystery;’ also 
 2 Comp. Morus. Harless, comp. Olshausen, Schmid, 6200. 
 3 Zachariae, Flatt, and others. Theol. II. p. 347, and others. 
 
 4Beza: Paul is explaining guid mysterii 5 See Wetstein, ad Rom. xiii. 9. 
 
 nomine significare voluerit, ‘* what he wanted 
 
CHAP: 7, 10: 323 
 ‘*to bring under one head,” but as xedaaAaiov, which is evident from the 
 etymology ; (2) that we are not to bring in, with Grotius and Hammond, 
 the conception of scattered warriors, or, with Camerarius, that of an arith- 
 metical sum (kegdAavov, see Wetstein, /.c.), which must have been suggested 
 by the context ; (3) that the force of the middle is the less to be overlooked, 
 inasmuch as an act of government on God’s part is denoted : sibi summatim 
 recolligere, ‘‘to gather again summarily for himself” ; (4) that we may not 
 give up the meaning of ava, iterum, ‘‘ again,” * which points back toa state in 
 which no separation as yet existed. This ava has had its just force already re- 
 cognized by the Peshito and Vulgate (instaurare, ‘‘to restore”), as well as by 
 Tertull. de Monog. 5 (ad initium reciprocare, ‘‘to go back to the beginning”’), * 
 although kegaiaidé is overlooked by the former, and wrongly apprehended by 
 the latter. See the more detailed discussion below. — ra révra] is referred by 
 many (see below) merely to tnteliigent beings, or to men, which, according 
 to a well-known use of the neuter, would be in itself admissible (Gal. iii. 
 22), but would need to be suggested by the context. It is quite general : 
 all created things and beings. Comp. vv. 22, 23. —ra én? tole ovpavoic Kai Ta 
 éxt tHe yac\ that which is on the heavens and that which is on the earth. éxi roic 
 ovpav. (see the critical remarks) is so conceived of that the heavens are the 
 stations at which the things concerned are to be found.® Even in the classi- 
 cal writers, we may add, prepositions occurring in close succession often 
 vary their construction without any special design in it. As regards the 
 real sense, ta éxi Toi¢ ovpav. is not to be arbitrarily limited either to the spirits 
 in heaven generally,” or to the angels,* or to the blessed spirits of the pious men 
 of the O. T.,° nor must we understand by it the Jews, and by ra éri tic yqc the 
 Gentiles,” as, indeed, Koppe was able to bring out of it all mankind by de- 
 claring heaven and earth to be a periphrasis for xécyoc ; but, entirely with- 
 out restriction, all things and beings existent in the heavens and upon earth are 
 meant, so that the preceding ra ravra is specialized in its two main divi- 
 sions. Irenaeus” quite arbitrarily thought of all events which should have 
 come to pass on earth or in heaven, and which God gathers up, é.e., brinys 
 to their complete fulfilment, in Christ as in their goal.” But how far has 
 God gathered together again all things, things heavenly and things earthly, 
 in Christ ? Before the entrance of sin all created beings and things were 
 
 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Calovius, Ben- 
 gel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Mat- 
 thies, Meier, de Wette, and others. 
 
 2 Winer, deverbor. cum praep. conj. in N. T. 
 usu, III. p. 3 f. 
 
 8 Tn opposition to Chrysostom, Castalio, 
 and many others. : 
 
 4Comp. Goth.: “aftra usfulljan” (again 
 to fill up). 
 
 ® Comp. the well-known émi x@ovi (Hom. 
 Wl. iii. 195, al.) 3 emt mvAnow CZ. iii. 149); émi 
 amupye (1. vi. 431). 
 
 § See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.20. Comp. 
 as to the local ¢xi with genitive and dative, 
 é.g., Hom. 7. i. 486. 
 
 7 Riickert, Meier. 
 
 § Chrysostom, Calvin, Cameron, Balduin, 
 Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, Michaelis, 
 Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius [Weiss], and others. 
 
 ® Beza, Piscator, Boyd, Wolf, Moldenhau- 
 er, Flatt, and others. 
 
 10 Locke, Schoettgen, Baumgarten, Tel- 
 ler, Ernesti. 
 
 11 Adv. Haer. iii. 18. 
 
 12 Comp. Chrys.: 7a yap 5ta axpov xpovou 
 oikovomovmEva avykehbadawwcato év 
 Tovtéote cuvetene, ‘for the things long ad- 
 ministered he gathered together in Christ, 
 z.e., cut them short.”’ 
 
 Xpiore, 
 
B24 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 undividedly united under God’s government ; all things in the world were 
 normally combined into organic unity for God’s ends and in IJlis service. 
 But through sin this original union and harmony was broken, first of all in 
 heaven, where a part of the angels sinned and fell away from God ;* these 
 formed, under Satan, the kingdom antagonistic to God, and upon earth 
 brought about the fall of man (2 Cor. xi. 38), extended their sway 
 farther and farther, and were even worshipped in the heathen idols 
 (1 Cor. x. 20 f.). . With the fall of man there came to an end also 
 the normal state of the non-intelligent «rio, ‘‘ creature” (Rom. viii. 
 19 ff.) ; heaven and earth, which had become the scene of sin and of 
 the demoniac kingdom (ii. 2, vi. 12), were destined by God to de- 
 struction, in order that one day a new heaven and a new earth—-in which 
 not sin any more, but moral righteousness shall dwell, and God shall be the 
 all-determining power in all (1 Cor. xv. 28)—shall come imperishable (Rom. 
 viii. 21) in its place (2 Pet. ill. 13). The redeeming work of Jesus Christ 
 (comp. Col. i. 20) was designed to annul again this divided state in the 
 universe, which had arisen through sin in heaven and upon earth, and to 
 re-establish the unity of the kingdom of God in heaven and on earth ; so 
 that this gathering together again should rest on, and have its foundations 
 in, Christ as the central point of union and support, without which it could 
 not emerge. Before the Parousia, it is true, this dvaxedaAaiware is still but 
 in course of development ; for the devil is still with his demons ép toi¢ ézov- 
 paviowe (vi. 12), is still fighting against the kingdom of God and holding 
 sway over many ; many men reject Christ, and the «rics, ‘‘ creature,” longs 
 after the renewal. But with the Parousia there sets in the full realization, 
 which is the azoxatdoraocie ravTwr, ‘‘ restitution of all things” (Matt. xix. 28 ; 
 Acts iii. 21 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ff.) ; when all antichristian natures and powers 
 shall be rejected from heaven and earth, so that thereafter nothing 
 in heaven or upon earth shall be excluded from this gathering together 
 again.” Finally, the middle voice (sibi recolligere, ‘“‘to gather for him- 
 selr”) has its warrant in the fact that God is the Sovereign (the head of 
 Christ, 1 Cor. xi. 4 and iii. 23), who fulfils His will and aim by the gather- 
 ing up again, etc. ; so that, when the avaxegadaiworg is completed by the 
 victory over all antichristian powers, He resumes even the dominion com- 
 mitted to the Son, and then God is the sole ruling principle (1 Cor, xv. 24, 
 28). Our passage is accordingly so framed as to receive its historically ade- 
 quate clucidation from the N. T., and especially from Paul himself ; and 
 there is no reason for seeking to explain it from a later system of ideas, as 
 Baur does,* who traces it to the underlying Gnostic idea, that all spiritual 
 life which has issued from the supreme God must return to its original unity, 
 and in that view the ‘‘ affected” expression ¢eic oixov. t. tAnp. tT. karp is held to 
 
 1 For this falling away is the necessary p. 819 ff. On Jude6and 1 Tim. iii. 6, in which 
 presupposition for the Satanic seduction of passages a reference has been wrongly 
 our first parents, 1 John iii. 8-10 ; John viii. found to the first fall in the angelic world, 
 44, where an oviginally evil nature of the see Huther. 
 devil (Frommann, Hilgenfeld) is not to be 2 Comp. Photius in Oecumenius. 
 thought of; see Hahn. Jheol. d. N. T. I. 3p, 424. 
 
CHAP) 1, 10, 325 
 
 convey a covert allusion to the Gnostic pleroma of aeons and its economy. 
 The ‘‘ genuinely Catholic consciousness” ? of the Epistle is just the genuinely 
 apostolic one, necessarily rooted in Christ’s own word and work. The per- 
 son of Christ is not presented ‘‘under the point of view of the metaphysical 
 necessity of the process of the sclf-realizing idea,” * but under that of its 
 actual history, as this was accomplished, in accordance with the counsel of 
 the Father, by the free obedience of the Lord. 
 
 Remark 1.—The illustration which Chrysostom has given for ra éx? Toi¢ 
 ovpavotc kK. Ta Ext THC yi¢, from the conception of a house repaired (we dv rep) 
 oliklag Tig eiot TA fev CaApa Ta O& ioxupa EXOVONG’ dvwKodduNoe THY OiKiav. . . ODTW 
 Kal évradfa mavtag bro piav Hyaye Kepaayv, ‘as One would say of a house haying 
 some things decayed and others strong: ‘He so rebuilt the house, and there 
 brought all under one head’”’), has been again employed by Harless, whose 
 view of the passage (approved by Schenkel) is that the apostle speaks thus, 
 ‘because the Lord and Creator of the whole body, of which heaven and earth are mem- 
 bers, has in the restoration of the one member restored the whole body ; and inthis con- 
 sists the greatest significance of the reconciliation, that it is not merely a restoration of 
 the life of earth, but a bringing back of the harmony of the universe.”’ But in this 
 way the words of the apostle are made withal to suggest merely the doing away 
 of the contrast between heaven and earth (or, according to Schenkel’s tortuous 
 metaphor, ‘‘ between the heavenly glorified centre of creation and the earthly, 
 sin-troubled circumference of creation”), and there is conceded to the ra én? 
 toi¢ ovpavoig merely an indirect participation in the avakesadaiworc, and the 
 direct de facto operation of the Messianic oixovoyia on the heavenly world is set 
 aside—which appears the less admissible, inasmuch as 7a éxi r. ovp. has the prec- 
 edence. According to Paul, the heavenly world and the earthly world were to 
 be atfected, the former as immediately and properly as the latter, by the avaxe- 
 PaAdiwowg TOV TavTwy ; for the Satanic kingdom, for the destruction of which 
 Christ came, and whose destruction was the condition of the avaxepadaiwcic, 
 has its seat in the regions of heaven (vi. 12 ; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 
 p. 343 ff.), and works in the vioi tij¢ aveMeiac (ii. 2) upon earth, so that in heaven 
 and upon earth there exists no unity under God. 
 
 Remark 2.—The doctrine of Restoration, according to which those who have 
 continued unbelieving and the demons shall still ultimately attain to salvation, 
 altogether opposed as it is to the N. T., finds no support in our passage, where 
 (in opposition to Origen, Samuel Crell, and others), on the contrary, in the 
 dvaxegur. k.7.A. there is obviously implied, from the general point of view occu- 
 pied by Christian faith, the separation of unbelievers and of the demoniac 
 powers, and their banishment into Gehenna ; so that the avaxedadaiwore is not 
 meant of every single individual, but of the whole aggregate of heavenly and 
 earthly things, which, after the antichristian individuals have been separated 
 and consigned to hell, shall again in the renewed world be combined into unity 
 under God, as once, before the entrance of sin, all things in heaven and on 
 earth were combined into such unity. Hence Olshausen is wrongly of opin- 
 ion that our passage (as well as Col. i, 20) is to be brought into harmony with 
 
 1 See, on the other hand, Rabiger, Chris- p. 109. 
 tol. Paulina, p. 55. 3 Baur, neulest. Theol. p. 264. 
 2Baur, Christenth. d. drei erst. Jahrh. 
 
326 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the general type of Scripture doctrine by laying stress in the infinitive aroxegad. 
 upon the design of God ‘‘ which, in the instituting of a redemption endowed 
 with infinite efficacy, aims at the restoration of universal harmony, at the bring- 
 ing back of all that is lost.’’ Apart from the fact that avaxegad. is only an epexe- 
 getical infinitive (see above), it is altogether opposed to Scripture to assume 
 that the aim in redemption is the restoration of all that is lost, even of the 
 devils. For those passages as to the universality of redemption, and sayings 
 like 1 Pet. iv. 6, Phil. ii. 10 f., leave the constant teaching of the N. T. concern- 
 ing everlasting perdition entirely untouched (comp. on Rom. vy. 18, xi. 32 ; 
 Phil. ii. 10) ; and as regards the devils, the design of God in the economy of re- 
 demption was to vanquish them (1 John iii. 8, and elsewhere ; 1 Cor. xy. 24 f.), 
 and to deliver them up to the penalties already prepared for them of everlast- 
 ing pain in hell (Matt. xxv. 41; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 11.4; Rev. xx. 1 f. ; comp. 
 Bertholdt, Christol. p. 223). The restoration of the devils, as an impossibility 
 in the case of spirits radically opposed to God, is not in the whole N. T. so 
 much as thought of. The prince of this world is only judged. 
 
 Remark 3.—Those who understand ra ézi roi¢ otp. specially of the angels (see 
 above) have been driven—inasmuch as these pure spirits have no need of re- 
 demption in the proper sense—to unbiblical expedients, such as the view of 
 Calvin (comp. Boyd) : that the angels before the redemption were not extra per- 
 iculum, ‘‘beyond danger,” but had through Christ attained ‘‘ primum ut perfecte 
 et solide adhaereant Deo, deinde ut perpetuum statum retineant,” ‘‘ that they should 
 perfectly and firmly cleave to God, and then to retain a perpetual estate’ (of 
 all which the N. T. teaches nothing !) ; or that of Grotius : ‘‘antea inter angelos 
 factiones erant et studia pro populis (Dan. x. 13!) .. . ea sustulit Christus, rea 
 factus etiam angelorum, unum ex tot populis sibi populum colligens,” ‘* previously 
 there were among the angels factions and devotion to the interests of public 
 bodies (Dan. x. 13); these Christ removed, being made King of angels, collect- 
 ing from so many peoples one for himself ;’’ or that of Augustine and Zeger, 
 that the number of the angels, which had been diminished by the fall of some, 
 was completed again by the elect from among men. Baur (comp. Zanchius), 
 out of keeping with the notion of the dvaxegadaiworc, thought of the knowledge 
 (iii. 10) and bliss (Luke xv. 10) of the angels as heightened by redemption. 
 Others again (Chrysostom on Col. i. 20; Theophylact, Anselm, Cornelius & 
 Lapide, Hunnius, Calovius, Bengel, et al.) have found the dvaxegadaiwore in the 
 fact that the separation which sin had occasioned between the angels and sin- 
 ful men was done away.! So also in substance Riickert : ‘‘ Originally and ac- 
 cording to the will of God the whole world of spirits was to be one,... 
 through like love and obedience towards the one God. . . . Sin did away with 
 this relation, mankind became separated from God ; hence also of necessity 
 the bond was broken, which linked them to the higher world of spirits. . . - 
 Christ. . . is to unite mankind to Himself bya sacred bond, and thereby to bring 
 them back to God, and by that very act also. . . to do away with the breach ; 
 all is again to become one.’’ Comp. Meier, as also Bahr on Col. i. 20. But 
 the apostle is in fact speaking of the reuniting not of the heavenly with the 
 earthly, but of the heavenly and the earthly (comp. Remark 1) ; moreover, 
 
 1In connection with this view it was Christ was, as to His divine nature, the head 
 quite arbitrarily, and witha distinctionat of the angels, and as to His human nature, 
 yariance with Scripture, assumed that the head of men. 
 
CHAP ie ailill; 327 
 according to this explanation, the davakegaraiworc of the heavenly spirits with 
 men would be the consequence of the expiation made for men by Christ, and 
 thus Paul must logically have written: 7a ém tij¢ yig K. Ta Ent Tog odpavoic. 
 [See Note X., p. 353.] 
 
 Ver. 11. ’Ev ai7G] resumes with emphasis the éy Xpio7G,’ in order to attach 
 thereto the following relative clause ;? hence before év aiv6 a comma is to be 
 placed, and after it not a full stop, but only acomma.? Comp. on Col. i. 
 20. —év @ cal éxAnpoOnuev| in whom (is the causal basis, that) we have also 
 obtained the inheritance. «ai, in the sense of also actually introduces the ac- 
 complishment corresponding to the preparation (which was expressed by jv 
 mpoéOeTo év avT@ el¢ oikovouiay k.T.A.).4 It has reference to the thing, not to the 
 persons, since otherwise it must have run kai 7jueic éxAnp., aS In ver. 13 ; hence 
 the translation of the Vulgate : ‘‘in quo etiam nos,” etc., and others,* is in- 
 correct. The subject is not the Jewish Christians,® because there is no antith- 
 esis of jyueic and ipeic, ver. 13, but the Christians in general. 
 means : we were made partakers of the xrjpoc, ‘‘ inheritance ” (Acts xxvi. 18 ; 
 Col. i. 12), that is, of the possession of the Messianie kingdom, which before 
 the Parousia is an ideal possession (ver. 14 ; Rom. viii. 24), and thereafter 
 areal one. [See Note XI., p. 353.] The expression itself is to be explained 
 in accordance with the ancient theocratic idea of the mon3 (Deut. iv. 
 20, ix. 26, 29), which has been transferred from its original Palestinian 
 reference (Matt. v. 5) to the kingdom of the Messiah, and thus raised 
 to its higher Christian meaning (see on Gal. iii. 18) ; and the passive 
 form of this word, which is not met with elsewhere in the N. T., is quite like 
 dOovovpat, Svakovovpal, TioTevouar (see on Gal. iv. 20), since we find KAnpody revi 
 used.” Others® have insisted on the signification of being chosen by lot 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42 ; Herod. i. 94; Polyb. vi. 38. 2 ; Eurip. Jon, 416, al.), 
 and have found as the reason for the use of the expression : ‘*‘ quia in ipsis 
 electis nulla est causa, cur eligantur prae aliis,” ‘‘ because in the elect them- 
 selves there is no cause why they should be elected in preference to others,” ® 
 in which case, however, the conception of the accidental is held as excluded 
 by the following zpoopic#. x.7.A.;*° but it may be urged against this view that, 
 according to Paul, it is God’s gracious will alone that determines the éxioy7 
 (ver. 5 ; Rom. ix. 16 ff.), not a @eia roxy, ‘‘ divine chance,” which would be 
 implied in the ékAyp.; comp. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 759 C : kAypoiv ota th Oeia 
 Toxn arodidévra, ‘‘thus to apportion one confiding in divine chance.” — 
 
 ExAnpOOnwev 
 
 Tpoopiobévrec x.7.A.| predestined, namely, to the KAypoc, according to the purpose 
 of Him, who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will. The words 
 are not be placed within a parenthesis, and ra révra is not to be limited to 
 
 1 Herm. ad Viger. pp. 734, 735 ; Bernhardy, 
 p. 289 f. 
 
 2 Kiihner, IT. § 630, 5. 
 
 3 So, too, Lachmann, Tischendorf. 
 
 4See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132; Klotz, 
 ad Devar. 636 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. 152. 
 
 5 Including Erasmus, Paraphr., and Ro- 
 senmiiller. 
 
 6 Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, 
 Meier, Harless, Schenkel, and others. 
 7 Pind. Ol. viii. 19; Thue. vi. 42. 
 
 8 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, 
 Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and Bleek 
 [Cremer]. 
 
 ° Estius. 
 
 10 See Chrysostom and Estius. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 what pertains to the economy of salvation,’ but God is designated as the all- 
 working (of whom, consequently, the circumstances of the Messianic salva- 
 tion can least of all be independent). Comp. ravepyéryc Zeic, ‘‘ all-effecting 
 Zeus,” Aesch, Ag. 1486. But, as God is the all-working, so is His decree 
 the ravroxparopixov Bobéanua, ‘‘ omnipotent purpose,” Clem. Cor. I. 8. — As to 
 the distinction between Bovag and 6éAnua, comp. on Matt. 1.19. The former 
 is the deliberate self-determination, the latter the activity of the will in gen- 
 eral. 
 
 Ver. 12. Causa jinalis, ‘‘the final cause,” of the predestination to the 
 Messianic «Ajpoc :? in order that we might redound to the praise of His glory 
 (actually, by our Messianic KAypovouia), we who have beforehand placed our 
 hope on Christ,—we Jewish-Christians, to whom Christ even before His 
 appearing was the object of their hope. Only now, namely, from ¢éi¢ 76 eivac 
 qjuac onward, does Paul divide the subject of éAnpaé. and xpoopicbévtec, 
 which embraced the Christians generally, into its two constituent parts, the 
 Jewish- Christians, whom he characterizes by jjuac .. . Tove mponAmuxérac év 
 T® Xpior@, and the Gentile- Christians, whose destination to the same final 
 aim—namely, ei¢ rd evar cic éxarvoy x.t.A.—he dwells on afterward in vy. 
 13, 14 (passing over to them by év © xai iueic), and hence ver. 14 concludes 
 with a repetition of cic érarvov tio d6Ene aitov.* — uae] has emphasis, prepar- 
 ing the way for the subsequent introduction of kai iueic. — rode rponArixérac | 
 quippe qui, ‘‘as they who,” etc. On mpoearivew, to hope before, comp. Posei- 
 dippus in Athen. ix. p. 877 C. The zpo does not transfer the hoping into 
 the praescientia Dei, ‘‘foreknowledge of God,” * nor has it a reference to 
 the later hoping of the Gentiles,’ since the hoping of the Gentiles is 
 not subsequently expressed ; nor is rponAr. equivalent to the simple form,® 
 which is not the case of any verb with zpo ; but it applies to the fact that 
 the Jews had the Old Testament prophecies, and hence already before Christ 
 set their hope upon the Messiah (Rom. iii. 2, ix. 4; Acts iii. 25, xxvi. 6 f., 
 22, xxviii. 20, a/.). So, correctly, Zéckler takes it.? But de Wette, who ® 
 denies the division—also unnoticed by Chrysostom and his successors— 
 into Jewish and Gentile Christians (understanding jac, generally, of the 
 Christians, and ieic, ver. 18, of the readers), takes zpo in xponAr. as : before 
 Comp. Theophylact : xpiv 7 éxioty 6 wéAAwv aidv, ‘before the 
 coming age impend.” But in this way the rpo would be without significanee, 
 while, as taken by us, it is characteristic. It is incorrect, too, that ver. 13 
 affirms nothing peculiar of the Gentile-Christians. As standing in contrast 
 
 
 
 the Parousia. 
 
 1 Piscator, Grotius. : 
 
 2 Many others, including Flatt, Meier, 
 Harless, have attached eis 70 civacto mpoopia A. 
 (predestined, to be, etc.); but this is not 
 only not in keeping with the analogous eis 
 ératvoy k.7.A., VY.6 and 14, but also inappro- 
 priate, because mpoopio9. did not yet refer 
 specially to the Jewish-Christians. 
 
 ’ Thus what Paul dwells on in vy. 11-14 
 may be summarized thus: ‘‘In Christ we 
 have really become partakers of the Messi- 
 
 anic salvation, to which we were predes- 
 tined by God, in order that we Jewish- 
 Christians, and also you Gentile-Christians, 
 should redound to the praise of His glory.” 
 
 4 Jerome. 
 
 5 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Boyd, Estius, 
 Bengel, Michaelis, and others. 
 
 6 Morus, Bretschneider. 
 
 7 de vi ac notione vocab. édAmis, 1856, p. 32 f. 
 
 8 Comp. Riickert, Holzhausen, Matthies, 
 Bleek. 
 
CHAPS Dy has 329 
 
 to the xpondrixérac eivac of the Jewish- Christians, what is said in ver. 13 serves 
 precisely to characterize the Gentile-Christians. They, without having 
 entertained that previous hope (ii. 12), have heard, believed, etc. — The 
 usual construction, suggested of itself by the very sequence of the words, 
 has been—after the example of Morus, Koppe, ed. 1, Flatt, and Matthies — 
 departed from by Harless, followed by Olshausen, inasmuch as he regards 
 eic éxacvov O6En¢ avTov as an inserted clause [inciswm] : ‘we who were predes- 
 tined, etc., to be those—to the praise of His glory—who already before hoped in 
 Christ.” Tn this way Paul would point to the reason, why the xAjpoc had 
 first been assigned to the Jews. But (1) in that case é«Aypd6. and mpoopiob. 
 must already have applied specially to the Jewish-Christians, which no 
 reader could guess, and Paul, in order to his writing intelligibly, must have 
 indicated, by putting it in some such way as: é& © jueic ExAnpoOnuer, ob 
 mpoopiobévtec . . . €l¢ TO Elvar . . . Todvs MpoyArcKdrac x.T.A. As the passage 
 actually stands, the reader could find the Jewish-Christians designated only 
 at ver. 12, not previously. (2) ele érawov dé6En¢ aitov has, in accordance with 
 the context (see ver. 14 ; comp. also ver. 6), by no means the character of 
 an incidental insertion, but the stress of defining the ultimate aim, and that 
 not in respect of a pre-Christian state, but of the Christian one. This, how- 
 ever, only becomes suitably felt, when we read eic¢ 76 elvan juac eic Exawov 566 
 aitov together. (3) The predestination of God (xpoopiofévrec) is in the connection 
 related not to a pre-Christian state, such as, according to Harless, the eivac 
 Tove TponAmiKéTrac év T. Xpiot@ would be, but to the realization of the Mes- 
 sianic blessedness (ver. 5). Comp. Rom. viii. 29; 1 Cor. ii. 7; as 
 also Acts iv. 28. Lastly, (4) the objections taken by Harless to the usual 
 connection of the words are not tenable: For (a) the symmetry of the two 
 corresponding sentences in form and thought depends on the fact that in the 
 case of both sections, the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, the glorifying 
 of God is brought into prominence as the final aim of their attaining to sal- 
 vation, and hence ver. 14 also closes with ei¢ éravov rt. 06E. avtov. (0) The 
 repeated mention of the predestination on God’s part to salvation is solemn, 
 not redundant ; and the less so, inasmuch as the description of God as 
 Ta TavtTa évepyovvtoc is added. (ce) The objection that we cannot tell 
 why the apostle brings in that predestination only with regard to the xpoya 
 nixérec, While yet it manifestly applies also to the dxotcavrec, is based on the 
 - misunderstanding, according to which éxAypé#. and rpoopicf. are already 
 restricted to the Jewish-Christians ; for the subject of these words is still the 
 Christians without distinction, — Jewish and Gentile Christians, — so that 
 the predestination of both the former and the latter is asserted. It is only at 
 ver. 12 that the division of the subject begins, which is continued in 
 
 Ver. 13, so that év 6 cai iueic leads over to the second constituent element 
 (you Gentile-Christians).— As regards the construction, it is regarded by 
 Wolf, Bengel, Morus, and others,’ including Riickert, Matthies, Holzhau- 
 sen, de Wette, Bleek, Bisping, as anacoluthic ; the év 6 of the second half 
 of the verse is held to resume the first. Incorrectly, since in the resumption 
 
 1 Comp. already Jerome. 
 
330 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 kat tuei¢ would have been essential. As Paul has written the passage (xa? 
 motevo.), there is added to what has previously been affirmed of the ipeic 
 (axobcavtec), a new affirmation ; hence év ¢ x. wor. «.7.4. is the continuation, 
 not the reswmption of the discourse. The verb after év ¢ «ai tyeic is there- 
 fore to be supplied; not, however, #Azixare,’ since in fact the preceding 
 mponanixédrac—which, besides, was only an appositional constituent element 
 of the discourse—would yield zpoyArixate, Which is inapplicable to the 
 Gentile-Christians ; nor yet éxAnpoOyre,” since éxAnpdOnuev, ver. 11, already 
 embraced the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and with éi¢ 76 eivac jude «.7.A. 
 a new portion of the development sets in. The right course is merely to 
 supply mentally the substantive verb, in accordance with the current expres- 
 sion év Xpioré eiva, to belong to Christ as the element of life, in which one 
 exists. Hence: in whom also ye are. Thus Paul paves the way for his 
 transition to the Gentile-Christians, in order, after first specifying how it 
 was that they had become such (vv. 13, 14), finally to assert of them also 
 the cic Exarvov tHe d6Eno aitow (ver. 14). — axotcavtec Tov Ady. THe aAnO.| after 
 ye have heard the word (the preaching) of the truth ; for after this hearing 
 there set in with them the év Xpior@ eivac. The truth xar’ é£oyqv, ‘‘ pre-emi- 
 nently,” is the contents of the Aéyoc. But a contrast to the types and shadows 
 of the O. T.,° or to heathen error,* is not implied in the context. Comp. 
 Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 15. —76 evayy. r. cwrnp. bu.| descriptive apposition to 
 Adyo¢e tic GAO. The genitive here also denotes the contents ; that which is 
 made known in the gospel is the Messianic salvation. Harless takes both 
 genitives as genitives appositionis, ‘‘of apposition,” inasmuch as the gospel 
 is the truth and the cwrypia. The gospel, however, 7s not the salvation, but 
 an exertion of the power of God, which leads to salvation (Rom. i. 16 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 18) ; the analogous combinations, too, of 7d ebayy. with a genit. 
 abstract., ‘‘an abstract genitive,” as rd evayy. tie ydapitoc T. Ocod (Acts xx. 
 24), rH elphvyc (Eph. vi. 15), r7¢ BaccAciac, are opposed to the assumption of 
 a genit. apposit., ‘‘ genitive of apposition.” Comp. on Marki. 1. Finally, 
 the context also, by axotcavrec and moreicavtec, points not to what the doc- 
 trine is, but to what it proclaims. Comp. Rom. x. 14. — év 6 kai mioteboavrec 
 x.t.A.] A further stage of the setting forth how they became what they were, 
 in order to reach its goal ei¢ éxawov tip¢ ddEn¢ aitov, ver. 14. Precisely with 
 regard to the Gentile-Christians, who had previously been aloof from all 
 theocratic connection (no zpoyArikétec év TO Xpioto), the apostle feels himself 
 impelled not to be content with the simple ‘‘in whom also ye are, after ye 
 have heard the Gospel,” but specially to bring into relief the sealing of the 
 Holy Spirit. — év ©] is referred not merely by those who regard it as resump- 
 tive (see above), but also by many others with Luther,*® to Christ ; but why 
 should we pass over the nearest antecedent ? The «ai finds its reference, 
 
 1 Erasmus in his version, Beza, Castalio, 3 Chrysostom. 
 
 Calvin, Estius, and others. 4 Cornelius 4 Lapide, Baumgarten ; Gro- 
 2 Erasmus, Paraphr. ; Piscator, Zanchius, tius thinks of both. 
 
 Cornelius 4 Lapide, Boyd, Vorstius, Zach- 5 Including Harless, Meier, Olshausen, 
 
 ariae, Koppe, and others, including Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel. 
 Harless, Olshausen. 
 
CHARS iy, lies 331 
 agreeably to the context, in the accession of the faith to the hearing (Rom. 
 x. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 1). Hence év «is to be referred, with Castalio, Calvin, 
 Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and others,’ to 76 evayyéAvov, and to be joined, with 
 Castalio, to moteicavtec, not to éiodpayio#. (as usually), according to which 
 miotevo. Would be superfluous,’ and the periodic flow of the discourse would 
 be injuriously affected. Hence: in which ye, having become believers, were 
 sealed through the Holy Spirit. As to mioretew év (Mark i. 15), see on Gal. 
 ili. 26. — miorebcavrec| is not to be taken, with Harless, as contemporaneous 
 with éodpay. (see on vv. 5, 9) ; but it contains that which was prior to the 
 odpayitecOa. The order of conversion was : hearing, faith, baptism, reception 
 of the Spirit. See Acts ii. 37, vill. 12, 17, xix. 5, 6; Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; Tit. 
 iii. 5 f. ; Gal. ili. 2, iv. 6. Certainly even the becoming a believer is not 
 the work of human self-determination (see Acts xvi. 14 ; Phil. i. 29 ; Rom. 
 xii. 3 relates to the measure of faith of the baptized) ; yet this divine opera- 
 tion is only preparatory, and the effusion of the Spirit, properly so called, 
 ensued only after baptism :* hence water and Spirit (John iii. 5). — éodayio- 
 Onre] were sealed, t.e., confirmed, namely, as KAnpovdéuor of the Messianic king- 
 dom. [See Note XIJ., p. 353.] See what follows. Comp. iv. 30, and see on 
 2 Cor. i. 22 ; John iii. 83. This sealing is the indubitable guarantee of the 
 future Messianic salvation received in one’s own consciousness (Rom. viil. 16) 
 through the Holy Spirit, not the attestation before others.* An allusion has 
 been arbitrarily found in éogpay. to cirewmcision (Rom. iv. 11), or to the oriy- 
 para Of heathen ceremonies (Grotius assumes both : ‘‘ non extra signati estis 
 in cute, quomodo Judaei circumeisi et Graecorum idolorum punetis notati,” ‘‘ye 
 were not sealed outwardly in the skin,” asthe Jews were circumcised and 
 the Greeks were stamped with the marks of their idols’), nay, even to the 
 a¢payic Dianae, with which those initiated into her mysteries were marked.° 
 —Té mvebpate tie érayyed.| Dativus instruwmentalis, ‘instrumental dative,” 
 
 
 
 and ric éxayy. is genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘ genitive of quality,” denoting the 
 promise as characteristic of the Holy Spirit, for He is, in fact, the Spirit 
 promised in the O. T. (Acts ii. 16 ff. ; Joel iii. 1-5; Zech. xii. 10; Isa. 
 
 momedo, xiv. 3; Hzek. xxxvi. 26 f., xxxix, 29. 
 Others :° the Spirit, who confirms the promise (of 
 But how wholly imported, since in rveiya itself there is implied 
 
 cima Gale ii, 14). 
 salvation). 
 
 1 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 
 2If evd belongs to éodpay., we must, in 
 the event of 6 applying to the Gospel, ex- 
 plain: ‘‘by means of which ye also, after 
 ye became believers (or ye, after ye also 
 became believers), were sealed.’? Comp. 
 Beza. But if dis to apply to Christ, the 
 sense would be: ‘‘in whom (being) ye also, 
 after ye became believers (or: ye, after ye 
 also became believers), were sealed.’”? How 
 utterly superfluous morevoaytes is in either 
 case, will be at once felt. Harless regards 
 é€v das more precisely defined by 76 mvevpart, 
 inasmuch as the Spirit of God is also the 
 Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 17: 
 Gal. ivy. 6). But even thus morevcavtes 
 
 Comp. Luke xxiv. 49 ; 
 
 remains unnecessary, since év 6 surely ex- 
 presses the already existing spiritual union 
 with Christ. 
 
 3 As to the single instance of the effusion 
 of the Spirit defore baptism, see on Acts x. 
 44, 
 
 4@oTe eivar SHAoV, TL Meov Eate Adyxos kK. 
 kAjjpos, ‘‘so that it may be evident that ye 
 are God’s lot and inheritance,’ Theophy- 
 lact ; comp. Chrysostom, Cornelius & La- 
 pide, Flatt, Holzhausen, and others. 
 
 5 Amelius ; comp. note on Gal. vi. 17. 
 
 6 Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Piscator; and as 
 early as Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
 alongside of the former correct view. 
 
302 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 nothing at all of the notion of confirmation ! No, the Old Testament prom- 
 ise belonged to the Spirit ; He is specifically the Spirit of promise, and by 
 that very fact He became for the recipients the sealing of Messianic blessed- 
 ness. —7O dyiv| is not added accidentally, nor yet because the sanetificatio 
 of the Spirit would be the confirmatory element,’ for in 76 dyiw there is im- 
 plied the quality, not the effect of the Spirit ; but Paul desires to bring out 
 very emphatically and solemnly that, by which the c@payitecbac has been ac- 
 complished ; hence he says, with corresponding pathos : 76 rveimate tig 
 émayyehiac 7@ ayiv. We may add that we are not to think, with Grotius, 
 Estius, and others, of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, since, in fact, the 
 tueic generally are the o@payobévrec, but rather of the outpouring of the Spirit, 
 which all experienced after their baptism (Acts ii. 88 ; Gal. iii. 2 ff.). See 
 also, ver. 14. — According to Schwegler,* the zveiya tic éxayyed. is to be held 
 as pointing to the later period, to which the doctrine of the Paraclete in 
 the (not genuine) Gospel of John belongs. But Comp. Gal. iii. 14. 
 
 Ver. 14. “O¢ éoriy appaBov tH¢ KAnpovouiac ju. | stands in significant relation 
 (as affording more precise information) to éo@payicOyre : whois earnest of our 
 inheritance ; for in the reception of the Spirit the recipients have obtained 
 the guarantee—as one receives earnest-money as a guarantee of future pay- 
 ment in full—that they shall become actually partakers of the Messianic 
 blessedness (comp. Rom. viii. 15-17 ; Gal. iv. 6, 7). 6c, applying to the 
 mvevua, not to Christ, agrees in gender with appaBdv.? As to the eperegetic 
 relative, see Niigelsb. on Hom. Jlias, ed. 3, p. 3. As to appaBdv, see on 
 2 Cor. 1. 22. —eic aroAttpucw the mepitorjoews| unto the redemption, etc., is 
 likewise (comp. also iv. 30) the causa jfinalis, ‘‘final cause,” of éodpayicbyre 
 k.T.2., Consequently that, to which the purpose of God was directed, when 
 ye were sealed. Comp. ver. 10. Others connect it with 6¢ gor. . . 7pev,* 
 in which case cic is taken by some likewise in a telic sense, by others as 
 usque ad (the latter at variance with the parallel ei¢ which follows). But 
 the more precise definition thus resulting would in fact be, after r. «Aypov. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ju., quite self-evident and unnecessary. — The azoAitpwore is here—in ac- 
 cordance with the whole connection, and because the repuoinoic (see below) 
 is the subject which experiences the aroditpwouw—the final consummation of 
 the redemption effected by the ditpov of Christ (ver. 7) at the Parousia 
 (Luke xxi. 28), when suffering, sin, and death are wholly done away, and in 
 the glorifying (resurrection, or relative transformation) of the body there 
 sets in the Jéfa of the children of God, and the in all all-determining do- 
 minion of God (1 Cor. xv. 28). See Rom. viii. 18-23; 1 Cor. xv. 54 fff. 
 Comp. Eph. iv. 30. Beza aptly terms this final definitive redemption 
 aroditpwow édevdepdoews. — The repiroinowg avtov (for avrov at the end does 
 not apply, as it is usually referred, merely to rac dééyc, but also to rie repe- 
 mowgo., Whereby the latter obtains its definite character, and the discourse 
 gains in vividness and energy’*) is the acquisition of God, i.e., the people ac- 
 
 1 Pelagius, Lombard. 4 Estius, Flatt, Rtickert, Schenkel, Bleek, 
 2 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 383. a. 
 3 See Herm. ad Viger. p. 708 ; Heindorf, a7 5 So also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. 2, p. 295 
 
 Phaedr. p. 279; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 241 [E. and Schenkel. 
 Ns sil] 
 
CHAP. 1., 14. 300 
 
 quired by God for His possession, by which is here meant the whole body of 
 Christians, the true people of God, acquired by God as His property by 
 means of the redeeming work of Christ. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9; as also Acts 
 xx. 28, where the Christian community is presented as the acquisition of 
 Christ (comp. Tit. ii. 14). The expression quite corresponds to the Hebrew 
 mm m0, by which the people of Israel is designated as the sacred pecw- 
 lium Dei, ‘peculiar treasure of God,” and opposed to the Gentiles. See 
 Ex xix. 0; Deut. vii-6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18 f..; Ps. ecxxxv. 4. The LXX. too, 
 though usually expressing the notion of 30 by repiovcroc, translate it, Mal. 
 iii. 17, by repiroinote. Comp. also Isa. xliii. 21: Aady pov bv Teprerrounodunv 
 CAYS?) «.7.A. The objection to this view,! that repuroijcwe never in itself, 
 without defining addition, signifies the people of God,’ entirely disappears 
 when we take in the airov: ‘‘unto redemption of His acquired possession, 
 unto the praise of His glory.” Others, retaining likewise the signification of 
 acquired possession, explained it in the neuter sense, like Calovius (comp. 
 already Bugenhagen) : ‘‘ plena fruitio redemtionis haereditatis nobis acqui- 
 sitae,” ‘‘ the full fruition of the redemption of the inheritance acquired for 
 us.” Comp. Matthies: ‘‘ unto the redeeming of the promised glorious 
 possession.”’ But how can it be said of the salvation acquired for us, that 
 it is redeemed ? And the plena fruitio, ‘‘ full fruition,” isimported. Beza, 
 wrongly denying the concrete use of cepiroijoic, insists upon the abstract 
 notion of vindication, assertion, and specifies as the meaning : ‘‘ dum in liber- 
 ationem vindicemur,” ‘until we are emancipated.” But this would need to 
 be expressed by eic repiroinow tic arodvtpdoewg (comp. 1 Thess. v. 9 ; 
 2 Thess. ii. 14). The word is also taken in the abstract sense by those 
 who understand it as preservation, conservatio,® like Bengel, Bos (‘‘ re- 
 demtio, quae salutem et conservationem affert,” ‘‘redemption which 
 effects salvation and preservation”), Bretschneider (‘‘redemtio, qua vitae 
 aeternae servamur,” ‘‘redemption whereby we are preserved unto eternal 
 life”), Holzhausen (who, following Homberg, arbitrarily assumes aoa. ric 
 mepir. to stand for aod. kat repir.). But against these explanations it may 
 be decisively urged that in the case of repiroinowe the thought : unto ever- 
 lasting life, or the like, is added arbitrarily, and that the assumed genitive 
 relation does not arise out of the notion of aroditpworc, according to which 
 the genitive is either the subject, which is redeemed (Luke xxi. 28 ; Rom. 
 Vili. 23), or expresses that, from which one becomes free (Heb. ix. 15 ; 
 Fritzsche, ad Rom. Ii. p. 178). To the erroneous attempts at explanation 
 belongs also that * which takes ri¢ reperoujoewe for tiv repiroiMeicar, the re- 
 demption acquired for us, or (so Bleek) the redemption, which is to become our 
 possession.*° — cic ixawov tic d6En¢ abtov] a climactic parallel to what goes 
 
 2 
 
 before, containing as it does the jinal aim of God in the sealing with the 
 
 1 Which is followed, after the Peshito and Patr. p. 633; Plat. Defin. p. 415 C; Wetst. 
 Oecumenius, by Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, If. p. 424. 
 
 aud most expositors, including Flatt, Riick- 4 Vatablus, Koppe. 
 
 ert, Meier, Harless, Oishausen, de Wette, 5 This sense, too, would in fact have 
 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel. needed to be expressed by eis repimotyouy 
 2 See especially Koppe. THS aTOAUTPHTEWS. 
 
 3 Heb. x. 89; 2 Chron. xiv. 18; Zest. X77. 
 
334 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Holy Spirit. And thus has Paul accordingly reached what he had in view 
 in the joining on of é @ cai tyeic, ver. 13, namely, the assigning to the 
 Gentile-Christians the same ultimate destination, which he has in ver. 12 
 predicated of the Jewish-Christians. — The reference of avrov to God, as in 
 vv. 12, 6,’ flows from éc¢pay., which is God’s act.2 The glory of God is the 
 final aim of the whole unfolding of salvation. 
 
 Ver. 15.* Only now, after the general ascription of praise to God for the 
 Christian economy of salvation, which had since ver. 3 flowed forth from 
 him in an enraptured greeting, does Paul reach that, with which he is wont 
 on other occasions at once to begin—the thanksgiving to God for the Chris- 
 tian position of the readers, and intercession for them. — d:a tovro| has refer- 
 ence to vv. 13, 14: because this is the case, that ye too are in Christ and have 
 been sealed with the Holy Spirit, etc. See already Theophylact. There isno 
 reason for going farther back and referring it to the whole preceding devel- 
 opment from ver. 3 onward,‘ since thanksgiving and intercession have 
 reference to the readers, and it is only ver. 13 that has led over to the 
 latter. — xay]| I also ; for Paul knows that by his exercise of prayer, ver. 
 16, he is co-operating with the readers. Comp. on Col. i. 9. — axoboag] does 
 not serve to prove that the Epistle could not have been written to the Ephe- 
 sians, or not to them alone (see Introd. § 1) ; Grotius in fact has already 
 aptly remarked : ‘‘Loquitur autem apostolus de profectu evangelii apud 
 Ephesios, ex quo ipse ab illis discesserat,” ‘‘the apostle speaks, moreover, of 
 the progress of the Gospel among the Ephesians from the time when he had 
 departed from them.” ® No doubt Olshausen® maintains that Paul so ex- 
 presses himself as to make it apparent that with a great proportion of his 
 readers he was not personally acquainted, appealing to Col. i. 4. But may 
 he not here, as at Philem. 5, have heard respecting those who were 
 known to him, what at Col. i. 4 he has heard respecting those who were 
 previously unknown to him?—rjv kal? tude riot] jsidem, quae ad vos 
 pertinet, i.e., vestram fidem, ‘‘the faith which pertains to you, 2.é., 
 your faith.” Comp. Acts xvii. 28, xviii. 15, xxvi. 3.7. The difference 
 between 7 xa iuac rictec and 7 riotic budv lies only in the form of concep- 
 tion, not in the thing itself. Yet the mode of expression, not occurring 
 elsewhere in the letters of the apostle, belongs to the peculiar phenomena of 
 our Epistle. The assertion of Harless, that it denotes the faith of the 
 readers objectively, as in itself athing to be found among them, while # xiari¢ 
 iuav denotes it subjectively, according to its individual character in each one, ® 
 is the less capable of proof, in proportion to the prevalent use among the 
 later Greeks of the periphrasis of the genitival relation by kard.*— év 7@ 
 
 1Not, with Estius and Hofmann, to 
 Christ. 
 
 2 See van Hengel, Annot. p. 198 ff. 
 
 3 On vv. 15-19, see Winzer, Commentat., 
 Lips. 1836. 
 
 4 Harless, Winzer, Schenkel, and others, 
 following Oecumenius. 
 
 5 Comp. Winzer, p. 5; Wiggers in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1841,.p. 480 f.; Wieseler, 
 
 p. 445; and already Theodoret in loc. 
 
 ® Comp Bleek. 
 
 7 Thue. vi. 16.5 (7d kar avtots Biw); Ael. 
 V. H. ii. 12 (y Kar’ adrov apern). 
 
 § Comp. Matthies and Schenkel. 
 
 9 See Valckenaer, ad Luc. p. 4f.; Schaefer, 
 ad Long. p. 380; Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. 
 xiv. 12. 
 
CHAP. 0165-17. 335 
 
 xupiv| belonging to rior (fidem vestram in Christo repositam, ‘‘ your faith 
 reposed in Christ’), and blended without any connecting article into unity 
 of idea with it. See on Gal. iii, 26. Winzer connects it with tyac: 
 “¢fidem, quae vobis, Domino Jesu veluti insitis, . . . inest,” ‘‘ faith which 
 is in you, as though you were in the Lord Jesus ;” but this is forbidden by 
 the order of the words. — kai tiv ayar. thy ei¢ rdvtag x.t.A.] Here, too, Paul 
 might have left out the second article, so that the sense would be: xai 7d 
 ayarny tuac éEyew ei¢ wavtag (comp. Col. i. 4), as at 2 Cor. vil. 7: rév tydv 
 CHaov brép éuov. But he has first thought of the notion of love in itself, and 
 then added thereto, as a special important element, the thought, rv eic¢ 
 mavrac T. ay. —mavrac ‘‘character Christianismi,” ‘‘ the stamp of Chris- 
 tianity,” Bengel. Comp. vi. 18; Philem. 5. We may add Chrysostom’s 
 apt remark : ravtayov ovvarres Kai ovyKoaAd tiv riot Kal THY ayartyy BavuaorHy 
 twa Evvepida, ‘‘ He everywhere joins and cements faith and love—a wonderful 
 Pie eecomp. Gal. v.63 1 Cor. xiii. 
 
 Ver. 16. 0% ratouac| a popular form of hyperbole. My thanksgiving—so 
 full and urgent is it—can find no end. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Luke ii. 37 ; 
 Herod. vii. 107 : rovrov dé aivéwy ovn éravero, ‘‘He did not cease praising 
 this one.” —etyapiotév brép tyav] to give thanks on your account. On the 
 participle, see Herm. ad Viger. p. 771; Bernhardy, p. 477; and on irép 
 (super vobis, ‘‘over you’), comp. v. 20; Rom. i. 8, Elz. ; 1 Tim. ii. 1. — 
 Eveiav Trolovmevoc éxt TOY Tpocevy. wou] accompanying definition to ev yapiorav : 
 while I make mention inmy prayers. Comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. i. 2; Phil. 
 i. 8; Philem. 4. What Paul makes mention of is learned from the context, 
 which furnishes not merely juév (Elz. ; see the critical remarks), but a 
 more precise definition, namely : of what he has heard concerning the faith 
 and love of the readers, and for which he gives thanks on their account. 
 This pveiav rowobpyevog x.7.2., however, is not superfluous, and after edyap. 
 irép tu. self-evident ; but it serves, through the close joining on to it of the 
 following iva «.7.2. (after ver. 16 only a comma is to be placed), as a means 
 of leading over from the thanksgiving to the intercession connected with it, 
 and is thereby accounted for. — ixi] of the prevailing relations and circum- 
 stances, in or under which anything takes place. See on Rom. i. 10. 
 
 Ver. 17. “Iva 6 Ocdc x.7.2.] contains the design cherished by Paul in the pvetav 
 . . . Tpocevy. ov: inorder that God might give you, etc. In this expressed design 
 is implied the intercessory tenor of the nveiav roveicbar; hence ivais not here to be 
 deprived of its notion of design, nor is it to be explained’ by supplying before it 
 the conception of ‘‘ praying.” The apostle would say that what he has heard of 
 their faith, etc., induces him to unceasing thanksgiving on their behalf, while 
 he makes mention of it in his prayers to the end that God might give them, ete. 
 The telic ézwc, Philem. 6, stands in another connection than the iva in our 
 passage. See on Philem./.c. The optative dé? is used, because the design 
 is thought of as subjective conception and expectation, the realization of which 
 is dependent entirely upon the will of God, and consequently belongs only 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Harless; comp. Riickert, Olshausen, of doin, see Buttmann, I, p, 507; Lobeck, 
 Winer, § 41, and others. ad Phryn, p. 346. 
 2On this form of later Greek instead 
 
336 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 to the category of what is wished and possible. On iva with an optative * 
 after the present or future, see, generally, Hermann, ad Soph. Hl. 57 ; ad 
 Aj. 1217 ; Reisig, ad Oed. Ch. p. 168 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 407 ; and especially 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 622 ff. — 6 Oed¢ rod Kvpiov ju. I. X.] for God has sent 
 Christ—who, having before all time proceeded from His essential nature 
 (Col. i. 15), was the creative organ of the Father—forth in the fulness of 
 the time in pursuance of His decree, to which the Son was obedient (Phil. 
 ii. 8), has given Him up to death, raised and exalted Him, and is continually 
 the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), who even as civ@povoc, ‘‘ co-enthroned,” of 
 the Father is subordinate to the Father (Rom. viii. 34), [See Note V., p. 38, 
 by Am. Ed., on Galatians], and finally will give back to God the dominion 
 which God has given to Him (1 Cor. xv. 27, 28). In the consciousness of 
 His relation of dependence on God, Christ Himself calls the Father 6eé¢ ov, 
 John xx. 17; Matt. xxvii. 46. Comp. Col. 11. 2, Lachm. The opinion extorted 
 in the anti-Arian interest from the Fathers,’ that 6 Oed¢ tov kup. applies to 
 Christ’s human nature, and 6 rarip ric d6Enc to the divine,* isto be mentioned 
 only as matter of history, asare also the forced construction, to which Meno- 
 chiusand Vatablus were induced by a like prejudice to resort, that Oed¢ and 
 ticdéenc are to be taken together (rov kupiov. . . rat#p being inserted), and 
 the at least more skilful turn of Estius: ‘‘ Deus, qui est Domini nostri 
 Jesu Christi pater gloriosus,” ‘‘ God, who is the glorious father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ.” — 6 raryp tip¢ 66En¢| the Father (namely, of Christians) to whom the 
 glory (the majesty kar’ éfoy7v, ‘‘ pre-eminently”) belongs. See on Acts vii. 
 2, and 1 Cor. 11.8. The resolution into an adjective pater gloriosus, ‘‘ glori- 
 ous father,”’* is in itself arbitrary, does not exhaust the eminent sense of 7 
 dé£a, and fails to perceive the oratorical force® of the substantival designa- 
 tion. Others take raz in the derived sense of auctor, ‘‘ author,” *® so that 
 God is designated as He, from whom the glory of the Christians’ proceeds. 
 Certainly the idea of auctor, ‘‘ author,” may be expressed, specially in the 
 more elevated style, by rar#p ;° but as this is nowhere else done by Paul, 
 so here he has no reason for resorting to such an usage, to which besides the 
 analogous expressions, Oed¢ tic ddEyc, ‘‘ God of glory” (Ps. xxix. 3; Acts 
 Vii. 2), Baowdede tHe d6Enc, ‘King of glory” (Ps. xxiv. 7), Kipsoc tao dbENG, 
 “Lord of glory” (1 Cor. ii. 8), XepovBiu ddEnc, ‘‘ cherubim of glory” (Heb. 
 ix. 5), are opposed. We may add, that the description of God by 6 O¢éc 
 
 1 Lachmann and Riickert (as also Fritz- 
 sche, ad Rom. III. p. 230) write 667 with an 
 iota subscriptum under 7, sO that it would 
 thus be the Ionic subjunctive (Od. xii. 216). 
 But often asthe aorist subjunctive of diSwjur 
 occurs in the N.T., this omeric form never 
 presents itself. The form éo in B is a man- 
 ifest emendation. 
 
 2 See Suicer, 7es. I. p. 944. 
 
 3 dofav yap THv Oclay dicw wvopacer, “for 
 he called the divine nature, glory!” Theo- 
 doret and Oecumenius ; comp. even Ben- 
 gel and Bisping. 
 
 4Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, and 
 
 others. 
 
 5 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. 
 
 6 Erasm. Paraphr.; Bucer, Cornelius & 
 Lapide, Grotius,Wolf, and others, including 
 Holzhausen and Olshausen. 
 
 7 According to Grotius: of Christ and the 
 Christians. 
 
 8 Job xxxviii. 28; Jas. i. 17, where the 
 data are personified; Pind. Pyth. iv. 313, 
 where Orpheus is called aoSav raryp; and 
 see Ast, Lew. Plat. III. p. 66; Jacobs, ad 
 Ach. Tat. p. 892 f. ; John viii. 44 is not here 
 applicable. 
 
CHAP? Tey 1: 337 
 
 . . . 06&y¢ stands in appropriate relation to the design of the intercession ; 
 for of the God of Christ and Father of glory it is to be expected that He 
 will do that, which the cause of Christ demands, and which serves to the 
 manifestation of His own glory. Oecumenius rightly remarks : kai mpdc rd 
 KpoKeiwevov ovoudter Tov Oedv.—rvedtua oogiag x. atoxasiy.| The Holy Spirit, 
 too (for it is not the human spirit that is here meant, as Michaelis, Riickert, 
 de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek would take it*), Paul is wont to 
 characterize zpoc To rpoxeiuevov, Rom. viii. 2, 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Gal. vi. 1. 
 Comp. 2 Tim. i. 7. Here: the Spirit who works wisdom and gives revelation 
 (1 Cor ii. 10). The latter is a greater result of the work of the Spirit,? in 
 accordance with which He not only by His enlightening operation fur- 
 nishes wisdom (yvace Oeiwy k. avOpwrivwv mpayuatwv kat TOV TobTwY aiTiwr, 
 “‘the knowledge of things divine and human, and of their causes,” 4 Mace. 
 i. 16 ; conceived of, however, by Paul in reference to the Christian economy 
 of salvation, comp. ver. 8), but further, as the organ of God, effects also 
 special revelations of divine saving truths and purposes not otherwise 
 known. Harless regards x. aroxad. as the objective medium, which brought 
 about the state of cogia, so that the character of the codia is more precisely 
 defined by x. azoxa?. But in passages like Rom. 1. 5, yapev x. azxocrorgv, Xi. 
 29, ra yapiouara kK. 1) KAgowc Tov Oeov, the discourse advances from the general 
 to the special, not from the thing itself to its objective medium. Logically 
 more natural, besides, would be the advance from the objective medium to 
 the subjective state, according to which Paul would have written : azoxaii- 
 wewc Kal cogiac. Finally, the climactic relation, which is brought out in the 
 two words under our view, makes the wish of the apostle appear more fer- 
 _ vid and full, and so more in keeping with his mood. It is obvious of it- 
 self, we may add, that Paul here desires for his readers, to whom in fact 
 the Spirit has been already given from the time of their conversion (ver. 
 13), a continued bestowal of the same for their ever-increasing Christian en- 
 lightenment.? Baur, p. 487, conjectures here something of a Montanistic 
 element. But it was not by the Montanists that the rveiua was first re- 
 garded as the principle of Christian wisdom, etc. ; it isso already in the 
 teaching of the whole N. T. —év émyvécer avtov] That abrov does not apply 
 to Christ,4 but to God (although we have not to write airow), is clear from 
 
 The 
 
 1 Rickert: “‘God grant youa heart wise 
 and open for His revelations ;’’ de Wette: 
 “the quality of mind which consists in 
 wisdom (mediate knowledge) and reve- 
 lation (susceptibility for the immediate 
 knowledge of divine truth’). According 
 to Schenkel, it is the spirit wrought in the 
 regenerate by the Holy Spirit. All this is 
 opposed to the N. T use of mvedua with the 
 genitivus absiracti, ‘‘abstract genitive.” And 
 nowhere in the N. T., where the being given 
 is predicated of the mvedua, is it anything 
 else than the odjective mv., whether it be di- 
 vine or demoniacal (Luke xi. 13 ; John iii. 34; 
 Acts Vili. 18, xv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 8; 2 Tim. i. 
 
 9) 
 
 is) 1 Johm, i. 24)" Rom. v. 5, xi. 8); 
 presence or absence of the article with 
 mvevuwa Makes no difference ; see on Gal. v. 
 16. As to the singular expression mvedma 
 aywwavvys, used of the Spirit of Christ, in 
 Jtom. i. 4, see on that passage. 
 
 2 But not, as Olshausen (comp. Grotius) 
 maintains, the xapisua of prophecy,. of 
 which the more detailed exposition, ver. 
 18 ff., shows notrace. And Paul, in fact, is 
 praying for all his readers. See, however, 
 1iCOry ExT 2o: 
 
 3\Comp. Col. 1:9. 
 
 4Beza, Calvin, 
 
 Calovius, Baumgarten, 
 
 Flatt. 
 
338 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the abrov of vv. 18, 19; it is only at ver. 20 that the discourse passes over 
 
 to Christ. Nor is év érzyv. aitov, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zachariae, 
 
 Koppe (with hesitation), Lachmann, Olshausen (who was forced to this by 
 
 his explaining rvevya cog. «. droxad. in the sense of extraordinary charis- 
 
 mata), to be attached to what follows, whereby the parallelism (vevpa ood. 
 
 x. amok. is parallel with zegor. 7. 660. 7. kapd. du., and év éxcyv. avr. with etc 76 
 
 eldévat k.7.2.) Would without reason be destroyed ;? but it denotes the sphere 
 
 of mental activity, in which they, already at work therein (and that likewise 
 
 through the Spirit, ver. 13), are to receive the spirit of wisdom and reve-- 
 lation.2 Erroneously év is taken for eic,? or as per,* which latter would 
 represent the knowledge of God as bringing about the communication of the 
 
 Spirit, and so invert the state of the case. It is true that Calovius remarks: 
 
 ‘‘quo quis magis agnoscit Christum, eo sapientior fit et revelationem divini 
 verbi magis intelligit,” ‘‘The more one acknowledges Christ, the wiser he 
 becomes, and understands the revelation of the divine word the better ;” 
 
 but the question is one, not of an agnitio, but of a cognitio, and not of wn- 
 
 derstanding the revelation of the word, but of a revelation to be received 
 through the agency of the Holy Spirit. —In ériyveor observe the force of 
 the compound, which implies an exact and penetrating yvoor, as is very evi- 
 dent especially from 1 Cor. xiii. 12, and is wrongly denied by Olshausen.* 
 [See Note XIII., p. 353. ] 
 
 Ver. 18. Heguricpévove rove o¢fadporc x.7.2.] is usually * taken as apposition- 
 al, and made dependent on 6@7 tuiv ; in which case it has been rightly ob- 
 served that the translation should not be, with Luther : enlightened eyes, but, 
 on account of the article: He may give to you the eyes enlightened, etc. 
 But (1) in general an enlightened understanding is not proper to be set forth 
 as in apposition to the Holy Spirit, but rather as the effect of the same. (2) The 
 conception that God gives to them their eyes (which as such they already 
 have) in the condition of enlightenment, as ze@wricvévovc, remains in any 
 case an awkward one ; inasmuch as we should have to transform the giving, 
 which was still a proper and actual giving in ver. 17, zeugmatically into the 
 notion of making at ver. 18,7 in order to remove the incongruity caused by 
 the presence of the article. Bengel, with his fine insight, aptly remarks : 
 ‘‘ Quodsi 4¢6a2,uob¢ esset sine articulo, posset in sensu abstracto sumi (enlight- 
 ened eyes) et cum det construi,” ‘‘ But if 69Aa%uob¢ were without the article, 
 it could be taken in an abstract sense (enlightened eyes) and be construed with 
 det.” Hence, with Beza, Bengel, Koppe, Bleek, redwriou. is to be taken as 
 
 ismatic sense was the name—as it were, 
 the terminus technicus, ‘‘ technical goal,” for 
 
 1 See Harless. 
 2 Comp. 2 Pet. i. 2. 
 
 3 Luther, Castalio Pisecator, Cornelius 4 
 Lapide, Wolf, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Rosen- 
 miiller, and others. 
 
 4 Erasmus, Calovius, and others. 
 
 5 Olshausen appeals to the fact that, just 
 where the most exalted form of knowledge 
 —the charismatic—is spoken of, the word 
 employed is not ériyvwors, but yvaors, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 8, xiii. 8. T'vaors, however, in the char- 
 
 the thing—which as such was meant to de- 
 note the essence, not the degree. Comp. 
 Goleing: 
 
 6 As also by Riickert, Matthies, Meier, 
 Holzhausen, Harless, Winzer, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, 
 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 272. 7 
 
 7 Flatt, following Heinsius, quite arbi- 
 trarily supplies etvac. 
 
CHAP.) 1.5, LS. ood 
 
 the so-called accusative absolute, such as, from a mingling in the conception 
 of two sorts of construction, is to be met with often also in classical writers 
 —and that without repeating the subject (ijuac) in the accusative (in opposi- 
 tion to Buttmann)—instead of another case which would be required in 
 strict accordance with the construction, particularly instead of the dative ;' 
 and thus Beza’s proposal to read ceowriopuévore Was entirely uncalled for.” 
 Accordingly, reduricu. relates to iuiv, and radc¢ 460. is the accusative of more 
 precise definition : enlightened in respect of the eyes of your heart, i.e., so that 
 ye are then enlightened, etc., with which is expressed the result of the com- 
 munication of the Spirit prayed for.* — rode o¢6aru. tH¢ Kapd. iu.] figurative 
 designation of the wnderstanding,* which is enlightened, when man discerns 
 the divine truth. The opposite : Rom. i. 21, xi. 8,10. The reference of 
 the enlightenment to knowledge is necessarily given by 6¢0aAmotc, and should 
 not have been regarded as one-sided ;° and the power of the new life is not 
 here included under the regwricn., since it is not the heart in general, but 
 the eyes of the heart that are set forth as enlightened, consequently the or- 
 gan of cognition.* —xapdia] does not merely denote, according to the popular 
 biblical usage, the faculty of emotion and desire,* but is the concrete ex- 
 pression for the central seat of the psychico-pneumatic personality, conse- 
 quently embracing together all the agencies (thinking, willing, feeling) in 
 the.exercise of which man has the consciousness of his personal inward ex- 
 perience ; in which case the context must suggest what side of the self-con- 
 scious inner activity of life (here, the cognitive) is in particular to be thought 
 in order that ye may know 
 what (quanta, ‘‘ how great”) is the hope of His calling, i.e., what a great and 
 glorious hope is given to the man, whom God has called to the kingdom of 
 
 of.* —éic 7d eidévar duac| aim of redwtiop. K.T.A. : 
 
 lumeoti pot Ypacos adumvovwy KAVouGcaY 
 aGptiws overpatwyv, Soph. Hl. 479 f.; Plat. 
 Lach. p. 186D; Thue. v. 79. 1. 
 
 2Comp. Acts xxvi. 3. See, generally, 
 Brunck, ad Soph. l.c.; Jacobs, ad Athéii. 
 p. 97; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 176 D, 
 and ad Rep. pp. 386 B, 500 C, 586 EF; Kiihner 
 and Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1; Négelsb. 
 on Iliad, ed. 3, p. 181. 
 
 31 Thess. iii. 13; Phil. iii. 21; Hermann, 
 ad Viger. p. 897 f.; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 
 690. 
 
 4 Plat. Pol. vii. p. 533D: ro THs Wuxjs Oupa, 
 Soph. p. 254 A; comp. Ovid. Met. xv. 64, 
 and see Grotius and Wetstein. 
 
 * In opposition to Harless. 
 
 6 Comp. Clem. ad Cor. 1.19: éuBardpopnev 
 Tols Ofmace THS WuXAs 
 trov BovAynpa, “* Let us look with the eyes 
 of our soul to his long-suffering will ; and 
 i. 86: nvewxdjoay Huey oi ofFadmol THs Kap- 
 dias, ‘“* The eyes of our heart were opened.”’ 
 
 7 Olshausen, Opuse. p. 159 ; Stirm in the 
 Tiib. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 53. 
 
 8 Comp. Rom. i. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. iv. 
 12; Phil. iv. 7; 2 Pet. i. 19; and see, on the 
 
 els TO pakxpodupov 
 
 activity of the heart in thinking and cog- 
 nition, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 f., as also 
 Krumm, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 50. 
 The observation of the latter, that the 
 cognitive activity of the heart is based on 
 internal experience (which, however, holds 
 good not only as to St. Paul, but also else- 
 where in the N. T.), is not refuted by the re- 
 joinder of Delitzsch, p. 177. In this very 
 passage (comp. iii. 18) the cognition is not 
 merely discursive, but the experience, in 
 which it has its root, is that of the divine 
 communication of the Spirit and enlighten- 
 ment. Analogous is the case with 2 Cor. 
 iv. 6. As to Phil. iv. 7, see on that passage. 
 The heart, as the seat of self-consciousness 
 and of the conscience, is the receptacle of 
 experience and elaboratesit. Comp. Beck, 
 bibl. Seelent. p. 67. Tf it does not admit the 
 experience, or does not elaborate it unto 
 saving knowledge, it is closed (Acts xiv. 
 16), hardened (Eph. iv. 18), slothful (Luke 
 XXiv. 25), covered as with a veil (2 Cor. iii. 
 15), void of understanding, etc. See also 
 Oehler in Herzog’s Encykil. VI. p. 17. 
 
340 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the Messiah, by means of that calling (re «dijo. is genitive of the efficient 
 cause). éAric, accordingly, is not here, any more than elsewhere (Rom. 
 vill. 24 ; Gal. v. 5; Col. i. 5, ai.), res sperata, ‘‘ object hoped for,” as the 
 majority, including Meier and Olshausen, take it. Observe also here the 
 three main elements in the subjective state of Christians : faith, and love, and 
 hope (vv. 15, 18); in presence of faith and love the enlightenment by the 
 Holy Spirit is to make the glory of hope more and more known ; for the 
 noditenua Of Christians is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20), whither their whole 
 thoughts and efforts are directed. Faith, with the love which accompa- 
 nies it, remains the centre of Christianity ; but hope withal encourages and 
 animates by holding before them the constant object of their aim.’ This in 
 opposition to Weiss, who here finds hope brought into prominence, ‘‘ quite 
 after the Petrine manner,” as the centre of Christianity.? — kai tic 6 xAodro¢ 
 «.7.4] this is now the object of the hope. The repetition of ric, as well as the 
 kai ti¢ . . . xai zi, has rhetorical emphasis (comp. Rom. xi. 34 f.); and, in 
 
 
 
 6 Thovtoc THE O6ENS THE KAnpovomiac avTov, What a copious and grand accumula- 
 tion, mirroring, as it were, the weightiness of the thing itself ! which is not 
 to be weakened by adjectival resolution of the genitives.’ dé£a, glory, is the 
 essential characteristic of the Messianic salvation to be received from God 
 as an inheritance at the Parousia (Rom. viii. 17); and how great the rich 
 Julness of this glory is, the readers are called to realize. év roig¢ dyiouw does 
 not mean : i the Holiest of all (Heb. ix. 12), as Homberg and Calovius con- 
 jectured, for this is not suggested by the context ; but : among the saints 
 (Num. xviii. 23; Job xlii. 15 ; Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18); for the community 
 of believers (these are the ayo, i. 1, 4), inasmuch as they are to be the sub- 
 jects of the Messianic bliss, is the sphere, outside of which this rAobrog x.7.A. 
 will not be found. Comp. 6 KAjpoe tov dyiwr, Col. i. 12. It is connected 
 with the éo7é to be mentally supplied after ric, so that we have to translate, 
 as is required by the article before ziovro¢ : what, i.e., how great and exceed- 
 ing, is the riches, etc., among the saints. Harless objects that Paul must 
 have written 6 év roi¢ dyiow, and that év roi¢ dyive receives unduly the main 
 stress. But the construction ri¢ éavw 6 rA0vTo¢ év Toi¢ dyiowc is in fact logical- 
 ly quite correct, and év rote dyiove would have of necessity the main empha- 
 sis only if it stood after ric. Usually * év roic dyiow is regarded as an appen- 
 dage to ry¢ KAypovon. avtov : ‘the inheritance given by God among the 
 saints,” in connection with which Riickert, quite at variance with N. T. 
 usage, explains oi dye of the ‘‘ collective body of moraily good beings in 
 the other world.” But since 7 «Aypovouia Oeov is completely and formally 
 defined by this very @cov (airov), and does not first receive its completeness 
 by means of év roic dyiowe (see, on the contrary, Rom. viii. 17; Gal. iv. 7), 
 this more precisely defining addition must have been attached by means of 
 ryc, and passages like Rom. ix. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 17; 1 Cor. x. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 7 
 (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I, p. 195 f.), are not analogous. If airod were not 
 
 1 Comp. Rom. v. 2, viii. 18 ff. ; 1 Cor. ix. 3 Comp. Col. i. 27; 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
 RACE. 202) Cor iviedlivermdlindomt. sh Graly vie 09): 4 As by Riickert, Harless, Winzer, Ols- 
 Phil. iii. 12 ff..; Col. i. 28, iii. 1 ff. hausen, but not by Koppe and de Wette. 
 
 2 Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 427. 
 
CHAPS Tey 19s 341 
 
 in the text, év roi¢ ayiore might be the definition of the xAypovouia here meant, 
 and blended with rie KAnpovouiac so as to form one idea. We may add, that 
 Harless wrongly refers to the riches of the glory, etc., preponderantly to the 
 present earthly Bacireia rot Ocov. Comp. de Wette. It is only the future 
 kingdom of God, to be set up at the Parousia, that is the object of the «y- 
 povowia (1 Cor. vi. 9, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 5; Matt. xxv. 34); and 
 here in particular the context (éAmic, ver. 18 5 éyeipac «.7.A., ver. 20) still 
 points to the future glory, which Paul realizes as already present. 
 
 Ver. 19 ff. After the object of the hope, there is now set forth also that by 
 which it is realized, namely, the infinite power of God shown in the resurrec- 
 tion, ete., of Christ : and what (quanta, ‘‘ how great’) is the exceeding (sur- 
 passing all measure) greatness of His power in relation to us who believe. The 
 construction is as in the preceding portion, and consequently such, that eic 
 nude Tove mor. attaches itself not to re duvdy. avtov,' but to the éo7é to be 
 mentally supplied after 77. — From the context preceding (¢Ari¢ KAnpovopiac) 
 and following (ver. 20 f.) it is clear that Paul is not here speaking of the 
 power of God already in the earthly life manifesting itself as regards believ- 
 ers in their inward experience,’ not even of this as ineluded,* but only of the 
 power to be shown as regards believers in future at the Parousia, where this 
 mighty working displayed in Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and appoint- 
 ment as Head of the church, must necessarily, in virtue of their fellowship 
 with Christ, redound to the fulfilment of the hope, to the d6&a rH KAnpovomiac 
 (see vv. 20-23). Hence Paul continues: xara ry évépyecav x.7.2.] This is 
 indeed connected by many with rove moretovrac,* in which case the riarebew 
 a view which 
 
 
 
 appeared as consequence of the évépyera x.7.7., as Epyov Oecd 
 was helped among the older expositors® by the interest of opposition to 
 Pelagian and Socinian opinions ; but in this way the whole course of thought 
 is deranged, and the simple and solemn exposition in ver. 20 is made sub- 
 servient to an expression quite immaterial, which Paul might equally well 
 have omitted (roi¢ sioreiovrac). It is not the design, according to the con- 
 nection, to prove the origin of faith. Chrysostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Estius, 
 Grotius, and others, including Meier and Winzer, have found in xara ri 
 évépy. K.T.2. an amplification ® of rd trepB. péyeboc x.t.2. But in this way 
 all that follows would only be destined to hold the disproportionate place 
 of a description, and would be isolated from éi¢ 70 eidévar buac, Which yet was 
 the definite basis of the discourse hitherto ; and this isolation there is no 
 reason to assume. Hence we have to take xara T. évépy. «.7.2. as the ground 
 of knowledge of the preceding point. What is the exceeding greatness of the 
 divine power towards believers, the readers are to know in virtue of the 
 operation, etc. ; in accordance with this operation they were to measure that 
 exceeding greatness. Harless refers it not merely to the preceding point, 
 
 1 Meier, Harless, de Wette, Baumgarten- 3 Schenkel. 
 Crusius, Bleek, after many older expositors; 4See Erasmus, Caloyius, Rosenmiiller, 
 comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4. Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, and others. 
 
 2 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Photius, > See, especially, Caloyius. 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, inelud- 6 De Wette: the real ground ; comp. also 
 
 ing Flatt, Matthies, Rickert, Meier, Har- Bleek. 
 less. 
 
342 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 but to all the three points adduced after cic 76 eidévar tuace. But, as the évép- 
 yela Tov Kpatoue THe tcyioc, corresponds simply to the notion of the divayic, we 
 are not entitled to refer farther back than to the point in which the divayec 
 was spoken of. — rv évépy. rod Kpat. TH¢ ioxbo¢ aitov| a touching accummlation 
 of terms, presenting the matter in genetic form ; for icyic¢ is strength in itself 
 as inward power, as vis or virtus (Mark xii. 80 ; 2 Pet. il. 11), xpdroc, might 
 expressing itself in overcoming resistance, in ruling, etc. (Luke i. 51 ; Acts 
 xix. 20; Eph. vi. 10; Col. i. 11; Heb: i. 14; Dan. iv. 275 isan, 
 and évépyera, the efficacious working, the active exertion of power.’ The Vul- 
 gate aptly renders: ‘‘secundum operationem potentiae virtutis ejus,” *‘ac- 
 cording to the operation of the power of his virtue,” and Bengel remarks : 
 “<r. évépyerav, haec actus est, ‘i.e., an act ;’ Tov kpatove, hoc in actu est,’ ‘i.e., 
 in act.’” 
 
 Ver. 20. "Hv] namely, évépyecav ; see Winer, p. 205. — év 7@ Xpiare] in the 
 case of Christ. —yeipac] aorist participle, contemporaneous with the act of 
 the verb, like yrwpicac, ver. 9.2 — kai éxaficev| deviation from the participial 
 construction after kai.* — év roic éxovpav.| in the heaven (see on ver. 3), is not to 
 be transformed into the vague conception of a status coelestis, of a higher rela- 
 tion to the world, and the like,* but to be left as @ specification of place. [See 
 Note XIV., p. 353 seq.] For Christ is with glorified body, as civOpovoc, ‘ co- 
 enthroned,” of the Father on the seat where the Divine Majesty is enthroned 
 (see on Matt. vi. 9), exalted above the heavenly angels (ver. 21), in heaven 
 (Phil. iii. 20 f.) ; so Stephen beheld Him (Acts vii. 55), and the seer of the 
 Apocalypse (Rev. v., ad.) ; and from thence, surrounded by the angels, He 
 will return, even as He has bodily ascended thither (1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Acts i. 
 11, iii. 21; 1 Pet. iii, 21 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 30, xxv. 31) ; hence also those 
 who arise and are changed at the Parousia are caught up eic dépa, ‘‘ into 
 the air,” to meet the Lord coming from heaven (1 Thess. iv. 17). Up to 
 that time He intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father (Rom. viii. 
 34). 
 ingly, Mark xvi. 19 : aveAgoOy ei¢ Tov ovpavoy Kai ExdBicev Ex deEiGv Tov Oeoi. 
 And our passage itself, ver. 20 ff. (comp. iv. 10), is the commentary on 6 
 Oedc avtov trepiuce x.7.2. Phil. ii. 9. 
 
 Ver. 21 is no parenthesis, since neither the construction nor the logical 
 progress of the thought is interrupted. — irepdve expresses not the infinite 
 exaltedness,* nor yet the dominion over,® although the latter is implied 
 in the nature of the case, but simply : up above (Heb. ix. 5 ; Ezek. i. 26, 
 vill. 2+) Deut: xxvili. 1; Cant. tr. puer. 37; Tob. 1. 35 Acl Vige aime 
 Polyb. xii. 24. 1). The opposite is troxéro, Mark vi. 11 ; Heb. ii, 8. — 
 kuploryroc is neither to be understood, with Schoettgen, of 
 
 The true commentary on éxdficev év defid aitod év Toic éxoup. is accord- 
 
 TAOHC APNIC « 
 
 1 For similar combinations of words hay- 
 ing a kindred sense, see Lobeck, Paralip. I. 
 p. 534 f. Comp. Soph. Philoct. 590: mpos 
 igxvos kpatos. Job xxi. 23 (LXX.). 
 
 2 In connection with this, observe the in- 
 terchange of the perfect (evjpynxev, see the 
 critical remarks) and the aorist (éyetpas) : 
 which (working) He has wrought (concluded 
 
 action, regarded from the standpoint of the 
 writer), when He raised, etc. 
 
 3 See Hermann, ad Soph. El. p. 153, and 
 note on Col. i. 6; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 327 f. 
 [E. T. 882]. 
 
 4 Calovius, Harless, Hofmann, and others. 
 
 5 The Greek Fathers, Beza, Estius. 
 
 6 Bengel. 
 
CHAP: Ts, 21. 343 
 the Jewish hierarchs, nor, with van Til,’ of the various grades of Gentile 
 rulers, nor, with Morus, of human powers in general, nor, with Erasmus, 
 Vorstius, Wolf, Zachariaec, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Olshausen, and others, of 
 quodeumque gloriae et dignitatis genus, ‘‘any kind of glory and dignity” 
 (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 24); but, as is shown by the immediate context (éxaficev 
 - .. & toic éxovpav.) and the analogous passages, iii. 10, Col. i. 16, Rom. 
 viii. 838 (comp. also 1 Pet. iil. 22), of the angels, who are designated accord- 
 ing to their classes of rank (abstracta pro concretis, ‘‘ abstracts for concretes”), 
 and, in fact, of the good angels, since the apostle is not here speaking (as in 
 1 Cor. xv. 24) of the victory of Christ over opposing powers, but of His exal- 
 tation above the existing powers in heaven. See, moreover, on Rom. viii. 
 38. In opposition to Hofmann, who? would find in the different designa- 
 tions not any order of rank, but only various relations to God and the world, 
 see Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 291 ff.2 Christ Himself already, Matt. xviii. 
 10, assumes a diversity of rank among the angels ; it is thus the more arbi- 
 trary, that expressions evidently in stated use, which in the case of two 
 apostles and then in the Zest. XII. Patr. correspond to this idea (even apart 
 from the Jewish doctrine of classes of angels) should not be referred to it. 
 More precise information, however, as to the relations and functions of the 
 different grades of angels* is not to be given, since Paul does not himself 
 enter into particulars on the point, and the Rabbinical theory of classes of 
 angels, elaborated under the influence of Platonism, yet dissimilar,® is not 
 in keeping with the designations of the apostle,® and has evidently been 
 elaborated ata later date. It is nevertheless probable that the order of suc- 
 cession is here arranged according to a descending climax ; for (1) the apos- 
 tle, in looking at the matter, proceeds most naturally from above downward, 
 from the right hand of God to the heavenly beings which hold the neat 
 place beneath Him, and so on ; (2) the apyai, é£ovcia, and Ovvdpere are 
 always mentioned in the same order (iii. 10 ; Col. i. 16, ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 
 22); the éfovcia:, however, with the péva (Col. i. 16) are’ placed in the 
 seventh heaven, and the dvvayere only in the third (p. 547), as, indeed, in 
 Jamblichus, v. 21, p. 136, the dvvayuerc are placed far below the apyai. Ac- 
 cording to this, the @pévor and xvpidéryrec, Col. 1. 16, would be placed in 
 juxtaposition as the two extremes of the angelic series. Another view is 
 taken by Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 297 f.— That Paul, moreover, sets 
 forth Christ as exalted above the angel-world, with a polemic purpose.in 
 opposition to the @pyoxeia ayyéAwv of the Gnosis of Asia Minor (comp. Col. 
 ii. 18),° is not to be assumed, since the form of the representation maintains 
 
 1 In Wolf. 
 
 2 Schrifibew. I. p. 347. 
 
 3 Comp. also Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 558 f. 
 
 4Tenatius, Zrall. 5, calls them tas torod- 
 egias Tas ayyeAukas. Comp. also Hermas, 
 Past. i. 8, 4. But if the apyat x.7.A. are 
 angels, they are also conceived of as person- 
 a, not as “ principles and potencies, pow- 
 ers, forces, ordinances, and laws” (Bey- 
 sehlag, Christol. d..N. T. p. 244), consequent- 
 ly in an abstract sense. The abstract desig- 
 
 nation has its basis in the fact that classes or 
 categories of personal beings are expressed, 
 just as, ¢.g., e€ovoia issaid of human author- 
 ities, Which consist of persons. 
 
 5 See Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth. IT. 
 p. 874; Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb. I. p. 267 ff. ; 
 Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. p. 357 ff. 
 
 ® See Harless in loc. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
 Vepeeco: 
 
 WO Nesta Gils Pale. Pp. O45: 
 
 § Bucer, Estius, Hug, and others. 
 
344 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 purely a positive character, and the thing itself was so natural to the Chris- 
 tian consciousness generally (comp. Heb. i. 4), and to the connection in the 
 ease of our passage in particular, as to need no polemic occasion in order to 
 its being expressed, and expressed with such solemnity. Even a purpose 
 of guarding against possible infection on the part of such a Gnosis? is at 
 least not expressed or more specially indicated ; it may, however, have still 
 been partially present to the mind of the apostle from the sphere of thought 
 of the previously composed Epistle to the Colossians. Comp. Introd. § 4. 
 — kal tavto¢ dvéuatoc K.t.A.| and, i.e., and generally,’ above every name which 
 is named. Let any name be uttered, whatever it is, Christ is above it, is 
 more exalted than that which the name so uttered affirms. Comp. Phil. ii. 
 9. That édvoua is here dignitatis potentiaeve nomen, ‘‘a name of dignity or 
 power,” *° as Hom. Od. xxiv. 93 ; Strabo, vi. p. 245 (év dvéuare eivac), and the 
 like,* is not to be supposed on account of dvoyafouévov, since this makes the 
 simple literal meaning name the only possible one ; ° and, if Morus and 
 Harless © have supplied the notion underlying the preceding abstract nouns: 
 ‘‘above every name, namely, of such character,” they have done so arbitra- 
 rily, as zavréc stands without restrictive addition. dav évoua is quite gen- 
 eral : any name whatever ; from the heavenly powers, above which Christ is 
 placed, the glance of the apostle stretches to every (created) thing generally, 
 which may anyhow be named. Comp. ravra, ver. 22.—ovd pévoy k.7.A. | 
 cannot belong to éxd@ucev k.7.A.,7 since éxaficev is an act, which has taken 
 place in the ciay airoc, but it belongs to dvoyafou.: which is named in the 
 present world-period, before the Parousia, and in the future one, after the 
 Parousia. As to aidy otiroc and aidy pédAwy, see on Matt. xii. 32. ‘* Natural 
 and supernatural order of the world,” ® and similar conceptions, are not to 
 be substituted for the historical idea. 
 
 Ver. 22. While Paul has before been setting forth the exaltation of Christ 
 over all things, he now expresses the subjection therewith accomplished of all 
 things under Christ: xai ravta . . . avtov, with which consequently the 
 same thing—the installation into the highest kvpidry¢ (Phil. ii. 10 f.)—is ex- 
 pressed, only from another point of view (from below, from the standpoint 
 of the object subjected ; previously from above, from the seat of the exalted 
 Lord), in order to present it in a thoroughly exhaustive manner. Such a 
 representation is not tautological, but emphatic. Theodoret, with whom 
 Harless agrees, makes the purpose : kai t7v rpodytixyy éexhyaye waptupiar, ‘‘ He 
 also introduced the prophetical testimony.” But the words, while doubt- 
 less a reminiscence of Ps. vill. 7 (6), in such wise that Paul makes the expres- 
 sion of the Psalm his own, are not a citation, since he does not in the least 
 indicate this, as he has done at 1 Cor. xv. 27 by the following érayv 62 eizy. 
 Certainly, however, he recognized that, which is said in Ps. vill. of man as 
 such, as receiving its antitypical fulfilment in the exalted Christ (see on 
 
 1 Schneckenburger, Olshausen. 5 Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 262 B. 
 2 See Fritzsche, ad Matth. pp. 786, 870. ® Comp. also Michaelis and Rickert. 
 3 Erasmus, Calyin, Grotius, and others. 7 Morus, Koppe ; comp. already Beza and 
 
 4 See Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 346; Jacobs, Zanchius. 
 ad Anthol, TX. p. 226. § Schenkel. 
 
CHAP. I., 23. 045 
 1 Cor. 7.¢c., comp. also Heb. ii. 8), and thereby it was the more natural for him, 
 when speaking here of the dominion of Christ, to appropriate the words of 
 the Psalm. — raévra has the emphasis, like donc and ravréc before. All— 
 all that is created — God has subjected to Christ. If Paul had meant sim- 
 ply all that resists Christ,’ he must have said so, since there is no mention of 
 subjecting what is hostile either before or in the eighth Psalm. — xai avrov 
 x.7T.A.| and Him, the One thus exalted and ruling over all, Him even He 
 gave, etc.; observe the emphasis of the airév prefixed. What dignity of the 
 church in Him / — édwxe| is usually taken in the sense: of rifmuc ;*? but here 
 as arbitrarily as at iv. 11. Grotius and Riickert rightly take it as: He gave 
 him. . . to the church. If Paul had conceived of 7H écxA. not as dependent 
 on édwxe, but as attached to xed. imép ravta, it would be difficult to see why 
 he should not have written ric éxxAyoiac.2 Comp. Col. i. 18. — ixép ravra] 
 exalted above ull things, is neither transposed :* ‘‘ipsum super omnia (sc. pos- 
 itum) dedit ecclesiae ut caput ejus,” ‘‘ He gave Himself placed above all 
 things as Head of his Church,” Grot.; nor does it signify especially (éxi 
 mao, Vi. 16), as Boyd and Baumgarten would have it ; nor is it, in its true 
 connection with xegad., to be taken as swmmum caput, ‘‘the supreme head,” * 
 by which, according to Koppe and Olshausen, it is meant to be indicated 
 that Christ is higher than the apostles, bishops, etc. In opposition to this 
 interpretation, it may be decisively urged that only One Head to the church 
 can at all be thought oi, and that wavra here calls for the same explanation 
 as above in the case of rdvta izétaé. Hence rather : and Him He gave as 
 Head over all things (to which position, as just shown, He had exalted Him) 
 to the church (Christians as a whole). Since He, as Head over all things, was 
 given to the church, it is obvious that He was to belong to her in a very 
 special sense as her own Head ; hence itis, in accordance with a well-known 
 breviloquentia,® unnecessary to supply xedadjv again before 7H éxxa. 
 
 Ver. 23 gives information (jrvc, ut quae, ‘‘as it is,” denotes the attribute 
 as belonging to the nature of the éxxAyoia ; see Kiithner, IH. p. 497) as to the 
 relation in which the church stands to this Head given to it. It is the body 
 of the Head. —7éd céua aizov] namely, in the mystical sense, according to 
 the essential fellowship of spirit and of life, which unites the collective 
 mass of believers with Christ, their Ruler, into an integrant and organic 
 unity, wherein each single individual is a member of Christ in Christ’s body. 
 Comoru. 16, iv. 4, 12,16, v. 23, 30.; Coli, 18,24, i. 19, ii. 15 ; Rom: 
 xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi, 15, x. 17, xii. 18, 27.— 70 Appa Tod Ta wdvta év Tace 
 
 1 Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, Ols- 
 hausen. 
 
 2 Harless: ‘‘and installed Him as Head 
 over all things for the church ;” comp. Hof- 
 mann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 117. 
 
 3 Hofmann indeed thinks that. if eSwxe TH 
 éxkAnoia were to be taken together, Paul 
 would not have inserted xehad. vrép ravta. 
 But why not? The very position assigned 
 to xed. vr. 7., aS placed apart from avror, is 
 in keeping with the importance of this defi- 
 
 nition of quality, which at the same time, 
 so placed, brings together with striking em- 
 phasis urép wavra and TH exxA. Christ has He 
 given as Head over all things to the church. 
 So high and august is His esteem for it! 
 
 4 Peshito, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras- 
 mus, Grotius, Estius, and others. 
 
 5 Beza, Morus, Koppe, Riickert, Holzhau- 
 sen, Meier, Olshausen, Bleek, comp. Mat- 
 thies. 
 
 6 Matthiae, p. 1538; Kiihner, IL. p. 602. 
 
346 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 TAnpovu.] a significant explanatory parallel to 7d céua abtov, which more pre- 
 cisely characterizes the relation of the church to Christ, in so far as the latter, 
 as Head overall, is also its Head ; and that in non-jigurative language. The 
 church, namely, is the Christ filled, i.e., that which is filled by Him,’ in 
 so far, namely, as Christ, by the Holy Spirit, dwells and rules in Chris- 
 tians, penetrates the whole Christian mass with His gifts and life-powers, 
 and produces all Christian life (Rom. viii. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17; John xv. 
 5; Eph. iii. 17 ; Col. i. 27). His presence and activity, through the medium 
 of the Spirit, fills the collective Christian body. And Christ, by whom the 
 Christian church is filled, is the same zwho jilleth the all (i.e., the rerum univer- 
 sitas, ‘‘ universe of things,” whose Head He is, ver. 22) with all, for by Him 
 was the world created, and by Him, as the immanent ground of life (Heb. i. 
 3), is it maintained and governed (1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16 ff. ; Usteri, 
 Lehrbegr. p- 315 ff.) ; hence this interpretation of év raov yields no intoler- : 
 able sense,® but is entirely Pauline. Accordingly, by the fact that the church 
 is named the rAjpwoua of Christ, the idea that Christ is the Head of the 
 church, of His body, receives elucidation ; and by the characteristic desig- 
 nation tov 7a TavTa év Taor TAnpovu., is elucidated the conception, that He as 
 Head over all is Head of the church, ver. 22. —70 tAf#poya is here (comp. 
 generally on ver. 10) equivalent to 7d rerAnpwyévov, ‘‘that which is filled.” 
 Thus, as is well known, not only are ships’ cargoes or crews,* but also the 
 ships themselves—so far as they are freighted or manned—called rAnpéuara 3* 
 thus it is said in Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 920, of the soul : yevouévy dé 
 rAhpona apetov ; thus among the Gnostics the supersensible world is called 
 7d TAgpwua, the filled, in opposition to 7d Kévwua, the empty, the world of the 
 senses.° See also Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 470. év raou is not : everywhere,® 
 in all modes of manifestation,’ in all points,® or the like ; but instrumental,° 
 as at v.18: with all; and rAnpovuévov is middle, as in Xen. Hell. v. 4. 56, vi. 
 2. 14 ; Dem. p. 1208, 14; 1221, 12, in connection with which the medial 
 sense is not to be overlooked : qui sibi implet ; for Christ is Lord and final 
 aim (ver. 22; Col. i. 16; Heb. ii. 10) of all. Comp. Barnabas, Hp. 12: 
 éyele Kal Ev TovTH THY OdEav Tov Inood, Ort év avT@ TavTa Kai ei¢ adtév, ‘‘ you have 
 also in this the glory of Jesus ; for in Him and to Him are all things.” The 
 ubiquity of the body of Christ, which our text was formerly employed to 
 defend (see especially Calovius), and even now is once more adduced to 
 
 
 
 1 Not, as Elsner (Q%ss. p. 204) would take 
 it : thal by which Christ is filled, against which 
 there would be doubtless no linguistic ob- 
 jection (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469 f.), 
 but it may be urged that the church is not 
 to be thought of as dwelling in Christ, but 
 Christ as dwelling in the church (1 Cor. iii. 
 16; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Eph. ii. 22), and that the 
 following paraphrastic designation of 
 Christ would not be in keeping with that 
 conception. 
 
 2 Schenkel. 
 
 3 Dem. 565, 1. 
 
 4 Lucian, V. Z. ii. 37, 38. 
 
 5 Baur, Gnosis, pp. 157, 462 ff. 
 
 6 Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
 7 De Wette, Bleek. 
 
 8 Marless. 
 
 ® Comp. Plut. de plac. phil. i.7.9: érAjpwto 
 év paxapioTytt, ‘‘ He was filled with blessed- 
 ness.’ Paul himself has employed zAnpobv 
 with such varied construction (with the da- 
 tive, Rom. i. 29; with the genitive, Rom. 
 xv. 14; with the accusative, Col. i. 9), that 
 even the combination with ev cannot sur- 
 prise us,—a combination which he has also 
 in Phil. iy. 19. 
 
CHAP. I., 25. 347 
 prove (Philippi, Dogm. IV. 1, p. 484), is the less to be found here, seeing that 
 the év raov, to be taken instrumentally, makes us think only of the all-pene- 
 trating continuous activity of Christ. [See on ver. 20, Note XIV., p. 353 seq. | 
 The continuity of this activity is implied in the present wAypovy., in which 
 Hofmann, II. 1, p. 539, finds a gradual development, and that of the resto- 
 vation of the world ; of which last there is here no mention at all, but, on 
 the contrary, of the wpholding and governing of the world, as Col. i. 17 ; 
 Heb. i. 3.1. As regards the explanations that differ from ours, we may 
 remark—(1) Many, who have rightly apprehended 76 rAjpoua and rAnpovpévov, 
 wrongly restrict ra tavta év race to the spiritual operations in the Christians, 
 either, as Grotius : ‘Christus in omnibus, credentibus sc., implet omnia, 
 mentem luce, voluntatem piis affectibus, corpus ipsum obsequendi facultate, 
 ad quae dona perpetua accedebant primis temporibus etiam yapicwara illa 
 mvevuatixd, etc.,” ‘‘Christ in all, viz., believing fills all things, the mind 
 with light, the will with godly dispositions, the very body with the power 
 of obedience, to which perpetual gifts there were added in the first times 
 also the spiritual yapicyara,” etc., or, as Flatt (comp. Zachariae and Morus): 
 ‘who fills all without distinction of nations, Jews and Gentiles, everywhere, 
 or always [év rao. ?], with good.” In this view the fact is overlooked that 
 Ta wavra, after the preceding xedadyy irép ravra, admits of no sort of limita- 
 tion, and that, if rov . . . rAypovuévov were designed only to say how far 
 the church is the rAjpoua of Christ, this whole addition would be quite as 
 superfluous for the Christian consciousness as it would be indistinctly ex- 
 pressed. We have, on the contrary, in 76 rAjpapua Tov x.7.A. a climax of the 
 representation, which advances from that which the church is in relation to 
 Christ (+6 rAgpoa aitow) to His relation towards the universe (hence, too, ra 
 mavra is prefixed).” (2) Since airov and rod ra 7m. év mr. rAnpovu. are signifi- 
 cantly parallel, and no change of subject is indicated ; and since, on the 
 other hand, the thought, that the church is the rA#peua of God, would be 
 inappropriate here, where the idea : Christ is its head, is dwelt on,—all ex- 
 planations fall to the ground which refer roi tAypouy. to God, such as that 
 of Theodoret : éxAnciav . Tpoonyopevoe TOV mév Xpiotov cHma, Tov dé TaTpOG 
 TARpoua’ EXAjpwoe yap adTyv Tavtodarav yapiopatwv «.T.A., and of Koppe, by 
 whom the sense is alleged to be : ‘‘the whole wide realm of the All-Ruler!” 
 Comp. Rosenmiiller. Homberg, Parerg. p. 289, Wetstein (‘‘ Christus est 
 plenitudo, gloria patris omnia in omnibus implentis,” ‘‘ Christ is the fulness, 
 the glory of the Father filling all in all’’), and Meier refer the genitive to 
 God, but regard 76 rAjpwua as apposition to aivrov ; Meier : ‘‘ Him, the ful- 
 ness of Him who filleth all in all ; for in Christ there dwells the fulness of 
 God (Col. ii. 9), and it is God who fills the universe” (Jer. xxiii. 24, al.). 
 This explanation is manifestly involved, makes jric éoti 7d ca aiTov an in- 
 
 1 Comp. Hermas, Past. sim. iii. 9. 14. 
 
 2 Tt is the more mistaken a course, in spite 
 of this advance, yet again to refer év maoc 
 to the Christians. This error has misled 
 Schenkel to put into our passage the 
 thought: “tn all members of the Christian 
 community [ev macr] the Divine aim of the 
 
 Creator, underlying the structure of the uni- 
 verse, receives its accomplishment through the 
 life of the exalted Redeemer flowing into them.” 
 But little skill is attributed to the apostle, 
 when it is supposed that he designed to ex- 
 press this thought by means of the words he 
 has written. 
 
348 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 sertion which, if nothing further were to be added to it, would be after 
 Th éxxAnoia quite aimless and idle, and leaves ra rdavra 
 év rao Without more precise analysis. The same reasons hold also in oppo- 
 sition to Bengel, who regards 76 rAjpoua as accusative absolute (comp. on 
 Rom. xii. 1), as epiphonema of what was said from ver. 20 onwards : ‘ Hoe, 
 quod modo explanavi, inquit apostolus, repraesentat nobis plenitudinem 
 Patris omnia implentis in omnibus, ut mathematici dicunt : id quod erat 
 demonstrandum,” ‘‘ What I have thus explained, the apostle says, represents 
 to us the fulness of the Father filling all in all, as mathematicians say : 
 ‘that which was to be proved.’” (3) Since it is self-evident that Christ, as 
 Head of the church, is not without this His body, and since it could not 
 therefore enter the apostle’s mind, at the solemn close, too, of the section, 
 to bring forward the fact that the body belongs to the completeness of the 
 head,—all those explanations fell to the ground as quite inappropriate 
 which take 70 rAjpoua as supplementum, ‘‘the complement” (Matt. ix. 16 ; 
 Mark ii. 21),’ in which case some were consistent enough to take zAnpouuévov 
 likewise in the sense of completing, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lact, Menochius, Boyd, Estius,* and others ; and some inconsistent enough 
 to explain it, incompatibly with the paronomasia, by implere, and thus dif- 
 ferently from zAjpwua, as Beza,* Calovius, comp. Calvin, Balduin, Baum- 
 
 édwke KEgaAYY . 
 
 1 So also Schwegler in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, 
 p. 387, where, moreover, the comparison of 
 the union of Christ and the church to mar- 
 riage (v. 25 ff.) is brought in quite unwar- 
 rantably. Asmanand wife supplement each 
 other to form the totality of the species (as 
 head and body), so, too, the church (as the 
 body of Christ) is held to be the complemen- 
 tum, ‘* complement,” of Christ (as the head 
 of the church). Baur, too (Paulus, p. 426), 
 takes the union of Christ with the church 
 here as marriage (as asyzygy), and explains 
 TAyjpwoua entirely from the Gnostic point of 
 view. 
 pove., in his view, nothing else is affirmed 
 than that “ Christ is the tAjpwpa (the totality 
 of the aeons) in the highest absolute sense, 
 in so far asit is all in an absolute manner 
 (ta mavTa év aor), Which He fills with Him- 
 self as the absolute contents thereof.’ Ac- 
 cordingly, 7Ajpwna is to be taken neither 
 simply in an active nor simply in a passive 
 sense, but in such wise that the two notions 
 pass over the one into the other; because, 
 in fact, that which makes full is in turn 
 that which is thade full, that which is filled 
 with its definite contents. ‘t As wAnpovmevos 
 Ta TavrTa ev tact, Christ is the 7Ajpwpa, filling 
 the ravra ev waor with its definite contents ; 
 and this tAjpwpa itself is the absolute total- 
 ity filled with its absolute contents.” 
 Comp. Baur, d. Christenth. d. drei ersten 
 Jahrh. p. 296, and Neutest. Theol. p. 258. 
 Operations of this sort, which do not exe- 
 
 By 70 wAyp. Tod Ta Tavta ev Tact TAy- 
 
 getically educe their results, but import 
 them, are too much dominated by the pre- 
 supposition of post-apostolic relations not 
 to be safely left to their own fate, to which 
 they have already been consigned. 
 
 2 Qui secundum omnia, s. quoad omnia 
 inomnibus sui corporis membris adimple- 
 tur. Nisi enim essent hic quidem pes ejus, 
 ille vero manus, alius autem aliud membrum 
 
 . non perficeretur Christus secundum 
 rationem capitis,” ‘‘ who is fulfilled as to 
 all things in-all members of His body. For 
 unless this indeed were His foot, and that 
 His hand, and another another member, 
 Christ would not have been perfected ac- 
 
 _cording to the nature of a Head,” Estius, 
 
 He is followed by Bisping, who here finds 
 the basis and germ of the doctrine of the 
 treasure of the merits of the saints! 
 3**Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, 
 ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere 
 hoe supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in 
 omnibus re vera,” ‘‘ But the Apostle added 
 this entirely for the purpose that we should 
 know that Christ of Himself does not need 
 this supplement, since He truly effects all 
 things in all,’ Beza. Calovius: ‘‘ Tanto 
 in pretio Christus suam habet ecclesiam, 
 tam tenere amat, ut se quodammodo im- 
 perfectum et mancum reputet, nisi nobis con- 
 jungatur, et nos ipst tanquam corpus capiti 
 uniamur cev wAjpwpa ejus,” ‘‘In such value 
 does Christ have His church, so tenderly 
 does He love it, that He accounts Himself 
 
CHAP. I., 29: 349 
 garten ; also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. p. 219 f. : ‘‘His destination, to fill all 
 in all, is completely attained only in the church.” [See Note XV., p. 354.] (4) 
 The necessity for taking +A7pwua in one and the same sense is fatal to the ex- 
 planation of zAjpoua as equivalent to rA7jfoc, copia, coetus, numerosus, ‘* abun- 
 dance, numerous assembly,” * or even : full measure.” Further, (5) the passive 
 construction of zAnpovuévov (Vulg.) leaves absolutely no tolerable expla- 
 nation of ra ravta év aoc; for which reason not only the exposition 
 of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, and others (see above, under No. 3), 
 but also the similar one of Jerome* and that of Holzhausen, are to be 
 rejected. The last-mentioned discovers the meaning : 
 Himself the fulness of eternal blessings” (7a ravra év rao, signifying the 
 eternal !). Yet, again, (6) seeing that 76 rAfpoua neither in itself nor 
 in accordance with the context, denotes the Divine déze, ‘ glory,” of 
 which the N25v, ‘‘shekinah,” was the real presence,‘ there falls to the 
 ground not only the explanation of those who treat 7d rAypwpa as equiv- 
 alent in meaning to temple, like Michaelis and Bretschneider, but also 
 that of Harless: ‘‘the apostle designates the church with the same word, 
 by which he elsewhere {?] designates the abundance of the glory dwell- 
 ing in Christ and God, and issuing from Him. It, however, is the ful- 
 ness of Christ, not as though it were the glory which dwelt in Him, but 
 because He causes His glory to dwell, as in all the universe, so also in it. It 
 is the glory, not of one who without it would starve, but of Him who fills 
 the universe in all respects ;° TAnpyC Taca 4 yH SdENC adToL, ‘*the whole earth 
 
 ‘“Christ carries in 
 
 imperfect and defective unless joined to us, 
 and we ourselves united as a body to the 
 Head, as its tAjpwna, Comp. Luther's gloss ; 
 also Apol. Conf. A, p. 145. Calvin, more- 
 over, prefers to limit 7a mavra to the spir- 
 étuaks gubernatio ecclesiae, ‘* spiritual goy- 
 ernment of the church.”’ 
 
 1 Storr, Morus, Stolz, Koppe, Rosenmiil- 
 ler. Morus: ‘“‘Quae proinde est societas 
 subditorum ejus et hominum magna copia, 
 quae colit hune (quae subest huic, quae sub 
 hoe rege vivit), qui omnes omnino in hoc 
 eoetu omnibus generibus bonorum accu- 
 mulare de diein diem solet,” ‘‘ Which is, 
 accordingly, the fellowship of His subjects, 
 and the large number of men, that wor- 
 ships Him (that is beneath Him, that lives 
 under this King), who is wont from day to 
 day in this assembly to increase all men 
 with all kinds of blessings.’? Rosenmiiller : 
 *Coetus numerosus illius, quiomnes (hom- 
 ines) omnibus bonis replet,” ‘‘ The numer- 
 ous assembly of Him, who fills all men with 
 all blessings,” by which God is held to be 
 meant. 
 
 2 Cameron, Bos. 
 
 _ 3*“Sicut adimpletur imperator, si quoti- 
 die ejus augetur exercitus, .. . itaet Dom- 
 inus noster Jesus Christus in eo, quod sibi 
 credunt omnia et per dies singulos ad fidem 
 
 ejus veniunt, ipse adimpletur in omnibus, sic 
 tamen, ut omnia adimpleantur in omnibus, 
 i.é., ut qui in eum credunt, cunctis virtuti- 
 bus pleni sint,” ‘‘Just as the emperor is 
 fulfilled, if his army is increased daily... 
 so also our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself 
 fulfilled in all, in this, that they entrust all 
 things to Him, nevertheless so that all are 
 fulfilled in all, é.c., that those who believe in 
 Him are full of all virtues.” 
 
 4 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2394 ff. 
 
 * According to Harless, ¢v maoc means in 
 every way, and implies that not in one way 
 (only) is the sphere of earth full of the glory 
 of Christ; the glory of the Creator is one, 
 that of the Enlightener before the incarna- 
 tion (John i. 3) another, that of the Redeem- 
 er another. But how is the limitation of 
 ta zavrta to the earth to be justified? And are, 
 then, these three modes of glory adduced, 
 which after all the reader must have guessed 
 at without any hint, sufficient to exhaust 
 the quite unlimited év wao.? and is the 
 thought of the glory of the Creator and the 
 Enlightener before the incarnation in keeping 
 with the present participle? The whole ex- 
 planation pours into the simple words a 
 series of thoughts and reservations, in pres- 
 ence of which the words remain a very rid- 
 dle of the Sphinx. 
 
300 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 is full of His glory” (Isa. vi. 3) ; but it is the glory of Christ, because He is 
 united with it alone, as the head with its body.”’ Lastly, (7) Riickert also 
 proved unsuccessful in his attempt to explain it : the church, in his view, 
 is designated as the means (76 zAyjpaua, that whereby the rAnpoiv Comes 
 about) by which Christ carries out in all (xao1, masculine) that which is com- 
 mitted to Him for completion (ra ravra), as ‘‘ the means of His accomplish- 
 ing the great destination which devolves upon Him, namely, the universal 
 restoration and bringing back to God.” Against this may be urged both 
 the language itself, since 7 7/#jpoua never signifies the means of accomplish- 
 ment, and the context, which neither speaks of a restoration and bringing 
 back to God nor furnishes any limitation of 7a xavra to that which is implied 
 in the divine plan. — We may add that there cannot be shown here as 
 regards the use of rAjpwua, any more than previously as regards the classes 
 of angels, any direct or indirect polemic preference to Gnosticism. To the 
 later speculations of Gnosticism, however, the forms of the transcendent 
 doctrines of the apostle could not but be welcome ; not as if Gnosticism had 
 thought out its material in accordance with such Scriptural forms,! but it 
 poured in into their mould, and, moreover, further developed and amplified 
 the forms which it found ready to hand. 
 
 Norses By AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 II. Ver. 3. 6 Oed¢ kat marHp Tov Kupiov. 
 
 Schmidt in the revised Meyer here dissents, and refers to Braune’s argument, 
 who contends that the joining of xupiov to the 6 Gedc, as well as to watTHp, is most 
 natural, especially as zatTjo does not require, as Meyer states, a complementary 
 genitive, see Eph. v. 20; 1 Cor, xv, 24, xvi. 23 ; Gal. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. 
 i, 2. Neither is the expression ‘‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” so iso- 
 lated, ver. 17 ; Matt. xxvii. 46 ; John xx. 17; Rev. ii. 7, iii. 12. The Vatican 
 manuscript omits kai ta77p. Eadie, Alford, Barry, Riddle concur in this con- 
 struction. Ellicott, on the other hand, inclines to Meyer, while acknowledg- 
 ing that the other interpretation is both exegetically and doctrinally tenable. 
 
 III. Ver. 35. év roi¢ érovpaviorc. 
 
 The emphasizing of any local relation here gives a wrong shade to the argu- 
 ment. Meyer’s plea that the é» roic éxovpaviowg must be interpreted according 
 to the meaning of the expression as found in the other five places it occurs in 
 this Epistle, if viewed with respect to local relations, would introduce a singular 
 interpretation from chap. vi. 12. A more general explanation is better ; “‘ What 
 belongs to heaven in contrast to what belongs to and is on earth” (Braune). ’Ezov- 
 pavioc ‘signifies what pertains to heaven as to a higher and more divine order of 
 things,” 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48,49 ; Heb. xii. 22 ; Eph. i. 20 ; 1 John iii. 12. ra éovp., 
 as against rd éxiyera, that order of things which includes the blessings of com- 
 plete salvation. So KAjouc éxovpdvioc, Heb. xiii, 1, dwped exovp., vi. 4; x1. 16. 
 
 1Tertull. de praescr. 38. 
 
NOTES. 351 
 
 Hence ra exovpdvia denote those blessings collectively, Eph. i. 3, ii. 6 ; Heb, viii. 
 5, ix.23; Phil. ii. 10, of exovp., things which come within the range of this 
 order’ (Cremer’s Lexicon of N. T. Greek., Eng. Trans. (1878), p. 468). ‘These 
 spiritual blessings are truly exovpara, with respect to their origin, since they 
 descend from the Father, who is exovpavioc, Matt. xviii. 35 ; with respect to 
 their quality, because in dignity and eminence they are neither earthly nor 
 heavenly with respect to the earthly and material heavens, but supercelestial, 
 which even the angels in heaven delight to ‘look into,’ as they are truly 
 ‘above thought, above word, above every comprehension of a created nature ;’ 
 and with respect to end, because not only in the kingdom of grace on this earth, 
 but also in the kingdom of glory in heaven, we enjoy the blessedness acquired 
 in Christ” (Calovius), 
 
 IV. Ver. 4. po kataBoAje Kéopov. 
 
 Chrysostom’s note on the etymology of katafoAje (a casting down) is interest- 
 ing: ‘* Beautiful is that word, as though he were pointing to the world as cast 
 down from some vast height, Yea, vast indeed and ineffable is the height of God, 
 so far removed, not in place, but in incommunicableness of nature ; so wide the 
 distance between creation and creator !’’ Weiss (Bibl. Theol., Eng. Trans., 
 vol. II., p. 98) suggests the argument contained here for the divinity of Christ : 
 “Tf Christians are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, and are 
 thereby already blessed in Him in the heavenly world, then the Mediator of 
 salvation, in whom the election and the blessing could be grounded at a time 
 when the objects of these did not exist, must have Himself existed before the 
 world. . . For Paul there is at once an eternal divine existence of the Christ 
 who in His earthly life has become the Mediator.’’ So also Bengel. The su- 
 periority of Christianity to Judaism is also indicated : ‘‘The Jews dated their 
 election from Abraham, and boasted of its antiquity’ (Grotius). But “the 
 election in Christ preceded the election of the Jewish nation in their forefathers; 
 and redemption, the verification of the archetype of humanity through Christ, 
 and proceeding from Him, is the end of the whole terrestrial creation, so that 
 everything else appears asa preparation for this highest object in the counsel of 
 creation in reference to the world’’ (Neander’s Planting and Training of Chr. 
 Church, American edition, p, 479). 
 
 V. Ver. 4. dytove kai aduopove. 
 
 The reference of these words by Meyer to forensic righteousness is much 
 disputed, though supported by Braune, Olshausen, and Harless. So too Phil- 
 ippi (Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, v. 1, p. 278): ‘‘ Justification consists in the nega- 
 tive ddeoie TOV TaparTwudtwr, the positive dylove Kal azwuovg eivat, and reception 
 into the vio§ecia.’’ Ellicott is in doubt as to whether the reference is to justi- 
 fication or sanctification, inclining, however, to the latter, which is maintained 
 by Estius, Boyd, Stier, Alford, Eadie, Barry, Riddle, As justification, however, 
 is not a subordinate end to sanctification, and the inherent righteousness of 
 the believer, however perfect in its final stage, is incomparable with the im- 
 puted righteousness of the Redeemer, with which he is clothed in justification, 
 we cannot appreciate the exceptions taken to Meyer's view. If the result 
 that emerges in time is that Christ became a curse for us (Gal. ili. 13) and we 
 are made the righteousness of Godin Him (2 Cor, v. 21), there is nothing incon- 
 
8d2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 sistent in regarding the eternal purpose that we should be holy and blameless 
 before Him, as directed to that putting on of Christ whereby all that He is 
 becomes ours. In the world of glory it is the forensic righteousness that is 
 the special theme of the hymns of the church triumphant, Rey. i. 6, vii. 14. 
 
 VI. Ver. 5. zpoopicac judac. 
 
 Other distinctions have been drawn between the é«Acéyec6a and the mpoopiteww: 
 “<hey differ only in an ordinative and objective manner,’ the é« of the former 
 referring to the mass from whom the selection was made, the zpo of the latter 
 to the pre-existence and priority of the decree’ (Scherzer in Ellicott.) ‘‘The 
 matter to be considered when zpoopiferv is used, is not who are the subjects of 
 this predestination, but what they are predestined to. This second object of the 
 verb, as it has been called, forms an essential part of the conception expressed 
 by it ; what is called the first object, i.e., the persons who, is an accidental one, 
 a contingency belonging to history, whereas zpoopigevy itself precedes history.” 
 
 VIL. Ver. 5. el¢ aire. 
 
 ‘* We may thus paraphrase: ‘God predestinated us to be adopted as His 
 sons ; and that adoption came to us through Christ, and was to lead us unto 
 and unite us to God’” (Ellicott). 
 
 VIII. Ver. 7. trav rapartopmatov. 
 
 Meyer’s inference is here too sweeping. That the inborn sinfulness is not 
 here designated must be conceded. But the 7a rapartopdra as the concrete 
 manifestation of the sinful habit, may readily be used by synecdoche for 
 everything in man that incurs God’s wrath. See Cremer’s Lexicon of N. T. 
 Greek (Eng. Trans., 1878, p. 499) : ‘In ruparztopa reference is especially made 
 to the subjective passivity and suffering of him who misses or falls short of the 
 enjoined command ; aud the word has come to be used both of great and 
 serious guilt, and generally of all sin, even though unknown and unintentional 
 (Ps. xix. 13 ; Gal. vi. 1), so far as this issimply a missing of the right... . . Like 
 its verb, rapdzTwua is used synonymously with duapria as the generic word, 
 Rom. v. 20, and is thus a missing of the mark, and includes both duaptia and 
 Tmapafsactc.”” 
 
 IX. Ver. 10. cic otkovouiay Tov TAnpaparoc. 
 
 Harless traces the confusion concerning this passage to three sources: 
 1. Incorrect translation of ei¢ (when regarded as standing for év). 2. Incorrect 
 understanding of oicovouia (dispensation of grace). 3. Wrong construction of the 
 genitive, tAnpouatoc. Cremer defines oixovouia as denoting ‘‘ either (1) actively, 
 the administrative activity of the owner or of the steward ; or (2), passively, that 
 which is administered, the administration or ordering of the house, or the ar- 
 rangement, e g., of a treatise or discourse’’ (Platarch). He finds the object of 
 oikovouiav not in the tov rAnpwpuatoc, but in the relative jj» mpoéero, Which re- 
 sults in the paraphrase : ‘‘ The administration of God’s saving purpose pertain- 
 ing to the fulness of the times,” ‘‘administration’’ being taken in its passive 
 sense. (Lexicon of N. T. Greek, E. T., 1878, p. 480 sq.). Weiss (Bibl. Theol. 
 of N. T., II. p. 79) adopts the temporal meaning of olxovoyiiar, to which Harless 
 
NOTES. 353 
 
 so strongly objects, viz., a ‘fixed period, in which the measure of the ages that 
 are past was to become complete.” Barry, on the other hand, concurs with 
 Cremer: “‘ Which He purposed in Himself for administration (or disposal) of the 
 fulness of the (appointed) seasons, to gather,” ete. 
 
 X. Ver. 10. dvakedahadoacba: ra ravta, 
 
 The ra tarra is limited by Philippi (Kirch. Dog. III. 393), and Hodge, «‘to the 
 redeemed,” by Boyd to the “elect,” while, according to Calovius, all men are 
 comprised in the avaxegaiaiwcic, with respect to God’s intention and Christ's 
 merit, but it becomes restricted by the guilt of man’s unbelief. Better Eadie: 
 «Man is reconciled to God, and all who bear God’s image are reconciled to 
 man. Angelsare ‘ministering spirits’ to him, and all holy intelligences delight 
 in him. Not only has harmony been restored to the universe, and the rupture 
 oceasioned 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 the government: Jesus is universal 
 Regent.’ Hunnius (quoted by Calovius) presents the relation of this avaked- 
 ahaiwowc to the angels : ‘‘ Although nothing is obtained for the angels by Christ’s 
 death, yet something is obtained for all that has a certain relation to the angels, 
 in that the angels, who formerly were alienated from men by transgression, 
 now acknowledge them again as their fellow-servants, associates, and fellows 
 of the same joy and kingdom, and, therefore, do not disdain to serve them.” 
 
 XI. Ver. 11. exAnpobnuev. 
 
 The Eng. Rev. Vers., following Bengel, de Wette, Stier, Alford, Ellicott, 
 Braune, translates ‘‘we were made a heritage.”’ 
 
 XII. Ver. 13. zodpayicOnre. 
 
 «« By the term ‘sealing’ is not meant the first production of faith, but its ul- 
 terior progress and confirmation” (Boyd). ‘‘# ogpayic is undoubtedly used by 
 ecclesiastical writers simply for baptism, but any special reference of this 
 nature would not appear in harmony with the present context” (Ellicott). «The 
 reception of the Spirit,’’ after faith mentioned by Meyer, must necessarily be 
 understood of fuller bestowals of the Spirit, since faith itself is His work, 
 
 XIII. Ver. 17. év étyvdcer airov. 
 
 émtyvaoic, ‘always of a knowledge which very powerfully influences the form 
 of religious life . . . Thus, as Delitzsch says (Ep. to Hebrews), we may speak 
 of a false yvoorc, but not of a false émiyvdouc’’ (Cremer). 
 
 XIV. Ver. 20. év roi¢ éxovpaviorc. 
 
 In Note III. we have indicated that such local restriction is too contracted. 
 So here. The de&ia avrov is God’s universal power, Ps. xliv. 3 ; exviii. 15, 16; 
 exxxix.10. Yet this must not be so understood as to deny the reality of Christ's 
 ascension, or to ascribe to His exalted body a diffusion throughout all space. 
 Chemnitz, the great expounder of the position maintained by Harless, says 
 (De Duabus Naturis, p. 178) : ‘*We by no means hold, that either in union or in 
 
 23 
 
ba4 THE EPISI!LE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 glory, with its substance lost and its essential properties abolished, the body 
 of Christ: is converted or changed into a spiritual, infinite, immense substance, 
 uncircumscribed by any essential property, so as, by reason of its essential, in- 
 finite immensity, to be in all places and fill all things, as divinity is in this 
 inanner everywhere present... (p. 176) By, and of itself, even in glory, it 
 is limited by the property of its nature, and in the manner of glorified bodies 
 is somewhere, the privilege of the hypostatic union excepted. . . . Yet it must 
 be added that Christ, either in glory or the former natural form, is not so held 
 and confined in heaven, as not to be able, whenever He wishes, to afford also 
 on earth His presence after that form.’’ In other words, the doctrine of the 
 communicatio idiomatwn does not involve the denial of an ordinary local relation 
 of our Lord’s body to a heavenly sphere, although it is maintained that the év 
 Toic Erovpaviowe implies what transcends all limitations of space. MHarless re- 
 fers here, with great approval, to Tholuck on Matt. vi. 9. The term ‘‘ubiquity,’’ 
 in this relation as used by Meyer, chap. iv. 10, and foot-note to chap. vi. 31, is 
 amisnomer, See Krauth’s Conservative Reformation, p. 495 sq. 
 
 XV. Ver. 23. 70 TAjpapa Tov K.T.A. 
 
 Schmidt inserts in Meyer, 5th ed., the following from Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of 
 N. T., IL. 112: «‘ Not only does the church, as the body,stand in need of Christ, as 
 the head, but the apostle ventures the bold expression that Christ also needs 
 the church, as the body, as that which belongs to His completeness, or makes his 
 being first entirely complete.” On this Cremer remarks: ‘‘An ingenious 
 thought, but not so true.” 
 
CHAP. IL 
 
 (Shs) 
 Or 
 Cr 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 Ver. 1. After duaptiacc, BDEFG 8, min. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. 
 Vulg. It. Theodoret, Lucif. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pel. have juov, which Lachm. 
 and Tisch. have rightly received into the text. On account of the redundancy 
 of the pronoun and its absence in ver. 5, the omission of it was easier than its 
 addition from a comparison of Col]. ii. 13 (in opposition to Reiche), — Ver. 3. 
 téxva gvcet] Lachm. and Riick. read g¢vcer téxva, following A DE F GL, min. 
 Vulg. It. Or. (once), and other Fathers. But considering how closely réxva dpyje 
 go together, the transposition gvce: téxva was so natural, that in opposition to 
 these important witnesses the Recepta, attested by B K &, most min. Or. (thrice) 
 Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. Oec., is, with Matth. Scholz, Harless, Olsh. de Wette, 
 Tisch. [Treg. Hofm. Braune, West. and Hort] to be maintained. — Ver. 11. 
 The order woré jueic in Lachm. and Tisch. is justified by A B D* E &* codd. of 
 It. and Fathers, More feebly attested is the order éyev. éyytc, ver. 13, in 
 Lachm., which weakens the antithesis. — Ver. 12. év t@ xarpw]| év is wanting in 
 decisive witnesses. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. Explanatory ad- 
 dition. —Ver. 15. év éavré] Lachm. [West. and Hort]: év airé. The wit- 
 nesses are greatly divided. But E was ‘easily passed over after Ev. — Ver. 17. 
 kat Toi¢] Lachm, Tisch. Riick.: kat cipyvnv totic, according to decisive testimony. 
 The emphasis of the repetition of eipyv. was not duly regarded, and so the ap- 
 parently redundant word was neglected. For the same reason there was writ- 
 ten in ver. 19, instead of the far preponderantly attested a/2’ éoré, simply d”AAa 
 (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 21. mdoa oixod.] Elz. Scholz, Rick. Reiche read rdca 7 
 oixod. But the article is wanting in BDEFGKL S* and many min., also 
 in Clem. Bas. Chrys. (in the commentary) Theodoret, Oec., and was added (A C, 
 Chrys. Theophyl.) because it seemed needed by the sense. See, however, the 
 exegetical remarks. 
 
 ConTENTS.—You also, when ye were dead through sins,—as indeed we 
 Jewish-Christians too were in the same condition of sin and subjection to 
 the divine wrath,—God has by virtue of His love made us alive with 
 Christ, raised us and transferred us into heaven, in order, in the world-ages 
 to come, to show His grace towards us in Christ (vv. 1-7). For out of 
 grace have ye attained to salvation, not through merit of works (vv. 8-10). 
 Remember, therefore, that ye were formerly as Gentiles unhallowed and un- 
 happy, but now through the death of Christ ye are in quite a different posi- 
 tion (vy. 11-18). For Christ has through His death established peace 
 between Jews and Gentiles (vv. 14-18). Ye, consequertly, are no longer 
 aliens, but fellow-members of the theocracy, members of the houschold of 
 God, built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, wherein 
 the corner-stone is Christ, in whom every building is built, and ye too, unto 
 a holy temple (vv. 19-22). 
 
356 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Ver. 1. Connection: After Knatchbull and others! had attached kat iuac 
 to ele juac Tove miorebovtac, 1. 19, and Bengel to fv évfpy., 1. 20 (both arbitra- 
 rily confusing, and the former also mistaken, for the reason that ;juae, ver. 19, 
 already included the readers), Lachmann and Harless have closed i, 23 
 with only a comma, and annexed «ai (cuvefworoinoe) iudg kai avtov édwxe K.T.A., 
 ver. 22.2 So also de Wette, without, however, approving the mere comma 
 after i. 28. But in this way we should have to expect not duac, but guae 
 (comp. i. 19 : ei¢ quae rode mioretovrac), for Paul would attach to what God 
 has done in relation to Christ that which He has at the same time done in 
 the euse of the Christians. And, inasmuch as he has employed the pronoun 
 of the second person, he has thereby indicated the beginning of a new por- 
 tion. 
 it is admirably suited for a sonorous conclusion, but hardly for a mere paren- 
 thetic insertion. No, after the apostle has previously spoken of the exceed- 
 ing power of God in the case of believers, which may be recognized by vir- 
 tue of what He has done in the case of Christ, whom He raised, exalted, 
 ete., he wishes now, im application of this to the readers, to bring the latter 
 to the consciousness that God has made also them («ai iuac), when they were 
 dead in their sins, to be alive, ete., with Christ, and thus has shown also in 
 their case that exceeding power. — The construction is broken off, even before 
 the subject and the verb are expressed, by the afilux of the thoughts in the 
 relative clauses which begin ver. 2, but is resumed ver. 4 by means of dé, - 
 so that the subject not yet named in ver. 1 is at length named and charac- 
 terized in ver. 4 ; and in ver. 5 the verb (cvve(woroiyce) comes in with repe- 
 tition of the object, which, however,—in accordance with what has been 
 said in the intervening clauses,—had already in ver. 4 passed over into the 
 first person and thus become universal (vac). As to the details, see below. 
 The resumption accordingly begins already, in ver. 4, with 6 dé Oed¢ ;* not 
 first with ver. 5, as Wolf and others, including Griesbach, Koppe, ed. 1, 
 Scholz, Meier, Riickert, Holshausen, would have it, because otherwise ver. 
 4 in turn would be anacoluthic, and yet 6 Oeéc is the subject of ovveCoor. — 
 veKxpod¢e Toi¢ Tapant. K. tT. duapt. iuav] The dative denotes the causa efficiens, 
 ‘efficient cause,” of the dgath. The expression with év, Col. ii. 13, is not 
 equivalent. Quite at variance with the context, Cajetanus* holds that the 
 dative is as in Rom. vi. 11, in which case the force of dvra¢ as a present par- 
 ticiple is urged : since ye are dead for the sins. \ inév also is against this, as 
 well as the plural, since in the being dead for sin the latter appears as prin- 
 ciple (Rom. vi. 11).—A real distinction between raparréuara and dpyapriat 
 does not exist,® in so far as both expressions denote the same thing (the pee- 
 
 Moreover, i. 23 is so majestic and solemn-in import and form, that 
 
 1 Mentioned by Wolf, Cur. oni. 19 
 
 2 Calovius, Cramer, Koppe, and Rosen- 
 miiller attached «at vuas immediately to 
 {. 28, namely, to wAnpouperov : qui sicut omnes 
 alios beneficiis cumulat, sic etiam vos,” 
 ‘ who, just as he loadens all others with his 
 favors, so also loadens you,’’? Rosenmiiller, 
 This, however, is entirely incompatible with 
 the correct explanation of rod Ta mavta ev 
 
 maou rAynpovmevov, i. 23, and with the corre- 
 lation of vexpovs and ovvegwor, 
 
 3.As even Theophylact expressly ob- 
 serves. 
 
 4Not Estius, who reects this explana- 
 tion. 
 
 5 Augustine, ad Lev. qu. 20, makes the 
 former denote the desertio boni, *“* desertion 
 of good,” the latter the perpetratio mali, 
 
CHAP. Li, 1. 307 
 cata actualia, ‘‘ actual sins,” in thought, word, and deed) in a twofold form 
 of conception as ‘‘ missing” and ‘‘ fall ;”? and the abstract aywapriace cannot 
 mean, like 7 duapria at Rom. v. 20, sin in abstracto, ‘‘in abstract,” as ruling 
 power, but in virtue of the plural can only mean the actual sins (auaptAuara) ; 
 comp. on Rom. v. 20.?—dvrac] state, which was present at the time, when 
 God made them alive. —vexpoic] is understood by the expositors (apart 
 from those who, like Koppe and Rosenmiiller, substitute for the literal 
 meaning the notion of wretched, miserable) of spiritual death (comp. v. 14), 
 d.e., of the deadness of true moral life through the ‘‘ alienatio animae a Deo,” 
 ‘alienation of mind from God,” Calvin.*? But by what, we ask, is this 
 spiritual sense indicated ? Must not vexp. roi¢ mapart. x. taic duapt. have 
 reminded the readers quite naturally and necessarily of the connection, well 
 known to them, between unexpiated sins and the eternal death (the eternal 
 condemnation),—a connection, in which they once as Gentiles shared ? See 
 on Rom. vi. 16, 22 f., vii. 9-11, 24, viii. 2,6. [See Note XVL., p. 398.] The 
 explanation of physical death is inadmissible, because this is a consequence 
 not of individual sins, but of the sin of Adam; see on Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 22. The expression vexpot is proleptic: when ye were dead through 
 your sins, ¢.e., when you had through your sins drawn upon you death, had 
 become Jiable to eternal death, so that in this way the certo morituri, ‘‘ those 
 who are surely to die,” are designated as vexpot. Comp. Rom. vii. 10, viii. 
 10, and the well-known ywuydprov ci Bacrdfov vexpdv, ‘* you are a soul carrying 
 a dead body,” Epict. Anton. iv. 41. See also on Col. ii. 12. Without 
 Christ, the everlasting death, which they had incurred by their sins, would 
 not be annulled and averted from them ; but, after that Christ has com- 
 pleted the work of atonement and they have become believers in Him, eter- 
 nal life has become the portion of those who were by their sins liable to 
 eternal death, and that by means of the fellowship of life, into which they 
 are brought through faith with the Christ who is made alive from the dead, 
 raised, and exalted to heaven, which is more fully expressed, vv. 5, 6, by 
 ovvelworoincs TH XpiotG x.t.A. Thus the passage certainly treats of the atone- 
 ment accomplished by Christ, to which believers owe eternal life (see vv. 7, 
 8). The moral restoration* is the consequence of the atonement (ver. 10), 
 the ethical produce of the same through the Spirit. — The relation, we may 
 add, of our passage to Col. ii. 13 andi. 21 is not that of a servile depend- 
 ence, but that of afresh and living remembrance, with new and peculiar 
 amplification. 
 
 ““perpetration of evil,” or the former to be 
 the sin of rashness, the latter that which is 
 deliberate, which last distinction is adopt- 
 ed also by Tittmann, Synon. p. 47. Jerome 
 makes the former deélicta cogitatione in- 
 choata, *‘ offences begun in thought,” the 
 latter sins of deed ; comp. Olshausen. Ben- 
 gel: waparr. applies to the Jews, and auapr. 
 to the Gentiles. Meier (comp. Baumgarten- 
 .Crusius): the two words are distinguished 
 as act and staée. Matthies: the former are 
 
 mental errors and obscurations, the latter 
 moral sins and vices. Harless and de 
 Wette : the former denotes single transqres- 
 sions, the latter all kinds of sins, including 
 sins in ¢hought. 
 
 1See, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
 p. 324. 
 
 2 See Note VITI. on chap. i. 7. 
 
 3 Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 127. 
 
 4 Hofmann. 
 
358 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Ver. 2. Shadows before the light which arises in ver. 4. — év aic] domain, 
 in which, etc. Itis the pre-Christian sphere of life, and then follows (xara 
 x.t.A.) the normal standard which rules in it. «ic has shaped itself after 
 the gender of the last substantive, but embraces both.! — xara rv aiava tow 
 Kdopwov tovrov| according to the age of this world, i.e., as was in keeping with 
 the period of time appointed for the present world (subsisting up to the 
 Parousia). For immorality is the characteristic of this world-period (Rom. 
 xii. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 12) in contrast to the future new world, in 
 which dvxacocivy bears sway, and the nearer the Parousia, the more the aiév 
 is rovnpdg (see on Gal. i. 4 ; comp. ver. 16, and on vi. 13). Others explain 
 aiov as life ;® for which Riickert—who, in a strangely erroneous way, explains 
 it as equivalent to kara Tov aidva rovTov Tov Kéouov—and Matthies put : spirit 
 of the time, and Olshausen : tendency of the time ; comp. Bleek. But, however 
 current aidy in the signification of life may be in classical Greek, especially 
 in Homer, Pindar, Herodotus, and the tragic poets,* yet in the N. T., often 
 as the habitually used word recurs, it is never so employed, but always in 
 the signification of juncture of time, age. The shift to which Koppe has 
 recourse,‘ that aiév and xécpoc are synonymous—hence Koppe makes 6 aiay 
 rou Kécuov TobTov equivalent to 6 kécjwo¢c ovroc—stands on a level with the ca- 
 pricious inversion of Bretschneider, who makes it tantamount to 6 kéopog Tod 
 aidvog TovTov : homines pravi ut nune sunt, ‘‘ wicked men as they now are.” 
 No, Paul might have written briefly cata tov aiéva rovrov (comp. 1. 21) ; but, 
 in accordance with the graphic amplification of the passage carrying such 
 terrible emphasis, he has paraphrased this rotrov by rov kéouov tobrov. Accord- 
 ing to Beausobre and Michaelis (‘‘the God of this world”), aldv rod xkéopov 
 rovrov is meant to denote the devil in polemic reference to the Gnostic doc- 
 trine of aeons (see what follows). According to Baur, p. 483 f., the expres- 
 sion itself is a Gnostic one, equivalent to the xocuoxpatwp (comp. vi. 12), and 
 denoting the devil. But this is imported, inasmiuch as the explanation of 
 aiév in the sense usual in the N. T. yields quite a Pauline thought.. The 
 devil appears only in what follows, and would, if he was to be designated 
 already here, and that as Lord of the pre-Messianic period, have been desig- 
 nated, as at 2 Cor. iv. 4, as 6 @ed¢ tod aidvog Tobrov, or in a like concrete 
 manner. — xara Tov dpyovra tie éFovolac Tov aépoc| climactic parallel to the pre- 
 ceding. ‘‘Sicres fit expressior,” ‘‘ Thus the subject becomes more explicit,” 
 Bengel. The opposite is xara Oedv, iv. 24; 2 Cor. vii. 9. Comp. 1 John 
 v. 14: Kara 7d AéAnua Tov Ccov. The devil Paul here represents as the ruler 
 over the might of the air, in which é£ovcia is collective, denoting the totality 
 of the mighty ones (the demons, Matt. xii. 24) concerned.® This éfovaia 
 has its seat in the air, which exists between heaven and earth (rod aépoc) ; 
 the atmosphere, pertaining, in contrast to the higher pure aiffp,° still to the 
 
 1 See Matthiae, p. 991. Aesch. Prom. 887; Ellendt, Zexw. Soph. I. 
 2So also Harless; comp. H. Stephanus: p. 50. 
 “secundum eam, quae in hoc mundo est, 4 Comp. Estius and Flatt. 
 vivendi rationem,” ‘‘according to that 5 Comp. Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 469; Bern- 
 mode of life which is in this world,” Cas- hardy, p. 47, 
 talio, Beza, Grotius, e¢ al. 5 See Duncan, Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 36. 
 
 3 See Duncan, ed Rost, p. 47; Blomf. ad 
 
CHAP, IT. 32s 359 
 physical realm of earthly things (yij¢ icéuorpoe agp, ‘‘ earth’s equal partner, 
 air,” Soph. #7. 87), is the seat, the territory of the might of the demons. 
 This and nothing else Paul expresses in distinct words, the évaépio¢ diarpi 37, 
 “aerial life,” * the irovpdviog téroc, ‘‘ sub-celestial place,” * of the demons ; 
 and neither ought roi aépoc to have been taken* as equivalent to tod oKérove, 
 ‘‘ darkness” (vi. 12 ; Col. i. 13), because, though it may, as it often does 
 in Homer, denote misty gloom, clouds, etc., in contradistinction of the pure 
 aiffp, it never takes the place of the absolute cxéroc,tand in the N. T. always 
 means simply air; nor ought it to have been explained by a metonymy as 
 mundus, ‘‘the world.” °® According to Hahn,® rod aépo¢ is designed to ex- 
 press the aeriform nature of the demons ; they are not really spiritual, but 
 only spirit-like ; aeriformness is their physical constitution. Thisis already in 
 itself incorrect, since the demons must of necessity have the same physical con- 
 stitution as the angels (including also their supra-terrestrial corporeity, comp. 
 on Matt. xxii.30),and hence, although they have become axd@apra, ‘‘ incorrup- 
 tible,” they have yet remained zvetara, see in this very Epistle, vi. 12 (ra rvev- 
 patika tHe Tovypiac). Olshausen would remove the demons from the atmosphere 
 by taking ap as equivalent to oipavéc,” appealing to 1 Thess. iv. 17 (where, 
 however, d7p is nothing else than air), and even giving out this passage as 
 the only one in the N. T. where the word afp elsewhere occurs (but see 
 Acts xxii. 23 ; 1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9 ;. Rev. ix. 2, xvi. 17). As an equally ex- 
 emplary companion-piece of rationalizing artifice may be quoted the inter- 
 pretation of Stolz :* ‘‘ We have here to think of the rational beings acting 
 and walking wpon the earth, of men, who as sensuous creatures breathe in 
 the air, in the atmosphere surrounding the earth.” Hofmann, who else- 
 where took ajp erroneously as equivalent to rvevywa, whould now ® not less 
 erroneously make tov mvetwaroc dependent upon rod dépoc, and by the latter 
 understand the atmosphere formed by the breathing of that rveiua. ‘‘ So long 
 as they [the disobedient] allow this spirit to be their spirit, they live in the 
 atmosphere thereof, and as it were inhale it—an atmosphere, which is the 
 sphere of dominion [the éfoveia] of Satan.” But apart from the clumsy and 
 obscure accumulation of three genitives (at 2 Cor. iv. 4, 7, they flow easily 
 and clearly one out of the other), there may be urged against this view 
 generally the strange awkwardness of the thought (‘‘the air of the spirit 
 which worketh in the disobedient is the atmosphere formed by the breath- 
 ing of the same spirit’), and more specially the considerations, first, that 
 
 1 Oecumenius, comp. Theophylact. 
 
 2 Chrysostom. 
 
 3 Clericus, Heinsius, Michaelis, 
 Flatt, Matthies, and others. 
 
 4 Comp. Buttmann, Lewilog. I. p. 115. 
 
 5 Thomas, Bullinger, and others. 
 
 6 Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 828 f. 
 
 7 He holds that Paul has perhaps employ- 
 ed the expression for the purpose of char- 
 acterizing the demons as not indeed earth- 
 ly, but yet also as not heavenly. He has 
 employed the expression, just because he 
 
 Storr, 
 
 conceived of the demons as making their 
 abode in the atmosphere. And he does not 
 choose a higher expression (as in vi. 12) for 
 this sphere, because he wishes here to make 
 the reader feel the ower domain of the 
 power as opposed to the heavenly domain, 
 and thus also the ignominious character of 
 the same; hence the expression is neither 
 accidental nor strange (in opposition to 
 Hofmann). 
 
 8 Hridut. p. 175. 
 
 9 Schriflb. I. p. 457. 
 
360 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 éfovoia does not mean sphere of dominion ;* secondly, that there is nothing 
 to indicate that the ajp originated through the breathing (or blowing) of the 
 spirit (we should at least expect the essential rvéovroc instead of évepyobvroc) ; 
 thirdly, that, if éfovcia is to denote the sphere of dominion, tye tovoiac 
 would be only an ambiguous pleonasm, and we cannot see why Paul should 
 not have written merely rv dpyovra tov dépoc x.t.A.—as regards the historic 
 basis of the conception of the apostle, that the demons have their abode in 
 the air, he has carried it over from his pre-Christian, Jewish-Rabbinic circle of 
 ideas into the contents of his Christian belief. It is true that there are 
 found among the Rabbins very diverse, confused, and at times very mon- 
 strous assertions concerning the dwelling-place of the demons,’ but Harless ° 
 far too hastily thence concludes : ‘‘in such sloughs as these one seeks in vain 
 Sor the explanation of the apostles expression.” For while there are found 
 diverse opinions in the Rabbins, and among them also that which assigns to 
 the demons the air as a territory, the expression of the apostle shows us 
 which of the different Rabbinic conceptions he has not followed, and which 
 is accepted by him. Thus, indeed, e.g., the doctrine which R. Bechai* 
 presents as a well-known one, that only those demons which produce dreams 
 dwell in the air, but those which seduce man to sin in the man himself, 
 and yet others in the depths of the sea, is not the view of the apostle. 
 But the belief, which Paul here announces as his own and presupposes in 
 his readers, namely, that the demoniac kingdom in general, and not merely 
 a single division of it, is in the air, is to be found very definitely preserved 
 among the Rabbins also. For (1) the very Rabbinical tenet of the winged 
 nature of the demons’ manifestly points to the region of the air as their 
 abode, since they are shut out from the communion of God. (2) In partic- 
 ular passages this is expressly stated. Comment. in libr. Aboth. f. 83. 2: 
 ‘‘Sciendum, a terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefec- 
 tis, et infra,” ‘‘ It must be known that from earth to the expanse all things are 
 full of bands and prefects, and below” (that is precisely in the ayp), ‘‘ pluri- 
 mas esse creaturas laedentes et accusantes, et omnes stare ac volitare in 
 aére,” ‘‘there are very many creatures injuring and accusing, and that all 
 stand and fly in the air,” etc. Further, it is said in Tuf Haarez, f. 9, 2, 
 that under the sphere of the moon, which is the last under all, is a firma- 
 ment (J”p))... and there are the souls of the devils, etc. Further, R. 
 Bechai says, in Pentat. f. 139, 4, where he is explaining how it comes about 
 that the demons know what is future: ‘‘ because they dwell in the air 
 VSI), ... they learn future things from the princes of the planets.” The 
 same R. Bechai, in Pentat. f. 18, 1, relates, as a Rabbinical tradition, that 
 Noah had in his ark, according to Gen. vi. 19, preserved devils also, and 
 says in confirmation of this exposition : for it would have been impossible 
 
 
 
 1 Not even in Luke xxiii. 7, where it ex- 3 Followed by Olshausen. 
 presses the idea of governing authority, of 4in Pentat. f. 90, 1. 
 jurisdiction. So often in Plutarch, Diodo- 5 Talmud, Chagig. 2; R. Eliezer in Bar- 
 rus, ete. toloce. I. p. 820 ff., ad. 
 
 2 See, especially, Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. ® See Eisenmenger, II. p. 411. 
 
 Judenth. Il. p. 487 ff. 
 
CHAP El yn. 361 
 
 for them to remain in their own place, which is the air (SN Sw OOp3).* 
 The assertion, too, of R. Menasseh, in Eisenmenger, II. p. 456 f., that the 
 rising smoke of the incense which was offered to the devils was their food, 
 points to the air as their dwelling-place; as, indeed, according to the Cab- 
 bala (Cabb. denud. I. p. 417), the demons dwell ‘‘below the upper sanc- 
 tuary.”° Thus much, consequently, is clear and transparent enough in the 
 “¢ muddy sloughs” of Rabbinical tradition, that the kingdom of the demons 
 was located in the air ; and with this we find the apostle in agreement. 
 Hence we have no right to deny that he has retained this conception from 
 the sphere of his Rabbinical training, but at the same time it would be 
 quite unwarrantable to attribute to him the singularities associated with this 
 tenet by the Rabbins, since, in fact, he asserts nothing more than that the 
 devilish powers are in the air. Thisisa simple historical statement, in which, 
 we may add, it is quite arbitrary to discern a ‘‘ profound hint,” namely, of 
 their dismal and spectral nature (in opposition to Schenkel). The right 
 explanation is given also by Schmid, Bibl. Theol. § 86, and Bleek. Among 
 the Pythagoreans, too, we meet with an analogous view ;* but quite unfound- 
 ed is the assertion of Wetstein : ‘‘P. ita loquitur ex principiis philoso- 
 phiae Pythagoreae, quibus illi, ad quos scribit, imbuti erant,” ‘‘ Paul thus 
 speaks ‘according to the principles of the Pythagorean philosophy, with 
 which they to whom he writes were imbued.” Paul presupposes in his 
 readers an acquaintance with his expression as the expression of Ais doctrine, 
 and speaks so emphatically and solemnly that any sort of accommodation is 
 not to be thought of. [See Note XVII., p. 399.]— ov rvetuaroc] is still 
 dependent on rév apyovra, so that the power over which the devil rules, 
 after being designated as regards its outward existence by the phrase éfovciag 
 Tov aépoc, is now designated as regards its active operation in men’s hearts, 
 namely, as the spirit which is at work in the disobedient. This rveiua, of which 
 Satan is the ruler, is not, however, to be thought of as being the human 
 mind, since, thus understood, it would not suit as apposition to the rie 
 é£ovoiac Tov aépoc, Which is different from the human individuality, as, indeed, 
 Tov évepy. «.T.A. points to an agent different from the human individual ; 
 but rather as the principle proceeding from its apyor, the devil, and passing 
 over into men to become operative in their hearts—the antithesis of the Holy 
 Spirit which proceeds from God. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 12. This rveiwa is, in 
 contrast to 76 rveva THC aAnOeiac, the rveiua tHe TAdvyc, 1 John iv. 6. It is 
 not, however, ‘‘ odd,” 4 nor is it ‘‘ unnatural,” ° to speak of a ‘‘ ruler of this 
 
 1Comp. Nishmath chasim, f. 115, 2. firmament where the Prince of this world 
 
 2 With this Rabbinical view agrees also 
 Test. XII. Patr. p. 729: vrd tod aepiov mvev- 
 faTos Tov BeArap, Where aéprov means 10 be 
 Sound in the air. See Plat. Hpin. p. 948 D: 
 Saisovas, aéprov dé yevos. Comp. Zest. XI. 
 Patr. p. 547. If we take aépios in such pas- 
 sages as aeriform (Hahn), we confound it 
 with aépevos (Arist. de Anim. iii. 138; Metaph. 
 ix. 7). Comp. rather, Ascens. Isa. 10: ‘‘de- 
 scendit in firmamentum, ubiprinceps hujus 
 mundi habitabat,’’ ‘‘ He descended into the 
 
 dwelt.’’ 
 
 3 Diog. Laert. viii. 32: kara rov ev Uv ddyo- 
 pay clvat Te mavTa TOV aépa Wuyav EurAcov, Kai 
 TOUTOUS Salmovas TE Kal Hpwas voutcerdat, ‘* AC- 
 cording to Pythagoras, all the air is full of 
 spirits, and these are considered demons 
 and heroes,’? and compare the other pas- 
 sages in Wetstein, and Elsner, p. 206; 
 Dougt. Anal. p. 127. 
 
 4 de Wette. 
 
 5 Bleek. 
 
362 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 spirit ;” but this is quite analogous to the conception, according to which 
 Christ is spoken of as ‘‘ Lord of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor. iii. 18). We have 
 further not to understand rot rvetjpuaroc collectively ;1 for the éovoia rev aépoc 
 is, indeed, the sum total of the plurality of the demons, but thesspirit, 
 which is brought by its ruler, the devil, into the hearts of men and operates 
 within them, is in all viol r#¢ azec#. one and the self-same spirit, just as the 
 Holy Spirit is in all individuals who believe one and the same. Others 
 regard rot mvetuatoc aS apposition to tov apy. tT. éove. tT. aép., in that they 
 either assume the use of an abnormal case occasioned by a deviation from 
 the construction (genitive for accusative), as Piscator, Calovius, Semler, 
 Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, de Wette, Bleek, or look upon the genitive 
 as one of apposition to tov dpyovra, as Flatt. But how purely arbitrary is 
 the former ! and how impossible the latter, since tov dpyovra, in accord- 
 ance with its significance, demands a defining genitive, and already has it in 
 tHe éfovo. T. dép., and consequently tov mveiuatoc cannot be taken in any 
 other relation !—viv] is emphatic,—not, however, as Meier supposes: ? 
 ‘* even now, when it is so powerfully counteracted by the gospel,” which 
 must have been expressed by kai viv; * but viv stands opposed to the preced- 
 ing woré, when the diabolic zvetua was active in all, even in the readers. 
 Comp. ver. 3. Riickert + thinks of the extraordinary, especially dangerous 
 power which the Satanic kingdom developed just at the time of the redemp- 
 tion (2 Thess. 1. 2 ff.); so also de Wette. But that could not be under- 
 stood from the simple évepy., and would have required the addition of a 
 mepicootépwc, bTepBarAdvroc, ‘‘ extraordinarily, exceedingly,” or the like. Ac- 
 cording to Olshausen, viv is to be held as opposed to the future age, and to 
 make the diabolic activity appear as limited, in contrast to the everlasting, 
 divine activity of the Holy Spirit. But a contrast to the aidy péAAov is not 
 at all implied in the context ; indeed, it was entirely self-evident that the 
 Satanic activity extends only to the time before the Parousia ; how then 
 could it occur to a reader to find in the viv a negation of the aidv péAAwv ? 
 — év toi¢ vioic ti¢ arev0.] in their souls. The expression vio? 7. amei#. is He- 
 braizing,® and denotes the dependence which has its basis in the relation of 
 the person or thing concerned to the genitive-noun, here the genesis of the 
 spiritual condition, so that roic é& azefeiac (comp. Rom. ii. 8) would signify 
 the same thing. Comp. Winer, p. 213. The opposite is réxva brakoje, 
 1 Pet. i. 14. By azeifeca, however, is not meant unbelief; ® for this could 
 only be logically included under the notion of disobedience as refusal 
 of belief, consequently as opposite to the traxoy miotewe (Rom. i. 5 ; Heb. 
 iv. 6, 11; and see Fritzsche on Rom. xi. 30). And with that sense in the 
 present case the following év aic¢ kal jucig mavreg would be at variance, 
 
 1 Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Mi-  ¢wypddwv, ‘‘sons of Achaeans, children of 
 
 chaelis, Holzhausen. painters,” and the like, but not with 
 2 Comp. Zanchius. abstract nouns; see Blomfield, Gloss. Pev's. 
 3 As Ignat. ad Smyrn. interp. 7. 408, p. 188; Stallb. ad Plat. Phil. p. 107. 
 4 Comp. Bengel and Holzhausen. ®6Luther, Bengel, Koppe, Harless, and 
 
 5 For among Greek writers arefoundonly others. 
 such expressions as vies “Ayatwv, matdes 
 
CHAP. Iho: 363 
 
 since not all Jewish-Christians had, like Paul, resisted the faith. Now, as 
 Paul is speaking only of the immorality of the unbelievers (vv. 1, 8), ameiHeca 
 is here the want of compliance towards God (Rom. xi. 30), é.e., towards 
 His revealed and natural law respectively (Rom. ii. 8 ff.), displaying itself 
 through their immoral conduct. 
 
 Ver. 3. After the apostle has just depicted the pre-Christian corruption of 
 the readers, who were Gentile- Christians, the sinful corruptness of all—this 
 basis for his enthusiastic certainty of the universality of the redemption 
 (omeide 11.24, 11. 19; 28, xi. 82; Gal. ii. 16, 16, i, 22, a.)—pre- 
 sents itself at the same time with such vividness before his mind, that he now 
 also includes with the others the whole body of the Jewish- Christians («ai mete 
 mavrec) in the same state of corruption, and accordingly, on the resumption of 
 the argument at ver. 4, he cannot again employ the second person introduced 
 in ver. 1, but must change this into yuac. Inasmuch as kai jueic, we also, 
 must necessarily denote the class falling to be added to imac, ver. 1, we cannot 
 understand by it the Christians generally ;1 but, since the ipeic¢ are Gentile- 
 Christians, we must take it to mean the Jewish-Christians. The general 
 moral description which follows is not opposed to this view,” since it was 
 the very object of the apostle to delineate the essential equality in the moral 
 condition of both. Comp. Rom. i. 2, 8. De Wette explains it quite arbi- 
 trarily : ‘‘we also, who have been already a considerable time Christians.” — év 
 oi¢] is not to be referred to roic xapartéuars, ver. 1,4 for that reference is 
 not to be supported by Col. iii. 7, but, on the contrary, is impossible with 
 the reading iuav after dyapz., ver. 1, and is, moreover, to be rejected, 
 because Paul has not again written év aic, and because reference to the 
 nearest subject is altogether suitable ; for the Jewish-Christians also all 
 walked once among the disobedient, as belonging to the ethical category of 
 the same, inasmuch as they likewise before their conversion were through 
 their immoral walk disobedient towards God (Rom. ii. 17 ff., 25, iii. 9 ff.). 
 — éy taic éxibvu. tie capKdc¢ ju.| More precise definition to what has just been 
 said év oi¢ . . . dvectpadyuev roré, denoting the immoral domain of the pre- 
 Christian state,* in which this walk took place, namely, in the desires of our 
 corporeo-psychical human nature, whose impulses, adverse to God, had not 
 yet experienced the overcoming influence of the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii. 
 14 ff., viii. 7 ; Gal. v.17 ; Rom. viii. 2, a/.), and hence rendered ineffectual 
 the moral volition directed towards the divine law (Rom. vii. 17-20). The 
 opposite is: mvetyate repirareiv (kal éxiOvuiay capKo¢e py Tereiv), Gal. v. 16 ; 
 comp. Rom. viii. 13. — ro.oivrec x.7.4.] 80 that we, ete., now specifies the way 
 and manner of this walk, wherein the prefixed rovivrec has the emphasis, in 
 that it predicates what they did, as afterwards juev, what they were. The 
 Gedjuara (comp. on the plural, Acts xiii, 22; Jer. xxiii. 26 ; 2 Macc. i. 3) 
 
 1 Estius, Koppe, and others. wanting to him. 
 
 2 As de Wette objects. 4Peshito, Jerome, Grotius, Estius, Ben- 
 
 3m doing which Paul could, least of all, gel, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller. 
 venture to except himself, although, ac- 592 Cor. i. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 18; comp. Xen. 
 
 cording to Phil. iii. 6, the justitia externa, ~ Ages. ix. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 865 E; Polyb. 
 “outward righteousness,’”? had not been Teel tals 
 
364 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 are here in reality not different from the ér#vuia:, which, however, are con- 
 ceived of as activities of the will, that take place on the part of the cdpé and 
 the didvocae (both conceived of under a personified aspect as the power ruling 
 the ego of the unconverted man). As regards rév diavoov, which stands re- 
 lated to rjc capxéc as the special to the general, the bad connotation is not 
 implied in the plural, as Harless conjectures (who finds therein ‘ fluctuating, 
 changing opinions’’), but in the context, which makes us think of the unholy 
 thoughts,' whose volitions were directed to evil, in the state of disobedience. 
 Comp. Num. xv. 39: pvyobjocote macav THv évToAdyv Kvpiov Kai wolhoeTe avTac, 
 kai ov dlvactpagjoecie bricw TOV diavoiov buov, ‘* Remember all the command- 
 ments of the Lord and do them ; and that ye seek not ;” also Jer. xxiii. 26; 
 Isa. lv. 9 (ra dvavojuara), where likewise the prejudicial connotation lies not 
 in the plural, but in the connection. — kai juev téxva dicer opygc| Instead of 
 continuing the construction in uniformity with zovivrec by nai évrec, the 
 apostle passes over, as at 1. 20 (see on that passage), emphatically into the 
 oratio finita, depicting, after the immoral mode of action, the unhappy con- 
 dition in which withal we found ourselves. The fact that on this account 
 jucv is prefized has been left unnoticed, and hence xa? juev has been either 
 tacitly (so usually) or expressly ? connected with év oi¢ . . . aveozvp. Harless 
 [also Hofm. Braune, Ewald] regards the words as only a supplemental and 
 more exact definition and modification of the thought expressed immediately 
 before ; but in that case an isolation of the words is needlessly assumed, and 
 likewise the correlation of the prefixed verbs rovoivrec and juev is overlooked. 
 — réxva opyye are children of wrath (comp. on ver. 2), that is, however, not 
 merely those worthy of wrath,* which relation of dependence is not in keeping 
 with the context, but, as vexpod¢ toic mapant. shows, ver. 1, subject to wrath, 
 érae obnoxii, standing under wrath (comp. v. 8 ; Matt. xxiii. 15 ; John xvii. 
 12). So most expositors rightly take it. To whose wrath they were subject, 
 Paul does not indicate (for he does not write r7c opy7c, comp. Rom. xii. 19), 
 but (comp. Rom. iv. 15) he leaves it to the reader to say for himself that it 
 is God’s wrath he has to think of (see ver. 4). As to the wrath of God,— 
 which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judg- 
 ment,*—the holy emotion of absolute displeasure at evil, which is neces- 
 sarily posited by absolute love to the good, and is thus the necessary prinei- 
 ple of temporal and eternal punishment on the part of God (not the punish- 
 ment itself), comp. on Rom. i. 18. — deer] dative of the more precise mode 
 (=cara giow), may either attach itself merely to réxva (not to jer), so that 
 the idea expressed is : nature-children, téxva ovotxa dpyp¢ 3° or it May more 
 precisely define the whole notion réxva dpyze, thus : wrath-children by nature, 
 Téxva opyn¢ gvoud ; So that the réxva dpy., like viot r. arevGeiac, ver. 2, forms a 
 
 17That these were selfish, is in itself cor- 3 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 rect, but is not implied in the word itself, Theophylact, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and 
 and is not expressed by Paul (in opposition others. 
 to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 563). 4 Ritschl, de tra Dei, p. 17. 
 
 2 As by Fritzsche, Conject. p. 45, who takes 5 See on such datives joined on to nouns. 
 €v Tals emidum, THS TAaPKdS HOY TOLOUYTES K.T.A. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 688 ; Heind. ad Cratyl, 
 together as one clause. p. 181. 
 
CHAPS Di oc 365 
 single idea. The latter is the correct view, because réxva is used figuratively 
 and receives the real contents of the conception only by means of épyzc, for 
 which reason it is not tobe thought of as separated therefrom.’ The notion 
 of gioec must obtain its more precise definition solely from the context, as to 
 whether, namely, it betoken an innate relation, *—whether it be consequently 
 equivalent to yevéce:, and the sonship of wrath be éudvroc, a qualitas innata, 
 ‘‘implanted an innate quality,” °— or, on the other hand, a relation brought 
 about by development of a nativa indoles, ‘‘ native disposition,” one that has 
 been produced by virtue of natural endowment.* In the latter sense David is 
 said by Josephus, Avét. vii. 7. 1, to have been gicec Jixatoc cai OeoaeBje, ‘by 
 nature just and religious ;” comp. xiii. 10. 6. Philo, de conf. lingu. p. 827E : 
 dvtiAoyixol dboet, ‘by nature contradictory,” Xen, Oec. xx. 25 : gboe gudoy- 
 ewpyératoc, ‘‘ by nature most fond of country life,” Plut. Artaz. 6 : gicex 
 BaptOvuoc ovca, ‘‘ by nature being sullen,” Arist. Polit.i.1. 9 : dvOpwroc gbcer 
 modtiKov Coov, ‘* man by nature a political animal,” and many others. Ac- 
 cording to this view, jyev réxva ioe opyz¢ Would have to be paraphrased by: 
 Huev, TH Pose ypynoauevor, téxva opyg¢. From early times® the word in our 
 passage has been employed in defence of original sin as an inborn condition 
 of culpability (inborn peccatum vere damnans, ‘‘ sin truly condemning”), as in- 
 deed even Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Usteri,* Julius Miller, Lechler, Phil- 
 ippi, Thomasius, and others have understood an inborn childship of wrath. 
 “Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum ven- 
 enum ex utero afferunt,” ‘‘ Paul testifies that we are born with sin, as serpents 
 bring from the womb their poison,” Calvin. ‘‘Hoe uno verbo, quasi ful- 
 mine, totus homo, quantus est, prosternitur ; neque enim naturam dicit 
 -laesam, sed mortuam per peccatum ideoque irae obnoxiam,” ‘‘ By this one 
 word, as by a thunderbolt, the entire man, however great he is, is prostrated ; 
 for he does not say that nature is injured, but is dead by sin, and therefore 
 subject to wrath,” Beza.” But (1) the context points, in vv. 1-3, as again also 
 
 1 According to this view, there is here in in loc., and Loesner, p. 340 f. 
 
 the position of the words a severance 
 (Kijibner, I. p. 627) whereby the genitive is 
 separated from its governing word (Buttm. 
 neut. Gr. p. 382 [E. T. 387]). This hyperba- 
 ton has for its object the reserving of the 
 whole emphasis for the closing word épyjs, 
 and letting it fall thereon. Comp. Philem. 
 Sragm. p. 354, ed. Cleric.: toAAoy dvaer tots 
 Tac aitia ckaxav, ‘‘ by nature, the cause of 
 many evils to all.” 
 
 2 Asin Gal. ii. 15 ; Xen. Mem.i. 4.14; Dem. 
 1411 ult.; Soph. Aj. 1280; O. C. 1297; Isoce. 
 vag. 16: 74 wév yap jv dvoe. watpis, tov 6& 
 
 . YOR ToAtTHY emeTOLnvTO ; Specially in- 
 structive are Plat. Prot. p. 323 C D, Dem. 
 Cie Ste 
 
 3 Wisd. xii. 10, comp. xiii. 1, and thereon 
 Grimm, Handb. p. 233. 
 
 4 As Rom. ii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 14; Xen. Mem. 
 i. 2.14, iv. 1.3; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 777 D; Ael. 
 V.7. ii. 13. 3, xxii. 9.13 see also Wetstein 
 
 5 See, already, Augustine, Refract. i. 10. 
 15 ; de verb. ap. 14. 
 
 ® Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 30, we may add, 
 suspects the genuineness of vce, partly on 
 account of its alleged singular position, 
 partly on account of the various readings. 
 But as regards the position, see above. And 
 of Various readings there are none at all, 
 since different translations are not various 
 readings. dvceu is omitted only in 109, Aeth. 
 No doubt Clem. Alex. ad Gent. (Opp. ed. 
 Pott, p. 23) is also adduced, where the pas- 
 sage is cited without dvce. But in Clem. 
 d.c. (comp. p. 560) we have no citation. but 
 merely a free use of the passage, from 
 which the existence of variations cannot be 
 made good. Clement, we may add, singu- 
 larly explains téxva opyjs by tpepopeva opy7n, 
 opyis Upeupara, 
 
 7 Comp. Form. Cone. p. 639 f. 
 
366 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 in ver. 5, to an actually produced, not to an inborn state of guilt.1 Further, 
 (2) if Paul had wished, after touching on the sinful action, to bring into 
 prominence the inborn state of culpability, and so had taken the course ab 
 effectu ad causam, ‘‘ from the effect to the cause,” gicec would have an em- 
 phasis, which would make its critically assured position, as it stands in the 
 Recepta, appear simply inappropriate ; in fact, not even the position in 
 Lachmann (jev dbcee réxva opyjc¢) would be sufficiently in keeping, but we 
 should be obliged logically to expect: kal bce juev téxva opyyc, *‘ and 
 (already) by birth were we children of wrath,” in which would lie the 
 source of sinful action. But (8) the ecclesiastical dogma, that man is a born 
 subject of wrath, from birth an object of the divine condemnation, is not at 
 all a doctrine of the apostle, according to whom man by his actwal sin falls 
 under the wrath of God (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8, 9, vii. 7 f., al.), inasmuch, 
 namely, as he becomes subject to and follows the inborn principle of sin 
 (Rom. vii. 14 ff.), in opposition to his moral will, which he likewise by na- 
 ture bears in himself ; in connection with which, we may add, bodily death 
 has its causal basis not in the individual sin of the particular persons, but in 
 the connection of the whole race with the fall and death-penalty of its first 
 progenitor (see on Rom. v. 12). And (4) how could Paul, speaking of the 
 Jews, predicate of them an inborn childship of wrath, when he regarded them 
 aS KAddoue dyiove THe pi<ne ayiac (Rom. xi. 16) ! They were in fact oi xara dbow 
 KAddoe of the sacred olive-tree of the theocracy (Rom. xi. 21) ; how could 
 they be at the same time the opposite (observe the xara gow), born réxva 
 opyj7¢ 2? See also Gal. ii. 15, where the ¢ice Iovdaioe are opposed to the é& 
 éOvov duaptwroi,® as well as Rom. ix. 4, where of them is predicated the pos- 
 session of the viofecia, consequently the type of the Christian childship of 
 God, whereof the inborn childship of wrath would be the direct opposite.* 
 Several have found in ¢ice: the sense: ‘‘ apart from the special relation in 
 which they as Israelites stood to God ;”* but this is just a mere saving 
 clause obtruded on the text, in connection with which there is nevertheless 
 retained the un-Pauline conception of born liability to wrath, consequently 
 of condemnation from the very jirst, without any personal participation and 
 contracting of guilt, before one yet knows sin (Rom. vii. 7).° Further, (5) 
 if Paul had thought of an inborn liability to wrath, he could not have re- 
 garded even the children of Christians as holy and pure (1 Cor. vii. 14) ; and 
 infant baptism must have been already ordained in the N. T., and that, in- 
 deed, with the absolute necessity, which had to be subsequently assigned to 
 
 1 Quite mistakenly Grotius argues from 
 the context against the ecclesiastical ex- 
 position in this way: ‘‘ Non agi hic de labe 
 originaria, satis ostendunt praecedentia, 
 ubi describuntur vitia, a quibus multi veteram 
 Juere immunes,” ‘That here the original 
 fall is not treated of, is sufficiently shown 
 by what precedes, where vices are described 
 from which many of the ancients were 
 free.’’ See, on the other hand, Rom. i.-iii., 
 Xi. 82; Gal. iii. 22, ad. 
 
 2 Which Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 564 
 
 (comp. his Heil. Schr. N. T. Il. 1, p. 24), de- 
 nies on invalid linguistic grounds; see on 
 Gal. l.c. 
 
 3 See, generally, on the sanctity of the 
 people of God, Ewald, Alterth. p. 262 ff. 
 
 4 Thomasius, I. p. 289. 
 
 5 This remark also holds in opposition to 
 the esgentially similar interpretation in 
 Hofmann, p. 565, comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol. 
 II. p. 274, and Julius Miller, v. d. Stinde, 
 p. 377 f. 
 
CHAP. IL., 3. 367 
 it in consistency with the elaboration of the dogma of original sin bringing 
 eternal condemnation on every one born by ordinary generation. The ex- 
 planation of an inborn state of wrath (which also doesnot tally with the fact 
 that Jesus promises the kingdom of heaven to those who should be like 
 children, Matt. xviii. 2 f., xix. 14 f.) is accordingly to be rejected as opposed 
 to the context and un-Pauline ; and gice defines the childship of wrath to the 
 effect, that it has arisen in virtue of natural constitution (observe the just- 
 mentioned ér@vuiae ri¢ capxéc, comp. the véuo¢ év toie wédect, Which overcomes 
 the moral law in man, Rom. vii. 238, 24). [See Note XVIIL, p. 899.] Cer- 
 tainly man is berm with this natural, sinful quality, z.¢., with the principle of 
 sin, by the awakening and development of which the moral willis vanquished 
 (Rom. vii. ; comp. also John iii. 6) ; it is not, however, the mere fact of 
 this inborn presence having its basis in his odpé, that in and of itself! makes 
 him the child of wrath,’ but he only becomes so, when that constitution of 
 his moral nature, that mingling of two opposite principles in his natural dis- 
 position, has—which, however, is the case with every one (Rom. ili. 9, xi. 
 32 ; Gal. iii. 22)—brought about the victory of the sin-principle, and there- 
 with the capxixév and rerpapévov br6 THY duaprtiay civa: (Rom. vii. 14). Others, 
 such as Erasmus, Balduin, Bengel, Morus, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Matthies, de 
 _ Wette, Bleek,* have explained it of the so-called natural state of man, i.e., of 
 the state of the pre-Christian life, which was as yet aloof from the influence 
 of yapec (ver. 5 ff.) and of the Holy Spirit ; but in this way, properly speak- 
 ing, nothing is explained ; for while the whole description, and not merely 
 gvcer, delineates ‘‘the natural state in which the redemptive activity of God 
 found the nations,” ° in connection with gice there always remains the special 
 question, whether the ‘‘by nature” denotes an inborn relation to wrath or 
 not. Holzhausen would even combine ¢ice opyz¢ (‘‘ wrath which comes from 
 the ungodly nature-life”’),—a view from which, even if ¢iove meant nature- 
 life, the very absence of any article ought in itself to have precluded him ; 
 Tie TH Poet opyye, OY THe EK THC dbo. dpygc, or the like, must have been used. 
 
 1 The objection of Lechler, p. 107 (comp. see, exegetically incompatible with the anthro- 
 
 Philippi, Dogm. III. p. 205 f.)—that my ex- 
 planation, inasmuch as the sinful disposi- 
 tion is inborn, thereby after all concedes the 
 traditional Church-view—overlooks the es- 
 sential distinction, that it is only accord- 
 ing to the latter that man is vorn as object 
 of the divine wrath ; whereas, according to 
 my view, the natural disposition to sin does 
 not yet in and by itself make him such 
 an object of wrath, but he becomes so only 
 through the setting in of actual sin, which, 
 it is true, does not fail to emergein any one 
 who lives long enough to be adie to sin. 
 According to the traditional view, even the 
 newly-born unconscious child is already 
 guilty and liable to the Divine wrath; so 
 that in this way the imputation attaches it- 
 self not merely to the perpetration of sin, 
 but even to the occasion to sin, which every 
 one has by nature. This is, so far as I can 
 
 pological teachings of the apostle else- 
 where, especially with his exposition in 
 Rom. vii. 7 f. Only with the actual sin, ac- 
 cording to Paul, is the guilt connected, and 
 consequently the wrath of God. An inborn 
 guilt is not taught by the apostle; as is 
 rightly brought out by Ernesti, but is only 
 hesitatingly hinted at by Bleek. 
 
 2 Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T.p. 207. 
 
 3 Through Christian regeneration the 
 moral will attains, by virtue of the Spirit 
 (Rom. viii. 2), the ascendancy in man, and 
 he becomes therewithal qualitatively Seas 
 Kowvwvos dvcews, 2 Pet. i. 4, and metadAapBavov 
 THs aylwTyTos TOV cod, Heb. xii. 10. Comp. 
 1 John vy. 18. 
 
 4Comp. also Weber, vom Zorn Gottes, 
 p. 88. 
 
 5 de Wette. 
 
568 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Moreover, Cyril, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, erroneously hold gice 
 as equivalent to a/7jGo¢ (comp. others in Jerome, who take it as prorsus), 
 which it never is, not even in Gal. iv. 8, to which Grotius appeals. Lastly, 
 in a quite peculiar way Ernesti’ obtains the exact opposite of a born Hiabil- 
 ity to wrath by conducting his interpretation so as to enclose réxva @boer 
 within two commas, and to connect dpyj¢ with juev : ‘‘ We were in conse- 
 quence of our actual sinfulness, although children [ot God in the Israelitish 
 sense, Rom. ix. 4] by nature, liable to wrath even as the Gentiles ;” according 
 to which, therefore, juev dpyg¢ is explained from the well-known usage of 
 eivai Tuvog in the sense of ‘‘ belonging to.” But it may be decisively urged 
 against this view, first, that the supplying the thought of Ocoi after réxva (as 
 Isa. xii. 8 ; Rom. vill. 17 ; Gal. iv. 6) is not in any way suggested by the 
 context, but is purely arbitrary, and the more so, inasmuch as there is already 
 in the text a genitive which offers itself to complete the notion of réxkva ; and 
 secondly, that there is nothing to indicate the contrast assumed by Ernesti 
 (although, etc.), for in order to write in some measure intelligibly, Paul 
 must at least have said : cai quer réxva piv dioer, opy7c 6é, although this, too, 
 on account of the absence of a definition to réxva, would have been enigmat- 
 ic enough. Equally to be rejected is the quite similar interpretation of 
 Nickel,’ who explains as though the words ran : kai juev Ocod pév Téxva baEL, 
 opyne dé réxva, ‘* We were, on the one hand, by nature God’s children ; on the 
 other, children of wrath.” —éc¢ kai oi Aouroi] sc. Yoav. The Aouroi are the Gen- 
 tiles (Rom. iii. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13), and «ai is not adhuc (Grotius), but the 
 also of comparison. 
 
 Ver. 4. Now begins, after the intervening clauses, vv. 2, 3, the resump- 
 tion, and that with the subject, which Paul already had in mind at ver. 1. 
 See on ver. 1. It is not, however, by oiv, but by dé, that the thought is 
 taken up again, because that which is now to be spoken of (the abundant 
 
 compassion of God) stands in an adversative relation to what has been said. 
 
 in the relative clauses.* — riobovc dv év éAéer x.7.4.] The connection is : God, 
 however, since He is rich in mercy, has for His much love's sake made . . . Us 
 
 . alive in Christ. As to the distinction between éAcoc and oixtipudc, see 
 on Rom. ix. 15. On ép éAéex, comp. 1 Cor. i. 5; Jas. ii. 5; 2) Comix dies 
 1 Tim. vi. 18. — dia tiv roAa. aydérnv abrod] namely, in order to satisfy it.* 
 Luther erroneously renders : through His great love. The Vulgate, rightly: 
 propter, etc. Comp. Philem. 8. We may add that not airod is to be 
 written, but airod, as at i. 6. — qv gyda. jul] as in John xvii. 26. Comp. 
 the classical épwra épav, Lobeck, Paral. p. 516. The manifestation of the 
 divine love thereby meant is the atoning death of Christ, in which, in pur- 
 suance of the abundance of the divine compassion, the great love of God 
 communicated itself to us. Rom. v.18; Johniii. 16 ; Eph. v. 2, 25. —quéac] 
 After the glance has extended from the readers (vv. 1, 2) also to the Jewish 
 
 1 Urspr. ad. Stinde, Il. p. 174 ff. mercy toward the wretched, was the 
 
 2 In Reuter’s Repert. 1860, Oct., p. 16. motive for not leaving them to their misery, 
 
 3 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 87%. [Cf. Winer, but, ete. The €Acos is thus related to the 
 § 53, 7.] ayary as the species to the genus. 
 
 4 The great love of God, who is rich in 
 
 ree 
 
: CHAP. Ils, Ds 369 
 Christians (ver. 3), the resumption of the object with jua¢ now embraces both, 
 the Jewish and Gentile Christians. 
 
 Ver. 5. The «ai is not to be taken as in ver. 1 (‘‘also us collectively,” 
 Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors), which, apart from the 
 universal reference of the jac, the ‘order of the words forbids (kai juac 
 must have been written), according to which, also, the xai of ver. 1 can by 
 no means be here resumed ;! further, «ai isnot, with Koppe, to be taken as a- 
 though, seeing that, in fact, amaking alive cannot take place otherwise than 
 from a state of death, and consequently «ai cannot convey any climactic stress, 
 on which account Harless explains incorrectly from a logical point of view : 
 ‘¢even in the state of death, in which we were.” ? Erasmus paraphrases as 
 though kai stood before cvvefwor., and even the expedient to which Morus has 
 recourse, that xai corresponds to the kai of ver. 6 (non modo, ‘not only,” 
 ... verum etiam, ‘‘ but also”), would demand this position. Others give 
 other explanations, and many are silent with regard to it. If «ai were also, 
 it would have to be referred to dvrac,? and would express the reality of the 
 relation asserted in ver. 1.4 But there would be nothing to call for the as- 
 surance of this reality. It is rather the simple copula : and, annexing to 
 the dia tr. rod. ay. fv yy. ju. a further element.° The two elements, side 
 by side, place in the full light what God has done. God has, on account 
 of His much love, and when we were dead in the sins, made us alive with 
 Christ. The xai might also be omitted, but the keeping of the points 
 thus apart strengthens the representation. — toic tapart.| The article denotes 
 the sins, which we had committed, with a retrospective glance at ver. 1. — 
 ovve(worroince TH Xp.| is by most expositors® understood of new spiritual 
 quickening.” But how is this to be justified from the context? If the 
 reader was reminded by vexpotc¢ toic taparr. of the eternal death, to which 
 he had been subjected by his pre-Christian life of sin (see on ver. 1), he 
 would now have to think of the eferna/ life, which begins with the resur- 
 rection, and he could the less think of anything else than of this real resur- 
 rection-life, since afterwards there is further expressed the translation to- 
 gether into heaven, and then, in ver. 7, the intention of God is referred to 
 the times after the Parousia. And had not already i. 18 f. pointed definitely 
 to the future kAnpovoyia? How, in this connection, could a reader light 
 upon the merely ethical, spiritual quickening (Rom. vi. 4 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; 
 Gal. 1. 19 f.)? No, God has made believers alive with Christ; i.e, in 
 Christ’s revivification, which God has wrought, theirs also is included. By 
 virtue of the dynamic connection in which Christ stands with His believers, 
 as the head with its body (i. 23), their revivification is objectively compre- 
 
 1 Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, and 
 most of the older expositors. 
 2 Comp. Calvin and de Wette. 
 
 probably the correct one, and follows it. 
 § Including Flatt, Riickert, Meier, Mat- 
 thies, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Baum- 
 
 3 For, as to the fact that «ai, also, always 
 lays the stress upon that word, before which 
 it stands, see Haupt, Odss. Crit. p. 55 ff. 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 638. 
 
 4 Hartung, I. p. 182 f. 
 
 5 Bleek describes this view of mine as 
 
 a4 
 
 garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, Bleek. 
 
 7“ Justificationem et regenerationem nos- 
 tram complectitur,”’ ‘‘It embraces our justi- 
 fication and regeneration,’ Boyd ; Riickert 
 would have us think mainly of the justifica- 
 tion. 
 
370 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 hended in His,—a relation, in fact, of which the Christian is conscious in 
 faith ; ‘‘quum autem fides suscipitur, ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini, 
 et ab homine rata habentur,” ‘‘ But when faith is received, all those things 
 are applied to man by God and are considered as ratified by man,” Bengel. 
 So the matter stands in the view of the apostle as accomplished, because the 
 making alive of Christ is accomplished ; the future actual making alive, or, as 
 the case may be, change at the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 28), is then the subjec- 
 tive individual participation of that which is already objectively given on 
 the part of God in the resurrection of Christ. Certainly Paul might, in ac- 
 cordance with another mode of looking at it, have expressed himself by the 
 future, as at 1 Cor. xv. 22; cf. Rom. vill. 17 ; but who does not feel that 
 by means of the aorist’ the matter stands forth more forcibly and trium- 
 phantly out of the believing conviction of the apostle? ob¢ édixaiwoe robroue 
 kat éd6€ace, Rom. viii. 830. — The obdv in ovvefwor. is by Beza erroneously re- 
 ferred to the coagmentatio gentium et Judaeorum, ‘‘union of Gentiles and 
 Jews,” a reference which is forbidden by the rt» Xpror ; and by Grotius, 
 Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others, it is explained ad exemplum, ‘‘ according 
 to the example,” ? by which the Pauline idea of fellowship with Christ, which 
 also lay at the bottom of i. 19, is quite arbitrarily explained away. — Comp. 
 on Col. ii. 18; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. i. 12. — ydpiti tote ceowop.] by grace 
 (not by merit) are ye partakers of the Messianic salvation! an impassioned 
 (hence expressed in the second person), parenthetic reminding the readers 
 of the divine basis of the salvation which had accrued to them, designated 
 by ovvefworoince 3 a reminding, which was very natural for the apostle in 
 general (for its tenor was the sum of his doctrine and the constant echo of 
 his own experience, 1 Cor. xv. 10), and more especially here, where he rep- 
 resents the quickening of believers as accomplished with the making alive 
 of Christ, which could not but repel even the most distant thought of per- 
 sonal merit. In connection with ovrvetwor. 7. Xp. the possession of the 
 Messianic bliss is designated as an already accomplished fact, although it was 
 before the Parousia (Col. iii. 3 f.) merely a possession in hope (Rom, viii. 
 24), and the final realization was yet future (Rom. v. 10). That the ydprre 
 emphatically placed at the beginning? means the grace of God, not of 
 Christ,* is manifest from the context, in which God is constantly the 
 subject. 
 
 Ver. 6. After the making alive of Christ in the grave followed Tis resur- 
 rection, With which Paul regards that of believers as likewise accomplished. 
 Hence : kai ovygyerpe, which in like manner is not to be taken in the spiritual 
 sense ;° but see on ver.5. With strange inconsistency several expositors, 
 such as Menochius, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, Grotius, although taking 
 
 1“ Ponitur autem aoristus de re, quae, 
 quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peracta recte 
 censeatur, cum... alia re jam facta con- 
 tineatur,” ‘“‘ The aorist is used of a matter, 
 which, although it be future, nevertheless is 
 properly regarded as past, when it is con- 
 tained in another matter already accom- 
 plished,” Fritzsche, a@ Rom. IL. p. 206. 
 
 2 Comp. Anselm: sicuf, ‘* just as.” 
 
 3 For ‘‘gratiam esse docet proram et 
 puppim,” ‘tHe teaches that grace is both 
 prow and stern,” Bengel. 
 
 4 Beza; comp. the inserted ob in D* EF 
 G, Vulg. It. Victorin. Aug. Ambrosiaster. 
 
 5 “To make them enter upon the new life 
 of grace,’’ Riickert. 
 
CHAP. II, 7. 371 
 cvvetwor. metaphorically, nevertheless have taken this ovvfyeipe (as well as 
 the element that follows) in a literal sense, and mentally supplied nempe spe, 
 ‘‘namely, by hope,” or the like. —xai ouvexdficev év toig éxoup.| and hath 
 given to us joint-seat in the heavenly regions (comp. i. 20), so that we have 
 part (see on 1 Cor. vi. 2) in the dominion of the Exalted One (2 Tim. ii. 12); 
 which Paul likewise sees as already accomplished’ with the installing of 
 Christ at the right hand of God ; hence, there was no need at all for supply- 
 ing the thought jure et virtute spirituali, ‘by spiritual right and virtue,” ? 
 or for a transference of the matter to the praescientia Dei, ‘‘ God’s fore- 
 knowledge,” * and other such expedients. —év Xpior@ "Iyjcot] belongs to 
 cuvAyerpe and cvvexaficev év toic éxovpay., so that what was expressed in the 
 case of ovvefwor. by (cvv) 7@ Xpiotd, is here expressed, in yet more exact 
 conception of the relation, by (cvv) év Xpior@ (jointly in Christ). Inasmuch, 
 namely, as God raised and exalted Christ (év XpiotH), He has raised and 
 exalted us with Him. év Xpior@ accordingly is by no means intended to 
 denote the ovyxafiferv as figurative.* — On éy roic éxovpav. (see on i. 3) Bengel, 
 we may add,° aptly remarks : ‘‘non dicit in dextra ; Christo sua manet ex- 
 cellentia,” ‘‘ He does not say : ‘at the right hand ;’ His own excellence re- 
 mains to Christ.” The transitive ovyxafifew is not elsewhere preserved. 
 Ver. 7. Aim of God in connection with what is said, vv. 5, 6.—iva 
 évdeityrac| prefixed with emphasis : in order—not to leave concealed and 
 unknown, but—to erhibit and make manifest, ete. Comp. Rom. ix. 23.— é» 
 Toi¢ alder Toic Exepy. | in the ages coming on, 2.e., in the times after the Parousia, 
 as being already on the approach.® In the times from the Parousia (con- 
 ceived as near at hand) onward, the manifestation designed by God of His 
 grace towards believers was to take place, because not before, but only after 
 the Parousia, would the making alive of the believers, etc., implicitly con- 
 
 1 Explanations in the spiritual sense. 
 Calixtus: ‘‘Ea nobis dedit dona, quae ci- 
 vibus coelorum propria sunt,” ‘He hath 
 given us those gifts which are peculiar to 
 citizens of heaven.’’ Rosenmiiller: ‘‘ Sum- 
 ma felicitate nos ornavit, quasi jam in 
 coelo essemus recepti,”’ ‘‘ He hath furnished 
 us with the highest happiness, as though we 
 had been already received in heaven.” 
 Riickert and Bleek remind us of the woA‘- 
 tevua Of Christians, which is in heaven 
 (Phil. ii. 20; comp. Col. iii. 1 ff.). Meier: 
 “ Exaltation into a celestially enlightened. 
 pure and holy, state of life.’ Matthies: 
 “The spiritual kingdom of heaven or of 
 God.” Olshausen: ‘“ The awakening of the 
 heavenly consciousness.’? Koppe remarks 
 superficially and with hesitation: ‘‘ Nobis 
 quidem in omnibus, ‘inall these terms,’ his 
 Gwororetavar eyelpertat, Kadigew ev éoup. 
 nihil inesse videtur nisi summae et uni- 
 versae felicitatis, qua Christiani vel jam 
 fruuntur, vel olim magis etiam fruiturisunt, 
 descriptio,” “‘nothing seems to us to be in- 
 
 cluded but a description of the supremeand 
 universal happiness which Christians either 
 already or will hereafter enjoy.’’ Accord- 
 ing to Baumgarten-Crusius, there is ex- 
 pressed “‘ exaltation into a purely spiritual 
 heaven-like state.””» De Wette takes ouvve- 
 Gwor. of the deliverance out of the misery of 
 sin, ovvyyecpe of regeneration and, at the 
 same time, of the resurrection of the body 
 guaranteed in the spiritual life, and cvvera- 
 dicev k.7.A, Of the hope of the eternal doga. 
 Schenkel interpretsit of the presentiment of 
 the future glory. 
 
 2 Bengel. 
 
 3 Jerome. 
 
 4 Olshausen. 
 
 5 Comp. already Estius. 
 
 ® Comp. LXX. Isa. xliv. 7, xlv. 11; Judith 
 ix.5; 3 Macc. v. 2; Luke xxi. 26; Jas. v. 1; 
 Hom. Od. xxiv. 142 ; Thue. i. 126; Plat. Sopi. 
 p. 234 D ; Aesch. Prom. 98: 70 wapov 70 7’ evrep- 
 xouevov, Pind. Ol. x. 11: Exadev yap excAdav 
 © méeAAwY XpOVOS. 
 
372 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 tained in the making alive of Christ, be actually accomplished in the 
 subjects. Incorrect, seeing that the apostle was previously speaking, not 
 of the spiritual, but of the real resurrection, etc., is the rendering of Morus: 
 ‘‘per omne vestrum tempus reliquum quum in hac vita tum in futura 
 quoque,” ‘‘ through all your time left, not only in this life, but also in that 
 which is to come,” as well as that of Wolf :! ‘‘tempora inde ab apostolicis 
 illis ad finem mundi secutura,” ‘‘the times that were to follow from those 
 of the apostles to the end of the world.” Koppe brings out, ‘wt aeternum 
 duraturum argumentum extaret,” ‘that an argument might stand forth 
 which would last eternally,” which is quite mistaken, since, while it is 
 true that the aidvec oi érepyopuevoe are eternal times, the words do not signify 
 tempora aeternum futura, ‘‘ times to be eternally.” Respecting the plural 
 roi¢ alot, comp. on iii. 21. To infer from this that the setting in of the 
 Messianic period will not be accomplished suddenly, but by way of suc- 
 cessive development,’ is at variance with the whole N. T. The future 
 aiév sets in through the Parousia very suddenly and in an instant, Matt. 
 xxiv. 27; 1 Cor. xv. 52, al. Hence we have not mentally to supply with 
 évdeiE. anything like : ‘‘ ever more completely,” * or ‘‘ ever more effectively,” * 
 which is sheer caprice. — The form rd rAovroc is here also decisively attested. 
 See on i. 7. —év ypyoréryte 颒 yuac év XpiotS "Inoov] is to be taken together, 
 and the instrumental éy indicates by what God will manifest the exceeding 
 great riches of His grace in the ages to come, by kindness towards us in 
 Christ Jesus, i.e., by means of the fact that He shows Himself gracious 
 towards us, of which the ground lies in Christ (not in us, see ver. 8). The 
 article was not at all requisite before 颒 juac, since ypyoréryte is anarthrous, 
 and besides ypyorérc 颒 jude, like ypyorov elvar 颒 jac (Luke vi. 35), can be 
 closely joined together in thought. Comp. on i. 15.—The ydpic is the 
 source of the ypyoréryc, which latter displays itself in forgiving (comp. 
 Prayer of Manass. 11 ; Tit. iii. 4; Rom. ii. 4) and in benefiting, and there- 
 fore is the evidence of the former, the opposite of azorouia, Rom. x1. 22.° 
 Ver. 8. How entirely was I justified in saying : 10 imepBddAdAov riovroe THe 
 yapitoc avtov | for, ete. Thus Paul now expresses himself with more detail 
 as to the great truth, of which his heart was so full that it had already, ver. 
 5, interrupted the course of his address. — rq yapite] by the grace. By the 
 article the divine grace just now spoken of is indicated, after it had been 
 meant doubtless by the anarthrous ydpir:, ver. 5, but designated by it only 
 as regards the category (by grace). — dia rie riotewc | for the faith in the atone- 
 ment made by Christ (Rom. iii. 25, 30, al.) is, as the causa apprehendens, 
 ‘apprehending cause,” of the Messianic salvation, the necessary mediate 
 instrument on the part of man, while the ydapic is the divine motive, the 
 causa efficiens, ‘‘ efficient cause,” of the bestowal. The emphasis, however, 
 is retained by rH yaprte alone, and dia tHe xior. is only the modal definition 
 to cecwou. —kai TovTo ovx é& iuav x.t.4.] Nothing is here to be treated as 
 
 1Comp. Calvin, Piscator, Boyd, Estius, 3 Flatt. 
 Calixtus, Michaelis, Zachariae, Meier, Mat- 4 Schenkel. 
 thies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek. 5 Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 195; van 
 
 2 Schenkel. Hengel, ad Rom. II. p. 682. 
 
CHAP; II.,.8: 373 
 
 parenthesis; neither the whole kai rovro down to épyov, ver. 9,1 nor merely 
 @c0v 7d dépov,? since neither the construction nor the course of thought is 
 interrupted. «ai rovro is referred by the Fathers in Suicer,* Erasmus, Beza, 
 Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, including Koppe, 
 Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, to the faith (rd 
 moreve), comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. iv. 14. In that case kai rovro . . . dépov 
 would have to be taken parenthetically. But how violent is this taking to 
 pieces of the text, since oi« é& duov and oi« é épywv present themselves in a 
 manner alike natural and weighty as elements belonging to one jlow of the 
 discourse! Rightly, therefore, have Calvin, Calovius, Baumgarten, Semler, 
 Zachariae, Morus, and others, including Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, 
 Harless, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek, referred it to the salvation just desig- 
 nated as regards its specific mode. Paul very earnestly and emphatically 
 enters into more detailed explanations as to what he had just said, 77 yap 
 yapire x.T.2., namely, to the effect that he briefly and forcibly places in the 
 light of the respective contrasts, first, that objective element of the saving 
 deliverance which has taken place (7% ydpitv) by otk && budv, Oecd Td dapor, 
 and then the subjective element (61a TH¢ TisTewc), by ovK éF Epywv wa pm. T. Kavy. 
 His thought is: ‘‘Through grace you are in possession of salvation by 
 means of faith, and that to the exclusion of your own causation and operative 
 agency.” This latter he expresses with the vivacity and force of contrast 
 thus : ‘‘ and that (kai rovro, see on Rom. xiii. 11) not from you, it is God's 
 gift ; not from works, in order that no one may boast.” The asyndetic juxta- 
 position takes place witha ‘‘ propria quadam vi, alacritate, gravitate,” ‘‘ pe- 
 culiar force, ardor, and dignity.” *— oix« é¢ tuav] negatives their own personal 
 authorship of the salvation.* — Ocov rd dapov] 7.€., Ocov ddpov Td Sdpov, God's 
 gift is the gift in question (namely, the cecwouévoy elvac). Comp. already 
 Bengel. —oi« é& &pyov] Parallel of ov« é& iuov, hence to be completed by 
 éoté ceowopévoe (not by 76 dapdv éorr), net from work-merit does it come that 
 you have the salvation. The gpya would exclude the ziorve as the subjective 
 condition of salvation (Rom. iii. 28, iv. 5, ix. 32; Gal. i. 16, ili. 2), as é¢ 
 iuav would exclude the yapic as the objective cause of salvation, because it 
 presupposes the idia dcxacocivy (Rom. x. 3). No doubt é épywy excludes also 
 the yapic, as does likewise é& iuev exclude the wicrie ; but the two elements 
 opposed to the yapic and the rictic are, on occasion of the proposition 77 yap 
 yapitt . . . xiotewc, held apart after the manner of a formal parallelism. 
 That, moreover, the notion of the Zoya is determined not merely by the 
 Jewish law, but—inasmuch as the readers were for the most part Gentile- 
 Christians—also by the natural law (Rom. ii. 14 f.), is self-evident. The 
 proposition in itself, however, oi« é Zpywr, is so essential and universally 
 valid a fundamental proposition of the Pauline Gospel, and certainly so 
 often expressed by the apostle among Jews and Gentiles, that the severe 
 
 judgment as to its having no meaning, when laid down without reference 
 
 1 Griesbach, Scholz. 4 Dissen, Hrc. IT. ad Pind. p. 273. 
 2 Lachmann, Harless, de Wette. 5 Hllendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 551 f. 
 3 Thes. II. p. 728. 
 
374 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 to the Mosaic law, must appear unfounded.’ — iva] design ef God in the rela- 
 tion indicated by ovx é épywr, not ecbatic.2? Comp. 1 Cor, i. 29, 31, and as 
 regards the thing itself, Rom. iii. 27. Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ quicquid est 
 in flumine, fonti debetur,” ‘‘ whatever is in the river, is due the fountain,” 
 which, however, is not to be limited merely to the prima gratia. [See Note 
 XIX., p. 400.] See ver. 10 ; 2 Cor. x. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 10. 
 
 Ver. 10. Reason assigned for the previous ov« é iuav . . . xavygo. Tf, 
 namely, we are God’s zoijua, our Messianic salvation cannot be of our own 
 acquiring, but only God’s gift ; and if we are created in Christ unto good 
 works, how could merit of works (which would need to have been already 
 acquired in the time anterior to this our creation) be the cause of our sal- 
 vation, and subject of our own boasting? The argumentative stress lies 
 consequently (1) on airod, and (2) on Kriofévrec ; and then oic¢ rpoytoiuacev 
 «.T.A. is an elucidation significantly bearing on xricfévrec év X. 71. él py. ay., 
 which makes the impossibility of pre-Christian merit of works thoroughly 
 palpable. —airov] with emphasis : His, just His work, and no other’s, are 
 we.* — roijua, thing made (comp. Rom. i. 20), refers to the ethieal creation 
 (that of the new spiritual state of life), which the Christian as such has ex- 
 perienced (radsyyeveoia, Tit. iii. 5), not, as Tert. c. Mare. v. 17, Gregory of 
 Nazianzus, Basil, and Photius would have it, to the physical creation (the 
 spiritual being only introduced by xriofévrec x.7.A.), which is opposed to the 
 context, as is also the combination of the two creations by Pelagius, Eras- 
 mus, Matthies, and Riickert : ‘‘as Christians we . . . are God’s work just 
 as well, as in respect of our being men at all.” Only the form, in which the 
 constituting of the new condition of life is expressed, is derived from the 
 physical creation. — xricfévtec] by God at our conversion. — év Xpior@ "Tyo00] 
 for citic év Xptore, Kxacvy xriowc, 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15. Christ is the 
 specific element of life, within which the ethical roijua Ocov has come to 
 pass, but apart from which this creative process has not taken place. — émi 
 épyore ayafoic] moral aim.* On the thing itself, comp. Rom. viii. That, by 
 which God prepares what is created by Him in Christ for this moral end, is 
 the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. ; Gal. iii. 2; John iii. 5 f. Good works (not 
 épya vouov) are fruits of regeneration, different from épyuv, ver. 9. — oi¢ mpoy- 
 Toi. 6 Oedc] olc is to be taken, according to the usual attraction (see Winer, 
 p. 147 f.), for a :° which God hath before (previously to the krvobévrec) placed in 
 readiness, in order that we might walk in them, that they might be the ele- 
 ment in which our life-walk should take place.* The prefixed rpoyr. has 
 in the circumstances significant emphasis. Paul conceives, namely, of the 
 morally good works in which the walk of the Christian moves, as being 
 already, even before his conversion, placed in readiness’ by God, namely, 
 
 
 
 1In opposition to de Wette. 
 
 2 Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen. 
 
 3Comp. Hom. Od. x. 27: avteyv yap amwa- 
 éued adppadinow. Winer, p. 140. 
 
 4 (Cf. Winer, § 48.] 
 
 5 Syriac, Gothic, Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, 
 Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Grotius, and others, 
 including Harless, Matthies, Holzhausen, 
 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Lamping, p. 87f.; 
 Bleek. : 
 
 6 thy ém’ avtois amavatov axéow Sydot, “He 
 shows the never-ending state for them,” 
 Oecumenius. 
 
 7 Plut. Mor. p. 230 E; Joseph. Anét. xvii. 
 5,6; LXX. Isa. xxviii. 24; Wisd. ix. 8. 
 
CHAP. In; 10: 375 
 in His decree. And this cowld not but be the case, if God would create 
 unto good works. For, if the converted man is God’s creature, then the 
 moral activity of life, in which the specific nature of the kav xriow is to 
 manifest itself, and without which he would not be God’s roinua and xriocc, 
 must likewise proceed from God ; consequently, when the moral creative 
 act (the regeneration) is accomplished, it must already in God’s counsel 
 and will, bein such wise prepared and held ready for communication, that it 
 has to receive the new creature from its Creator, and in this way to work 
 the works of Ged. Thus these good works following regeneration are as it 
 were outflowings from a divine treasure beforehand placed in readiness, 
 from which the regenerate man has received them, when he does them and 
 walks in them.’ The sense of the word rpoeroudge is changed, if it is ex- 
 plained only as to predestine,? which would be expressed by zpoopifew 3° and 
 it is rationalized away when Olshausen says that the circumstances and rela- 
 tions, under which it is possible to men to perform good works, are ordained 
 by God. It is not of the cirewmstances which render the works possible, 
 but of the works themselves, that Paul affirms that God has before placed 
 them in readiness ; as accordingly, when they are accomplished, it is God 
 who works the willing and working (Phil. ii. 18). According to Hofmann,* 
 the good works are once for all present in Christ, so that they need not to 
 be brought forth first by us, the individuals, but are produced before- 
 hand, in order that our fellowship with Christ may be also a fellow- 
 ship of His conduct—that our walk in Him may be a walk in them. 
 But in this way Paul would have left the very point of the thought 
 in rpoyroiu. (namely, in Christ) unexpressed. Others take oi¢ as dative 
 of the destination: unto which God hath prepared us.° In this case, 
 iva év abroig mepix. would by no means be a redundant and feeble tautology, 
 as Harless supposes, but an emphatic epexegesis of oi¢. But against this 
 view it may be urged that Paul must necessarily, because the verb would be 
 quite objectless, have added jjwac,° the omission of which, considering the 
 frequency of the attraction of oic fora, could only have led the reader astray ; 
 moreover, zpo would receive no emphasis accordant with the prefixing of 
 mpontoiu., inasmuch as the time of the mpoeroyudfecv would coincide with that 
 of the «rifewv. Walla and Erasmus take ol¢ as masculine ; for whom He hath 
 before appointed, that we, etc., to which also Riickert, although hesitating 
 between this and the preceding explanation, is inclined. But how arbitra- 
 rily in this way is oi¢ referred to what is more remote and different from 
 
 1 Explanations like that of Grotius; 
 ““praeparayit tum praescribendo formam 
 operum tum dando Spiritum,”’ ‘“‘ He pre- 
 pared them both by prescribing the form of 
 the works, and by giving the Spirit,” etc., 
 fail of doing justice to the case by making 
 mpo in mponr. synchronous with kricbevtes. 
 
 2 Augustine and others, including Har- 
 less, Lamping. 
 
 3 See Fritzsche; ad Rom. II. p. 339. 
 
 4 Schrifibew. I1. 1, p. 365, If. 2, p. 294. 
 
 STuther, Clericus, Semler, Michaelis, 
 
 Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel, 
 and others. 
 
 6 This also in opposition to Calovius, who 
 takes ois in the adlative sense: ‘‘ quibus, se. 
 hactenus dictis ... per justificationem et 
 renovationem, praeparavit vel disposuit 
 (nos), ut in operibus bonis ambulemus,” ‘* by 
 which, viz., these hitherto mentioned, 
 through justification or renewal he pre- 
 pared or disposed us, so that we may walk 
 in good works.” 
 
376 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 avroic ! and how changed is the literal sense of rpoeroudtew 1 Utterly arbi- 
 trary and erroneous, finally, is the view of Bengel, Koppe, and Rosenmiiller, 
 as also of Baumgarten-Crusius, that it is to be explained per Hebraismum, 
 ‘Cas a Hebraism,” 1 for év ol¢ wa repitatiowuev pont. 6 Oedc, in whieh case 
 Koppe and Rosenmiiller make poerouudfecv equivalent to velle jubere, ‘‘ wish, 
 bid !"—According to Schwegler,’ Baur,* and de Wette, there is to be discov- 
 ered in our passage the post-apostolic tendency to combine the doctrine of Paul 
 (ob« é€ épyov) with the Jewish-Christian view (that of James) concerning good 
 works. As though the works were not in our passage too, as in all Pauline 
 Epistles, based upon faith (observe, withal, év X. ’I.) !—The Pauline faith 
 has always moral practice as its necessary vital activity, and this is conse- 
 quently always the aim (not : w/fimate aim) of the new creation wrought 
 through faith by means of the Spirit. We may add that the good works, 
 even at our passage,—where, moreover, they are traced back wholly to God 
 as the author,—are so far from being the condition of justification, that, on 
 the contrary, the dogmatic canon here receives full confirmation : ‘‘ Bona 
 opera non praecedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justifieatum,” ‘ Good works 
 do not precede the one to be justified, but they follow him as justified.” 
 Comp. Calovius. Aptly does Bengel remark on zepirar. : ‘“‘ambularemus, 
 non salvaremur aut viveremus,” ‘* that we should walk, not that we should 
 be saved, or should live.” The assertion, that here (and in Colossians) much 
 greater importance is ascribed to good works than in the other letters of the 
 apostle, is, looking even to vv. 7-9, incorrect. [See Note XX., p. 400.] 
 Ver. 11. Ais] Therefore, because such exalted and unmerited benefits have 
 been imparted to us (vv. 4-10). [See Note XXL. p. 400 seq.] These bene- 
 fits should move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state 
 (roré, v. 8; Col. i. 21), in order the more gratefully to appreciate, by con- 
 trast with the past, the value of his present state. — érc roré ipeic ta Edun ev 
 capxi| Neither jre nor dvrec is to be supplied, but (observe the order criti- 
 cally vouched for : roré tyeic) ore is taken up again by the rz of ver. 12, and 
 moré by TO Kaip@ éxeive, ver. 12; while ra Evy év capKi is a descriptive defini- 
 tion to tueic, to which it is related by way of apposition, and oi Acyéuevoe 
 «7.2. is attributive definition to iveic ra Sry év capki : that at one time ye, 
 the Gentiles in the flesh, ye who (quippe qui) were named Foreskin . . . that 
 ye at that time, etc. — ra 9vn év capxt] is closely connected as one conception, 
 and hence without the article before év capi. This év capxi is, as to its 
 meaning, necessarily defined by the undoubted meaning of the following év 
 capi ; on which account it is neither to be taken, as a contrast to regenera- 
 tion, of the former unholy life of the readers,° nor as origine carnali, natali- 
 bus, ‘‘by carnal origin, birth,” * nor is it to be generalized into respectu 
 status externi, ‘‘ with respect to the external condition.” 7 It has reference 
 to the foreskin. In the flesh, on account of the non-circumcised foreskin, 
 
 
 
 1 See, on the other hand, Fritzsche, ad 5 Ambrosiaster, Calovius, Wolf, Holzhau- 
 Matth. p. 139. sen. 
 
 2 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 391. 6 Bucer, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, Rosen- 
 
 3 Paulus, p. 453. miiller, Flatt. 
 
 4 Baur, newt. Theol. p. 270. 7 Morus. 
 
CHAP IE. 1 125 0 Bad 
 
 the character ethnicus, ‘‘ Gentile character,” was inherent.—The ra #0 vy év o., 
 with the article, designates the readers as to their category. The contempt, 
 however, incurred in their pre-Christian state lies not in ré é3vy év o. (for 
 this they still remained), but in the following oi Aeyéuevor «.7.A.; although 
 we may not, by mentally supplying’ the contrast ov« év mvevwatc, make év 
 oapki into an element of recommendation. — oi reyouevor. . . yetpor.| is not to 
 be placed in a parenthesis,? seeing that it is a continued description of the 
 Gentile state of the readers. As the £31 7% capki, they were those designated 
 by the name Foreskin! And, then, the delineation of this despised relation 
 is brought to a yet higher climax when it is specified by whom they were 
 thus reproachfully designated, namely, by the so-called Cireumeision, which is 
 made in the flesh with the hand. So low was the position you occupied ! By 
 those who bear the name of this surgical operation perfarmed on the flesh 
 (counterpart of the ideal circumcision, Rom. ii. 28 f.; Phil. iii. 3 ; Col. ii. 
 11; Acts vii. 51), and hence have by it in and of itself no pre-eminence at 
 all, you must allow yourselves to be designated, for want of this external 
 rite, with the reproachful name of Foreskin !  év capri yerpor. does not per- 
 tain to Aeyou., but is an addition of the apostle himself to repit., describing 
 how the matter stands. The abstracta, ‘‘ abstracts,” axpoB. and repit. do not 
 here stand pro concretis, ‘‘ for concretes,” but are stated names, by which the 
 concretes were in accordance with their peculiar character designated. Comp. 
 2 Thess. ii. 4 : én? rdvta Aeyéuevov Ocdv 7 o£ Bacua. The circumstance that 
 Paul, instead of 76 rij¢ Aeyouévyc, has not again employed the plural expres- 
 sion td Tov Asyouévwv, is to be explained by the fact that he wishes to in- 
 dicate the repitou7# as a name, which is not adequate to the idea of it in the 
 case of the subjects so termed : by the so-called circumcision. [See Note 
 XXII., p.401.] The expression is depreciatory (comp. 1 Cor. vili. 5) as con- 
 cerns the people who bore the name zepitow#; Whereas oi Aeyouevor axpovartia 
 would indicate not the conception of ‘‘ so-called,” but, in a purely objec- 
 tive manner, the mentioned fact : ‘‘ those called Foreskin” (Heb. ix. 3). 
 Ver. 12. As regards the construction, see on ver. 11. — 76 kaipé éxeivo] 
 takes the place of the zoré, ver. 11, and means the pre-Christian, heathen 
 period of the readers. On the dative of time without év, see Winer, p. 195 f. 
 — ywpic Xpiotov| aloof from connection with Christ ; for ‘* yopic ad subjec- 
 tum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur,” ‘‘is referred to the subject 
 which is separated from the object.”* It is dependent on jre as its first sad 
 predicate, and does not belong, as a more precise definition, to the subject, * 
 in which case it would in fact be entirely self-evident and superfluous. In 
 how far the readers as Gentiles were without Christ, we are told in the 
 sequel. They stood afar off and aloof from the theocratic bond, in which 
 Christ would have been to them, in accordance with the promise, the object 
 of their faith and ground of their salvation. If Paul had wished to express 
 merely the negation of the Christian relation,® how tame and idle would this 
 
 1 With Chrysostom and his successors. Bleek. 
 2 Griesbach, Scholz. 5 Ye were without knowledge of Christ ; 
 3 Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. comp. Anselm, Caloyius, Flatt. 
 
 4“ When ye were as yet without Christ,” 
 
378 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 in itself have been! and, moreover, not in keeping with the connection of 
 that which follows, according to which, as is already clear from ver. 11, 
 Paul wishes to bring out the disadvantage at which the readers, as Gentiles, 
 had been placed in contradistinction to the Jews. Hence Grotius rightly in- 
 dicates the relation as to contrast of ver. 12 to ver. 13 : ‘* Nunc eum (Chris- 
 tum) non minus possidetis vos quam di, quibus promissus fuerat,” ‘* Now ye 
 possess Him (Christ) no less than they to whom He had been promised.” 
 Riickert refers ywpic X. to the activity of Christ under the O. T. previously to 
 His incarnation, with an appeal to 1 Cor. x. 4.7. But ré Karp éxeivw, in 
 fact, applies to the pre-Christian lifetime of the readers, and thus comprises 
 a time which was subsequent to the incarnation. Xpiotod means the historical 
 Christ, so far as He was the very promised Messiah. The relation yupic 
 Xpcorod ig described from the standpoint of the apostle, for whom the bond 
 with the Messiah was the bond with Christ. [See Note XXIII., p. 401.] — 
 The charge that the author here makes an un-Pauline concession to Juda- 
 ism? is incorrect, since the concession concerns only the pre-Christian rela- 
 tion. Comp. Rom. ix. 4,5. A superiority of Judaism, in respect of the 
 pre-Christian relation to Christianity, Paul could not but necessarily teach 
 (comp. Acts ili. 25 f.; Rom. i. 16, iii. 1 f.; Gal. ili. 13 f.); but that Chris- 
 tianity as to its essential contents was Judaism itself, merely extended 
 through the death of Christ to the Gentiles also, he has not taught either 
 here or elsewhere ; in fact, the doing away of the law taught by him in this 
 very passage is the very opposite thereof.* — axnAAotpiopévor k.t.A. |] Comp. 
 On aTaAdotpi6w, Dem. 255, 3 ; Polyb. i. 79. 6, 1. 82. 9; often in the LXX.* 
 and Josephus, Krebs, Odss. p. 326. The notion of alien does not here 
 (comp. also iv. 18 ; Col. i. 21) presuppose the existence of an earlier fellow- 
 ship, but it was their status ethnicus, ‘‘ Gentile state,” itsel7,° by which the 
 readers were at one time placed apart from connection with the roAvrela rod 
 "Iopafi. i.e., whereby this aAAorpiéryj¢ took place. The opposite: idvor, oixeior, 
 ovuurodita (ver. 19).  odcteia signifies as well political constitution ® as right 
 of citizenship.* The latter signification is assumed by Erasmus, Luther, 
 Beza, Bullinger, Michaelis, and others. But the idea of right of citizen- 
 ship was for the apostle, himself a Roman citizen, as well as for the readers, 
 a secular privilege, and one therefore foreign to the connection of our pas- 
 sage, where everything points to the theocracy, and this was the political 
 constitution of the Israelites. — rov "Icpaya] The divine name of Jacob (Gen. 
 XXXlil. 28, xxxv. 10) is, according to the traditionally hallowed usage of 
 
 1 Comp. ofshausen (“the immanence of 
 Christ as regards His divinity in Israel’’). 
 
 2 Schwegler, /.c. p. 388 f. 
 
 3In opposition to Baur, Paulus, p. 545; 
 Christenth. der drei ersten Jahrh. p. 107. 
 
 4 Schleusner, Thesaur. I. p. 825. 
 
 5 Not, as Grotius would have it (whom 
 Rosenmiiller follows): the diversity of 
 political institutions: ‘‘In illa republica a 
 Deo instituta non modo honores non pote- 
 ratis capere, sed nec pro civibus haberi; 
 adeo distabant instituta,”’ ‘‘In the state estab- 
 
 lished by God you were not only not able to 
 receive honors, but not even to be held as 
 citizens ; to such an extent did the institu- 
 tions differ.” 
 
 6 Thue. ii. 36; Plato, Polit. vii. p. 520 B; 
 Legg. iv. p. 712 E; Arist. Polit. iii. 4. 1; Isoe. 
 Hvag. viii. 10; Xen. Ages. i. 37 ; 2 Mace. iv. 
 Tals Sia, dere 
 
 7 Herod. ix. 34; Dem. 161, 11; Thue. Vi. 
 104. 8; Diod. Sic. xii. 51; 8 Mace. iii. 21; 
 Acts xxii. 28; Joseph. Anit, xii, 3, 1. 
 
CHAP ei... 12. 319 
 the O. T., the theocratic name of his posterity, the Jewish people, Rom. ix. 
 6; 1 Cor. x. 18; Gal. vi. 16, al. The genitive, however, is not to be ex- 
 plained like dorv ’A@yvév ;’ for 6 ’IcpayA is the people, which as the polity. 
 — kab Eévor tov StadyKdv tig éxayy.| and foreign to the covenants of the promise 
 (not belonging thereto); these words are to be taken together ;* for only thus 
 do the two elements belonging to each other and connected by xai, which 
 serve for the elucidation of yapic Xpiorov, stand in harmonious symmetry ; 
 only in this way, likewise, is similar justice done to the two last particulars 
 connected by kai,—éArida py Exovteg Kai Geo év TE KéOouw—Which in their 
 very generality and brevity carry the description of the Gentile misery to 
 the uttermost point ; only in this way, lastly, does Eévoe tov dvabyxov acquire 
 the characteristic coloring which it needs, in order not to appear tame after 
 arnaaotp. T. Tod. tT. “Iop., for precisely in the characteristic rec érayy. lies the 
 sad significance of the being apart from the rojireia tod Iopaya. The cove- 
 nants of the promise, i.e., the covenants with which its promise kar’ é£oyfv, 
 “‘nre-eminently,” namely, that of the Messianic salvation (Rom. ix. 4; Gal. 
 lli.), was connected, are the covenants made with Abraham (Gen. xii. 2 f., 
 7, xii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 20, xxii. 16 ff.) and repeated with the other patri- 
 archs (Gen. xxvi. 2 ff., xxvili. 13 ff.), as also the covenant formed with the 
 people through Moses. The latter is here (it is otherwise at Rom. ix. 4, 
 where there specially follows 7 voyodecia) neither excluded,* seeing that this 
 covenant also had the promise of Messianic life (6 rojoac aita Choerat év 
 avroic, Gal. ili. 12), nor exclusively meant.* Either is arbitrary, and against 
 the latter there may be urged specially the plural, as well as the eminent 
 importance which Paul must have attributed to the patriarchal covenants in 
 particular.® — éArida pi Ey. x. adeor év TO K.] Consequence of the preceding 
 arnadorp. . éxayy., and in what a tragic climax ! The very generality of 
 the expressions, inasmuch as it is not merely a definite hope (Paul did not 
 write r7v éArida) and a definite relation to God that are denied, renders 
 these last traits of the picture so dark !— éArida] Bengel : ‘‘Si promissi- 
 onem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem,” ‘‘if they would have 
 had the promise, they would have had the hope corresponding thereto.” 
 But in this way Paul must have written rj éAnida. No, those shut out 
 from the promise, are for the apostle men without hope at all; they have 
 nothing to hope for, just because they have not to hope for the promised sal- 
 vation. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 13. Every explanation of a definite hope ° con- 
 flicts with the absence of the article, and weakens the force of the picture. 
 — pi éExovrec| uy is not to be explained from the dependence of the thought 
 on what immediately precedes,’ by which the independence of the element 
 
 1 Harless. 
 
 2 In opposition to Ambrosiaster, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others, 
 who attach rijs érayy. to what follows. 
 
 3 Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, and others. 
 
 4Elsner and Wolf, as was already sug- 
 gested by Beza. 
 
 5 On évos with a genitive (Kiihner, IT. p. 
 163), Comp. Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 1; Soph. Qed. 
 
 R. 219; Plato, Apol. p. 17 D, al. 
 
 ® Of the resurrection and life everlasting, 
 Bullinger, Grotius, and many ; of the prom- 
 ised blessings, Estius ; of deliverance, Har- 
 less ; comp. Erasmus and others. 
 
 7“ Poreign to the covenants of the prom- 
 ise, without having hope,” as Harless would 
 take it, 
 
380 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 
 
 dr. py Ey. would be sacrificed to the injury of the symmetry and force of 
 the passage ; but the subjectivity of the negation results from pvypovetere, 
 bre. . . Hre, in accordance with which p7 éyortec is a fact now conceived in 
 the recollection of the readers.! The ya refers the éar. yz éx. to the concep- 
 tion of the subject of the governing verbum sentiendi (urnwovebtete). — abeor] 
 the lowest stage of Gentile misery. We may explain the word,” which oc- 
 curs only here in the N. T., and not at all in the LXX. or Apocrypha, either: 
 not believing in God, atheists,* or godless, impii, reprobate,* or : without God, 
 sine Deo (Vulgate), i.¢., without divine help, without the protection and as- 
 sistance of God.* The last-mentioned sense, as yielding the saddest closing 
 predicate,* is here to be preferred. The Gentiles had gods, which, how- 
 ever, were no gods (Acts xix. 26, xiv. 15; Gal. iv. 8); but, on the contrary, 
 what they worshipped and honored as divinities, since the forsaking of the 
 natural knowledge of God (Rom. i. 19 ff.), were demons (1 Cor. x. 20) ; so 
 that for them with all their devowdaovia (Acts xvii. 22) God was really want- 
 ing, and they apart from connection with God’s grace and help lived on in 
 a God-forsaken state. Paul might have written Yeocrvycic, as at Rom. i. 30, 
 but he continues in the stream of negative designations, which gives to his 
 picture an elegiac coloring. — év 76 xéou] is referred by Calovius and Koppe 
 to the preceding elements as a whole. But in this way it would have 
 something of a dragging effect, whereas it attachesitself with force and sug- 
 gestiveness to the bare aeo., whose tragical effect it serves to deepen. 
 Only it must not be explained, even when so connected, with Koppe: ‘‘ inter 
 ceteros homines, in his terris,” ‘‘among other men in these lands,” in which 
 sense it would be devoid of significance. Nay rather, profane hnmanity 
 (observe the contrast to the rodureia tov "Iopaha), the Gentile world, was the 
 unhallowed domain, in which the readers in former time existed without 
 God. It adds to the ungodly How the ungodly Where. Olshausen ex- 
 plains : ‘‘in this evi? world, in which one has such urgent need of a sure 
 hope, a fast hold to the living God ;” but this is imported, since no predi- 
 cate stands beside xéoum. According to Riickert, it is to form a contrast to 
 aveor, and that in the sense: ‘‘in the world, of which the earth is a part, 
 and which stands under God’s government.”’ But Paul must have said 
 this, if he had meant it (by év 76 kéoum Tov Ocod, or something similar). 
 Oecumenius and Meier : éy ri Kara tov rapdvta Biov rodcreia, ‘in the com- 
 monwealth according to the present life,” ete. This would be expressed by 
 Kata Tov Kéouov. —The question, we may add, whether the éArida . . . Kéoum 
 applies to all Gentiles, not even a Socrates or a Plato excepted, is, in the 
 
 1 Comp. Kiihner, II. § 715, 3. ii. 148. [See also Cremer’s Worterbuch, 
 
 2See, generally, Diog. Laert. vii. 119; 
 Sturz in the Comm. soc. phil. Lips. Il. p. 65 
 ff. ; Meier in the Hall. HneyKi. 1. 24, p. 466 ff. 
 
 3 Plato, Apol. p. 26C; Lucian, Alex. 25; 
 Aelian, V. H. ii. 31; comp. Ignat. ad Trail. 
 10: aOeot bytes, TouTéoTLY amioToL, 
 
 4 Plato, Legg. xii. p. 966 E; Xen. Anab. ii. 
 5. 39; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 288. 
 
 5 Soph. ed. 2. 633 : a8cos, didos,comp. 254. 
 
 ® Comp. a@eet, Hom. Od. xviii. 352 ; Mosch, 
 
 Eng. Trans. p. 281.] 
 
 7So in substance also Grotius: ‘‘ per 
 omnes terrarum oras verum Deum, mundi 
 sc. opificem, aut ignorabatis, aut certe non 
 colebatis, sed pro eo Deos ab hominibus 
 fictos,” ‘‘In all regions of the earth, ye 
 either were ignorant of the true God, viz., 
 the Creator of the world, or certainly did 
 not worship Him, but instead of Him wor- 
 shipped the gods made by man.” 
 
CHAP! TE, 13: osl 
 
 view of the apostle, to be answered affirmatively, at all events in general 
 (Rom. iii. 10 ff., xi. 16 ff.; 1 Cor. i. 19 ff.), but has only an indirect appli- 
 cation here, since the apostle is speaking of his readers, whom he describes 
 as to their category. That, if the subject of his discourse had called for it, 
 he would have known how to set limitations to his general judgment, may be 
 assumed of itself, andin accordance with Rom. ii. 14 f. Comp. Acts xvii. 28. 
 
 Ver. 18. But now in Christ Jesus ye, once afar off, are made nigh by the 
 blood of Christ. — vvvi dé] contrast to Kaip@ éxeivw, ver. 12: but as your 
 relation now- stands. Comp. Rom. vi. 22, vil. 6 ; Col. i. 21, iii. 8. — év 
 Xpicr® "Inoov| not to be supplemented by éo7é,! nor yet a more precise defi- 
 nition of vwvi,? in which case several, proceeding more accurately, supply 
 évtec.* But such a more precise definition would be very unnecessary, and 
 would have significant weight only if a special emphasis rested upon év as 
 in contradistinction to ywpic, ver. 12, which, however, cannot be the case, 
 since there is not again used merely év XprorG, but év XpiorS "Iyoov. The 
 éy Xptot@ “Ijoov eivac of the readers, moreover, was not prior to the éyyic 
 éyeviOnre, but its immediate consequence ; hence we should have at least 
 to explain it, not: postguam in Christo estis recepti, ‘‘ After ye were 
 received in Christ,” but: ewm in Christo sitis recepti, ‘‘ When ye were 
 received,” wherewithal there would still remain the very unnecessary char- 
 acter of this more precise definition, or of this conditional accessory clause 
 (de Wette). Accordingly év Xp. I. is to be connected with éyyic éyevA. : 
 ye are in Christ Jesus, in whom this has its efficient cause, made near ; and 
 év Té aiuare Tov Xp. is then the more precise definition of the mode of év Xp. 
 "I. Comp. 61a Tot aivarog aizov, i. 7. Hence we have not to place a comma, 
 as Lachmann and Tischendorf have done, either before or after éy Xp. "I. — 
 TInoov| could not be added at ver. 12, but might be added here, where the 
 Christ who historically appeared in the person of Jesus is intended. — 
 paxpav| figurative description of the same relation as was expressed in ver. 
 
 76 
 9 
 ~ 
 
 12 by ar7AAotpiwopévor the mwodut. Tov "Iop., and Eévoe trav diadyK. Tic 
 émayy. — éyyic¢ éyevil. év TO aiu. t. Xp.] For, by the fact that Christ shed His 
 blood, the separation of the Gentiles from the Jews was done away, and 
 consequently the fellowship of the former with the community of God’s 
 people (which the true Christian Israel henceforth was) was effected. Sce 
 ver. 14 ff. The bringing to participation in, the blessings of the theocracy is, 
 after the precedent of Isa. xlix. 1, lvii. 19, expressed often also among the 
 Rabbins by the figurative propinguum facere, ‘‘to make near” (which with 
 them is, with special frequency, equivalent to proselytum facere, ‘‘to make a 
 proselyte”), and in that case the subject to whom the approach is made 
 is always to be derived from the context.4 — éyyic¢ yivesat, to come near ; only 
 here in the N. T., frequent in the classic writers.® 
 
 1 Baumgarten-Crusius. Mechilta, f. 38. 12, where, as here, the theoc- 
 2 Riickert : ‘‘ under the new constitution, racy is to be thought of. See, in general, 
 founded by Christ.” the passage in Wetstein and Schottgen, 
 3 Calvin: ‘‘postquam in Christo estis re- Horae, p. 761 ff. 
 cepti,” ‘‘after ye were received in Christ,” 5 Xen. Anabd. y. 4. 16, iv. 7.23; Thue. iii. 
 Koppe, Harless, Bleek. 40. 6. 
 
 4 As e.g. Vayikra R. 14, where God, and 
 
382 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Ver. 14.1 Confirmatory elucidation to ver. 18, especially as to the element 
 implied in the év Xpior@ "Ijoov, and more precisely in the éy r¢ aipar. rob 
 Xpicrov. — aire] ipse ; as regards his own person,” is not put in opposition to 
 the thought of ourselves having made the peace,* which is in fact quite for- 
 eign to the passage ; but—and what a triumph of the certainty and com- 
 pleteness of the blessing obtained is therein implied !—‘‘non modo paceifica- 
 tor, nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum est utrorumque,” ‘ not 
 merely the peacemaker, for at the cost of himself he procured peace, and he 
 himself is the bond of both,” Bengel. See what follows. Observe also 
 the presence of the article in 7 eipfvn, denoting the peace kav’ éEoyAv, ‘* pre- 
 eminently ;”* He is for us the peace absolutely, the absolute contrast to the 
 éySpa, ver. 15. The Rabbinical passages, however, in which the Messiah 
 (Comp. Isa. ix. 6) is called DINY, ‘“peace,” ° do not bear on this passage, 
 since in them the point spoken of is not, as here,* the peace between Jews and 
 
 rentiles. —6 rowjoac K.7.A.| quippe qui fecit, ‘‘ since he has made,” etc., now 
 begins the more precise information, how Christ has become Himself our 
 peace. —ra ayuddrepa] the two [Germ. das Beides], i.e., the two existing parts, 
 the Jews and Gentiles. The nevter expression corresponds to the following 
 fv. Nothing is to be supplied.” —é] not so, that one part assumed the 
 nature of the other, but so that the separation of the two was done away 
 with, and both were raised to a new unity. That was the union of the 
 See the sequel. Comp. Col. iii. 11; Gal. 111. 28 ; Rom. 
 x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13; John x. 16. —xai 7d pecdéroryor Tov op. Abode] is 
 related to the foregoing as explicative of it.* tov dpayuov is genitive of appo- 
 sition: the partition wall, which consisted in the (well-known) fence. What 
 is meant by this, we are then told by means of the epexegetic ti» éyBpavr ; 
 hence Paul has not by the figurative 76 yec6r. rod dpaypov Aicac merely wished 
 to express the (negative) conception that Christ has done away with the iso- 
 lation of the O. T. commonwealth.* De Wette censures the ‘extreme 
 tameness” of the explanation, according to which 76 peoér. «.7.A. is taken not 
 as a designation of the Jaw, but as a preliminary designation of the éy8pa. 
 But the twofold designation of the matter, describing it first figuratively 
 and then properly, is in keeping with the importance of the idea, the direct 
 expression of which produces after the previous figure an effect the more 
 striking. —To take the genitive in an adjectival sense, as equivalent to 76 
 usodroLyov diagpdcoor,” is wrong, because the characteristic adjective notion 
 is implied in 7d peodrouyov, which has been felt also by Castalio and Beza, 
 
 divine oikovopia. 
 
 1“ Ver. 14-18 ipse verborum tenere et 
 quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur,” ‘‘ He 
 imitates poetry by the very tenor and as it 
 were rhythm of the words,” Bengel. 
 
 2 [** He personally, as in Micah v. 4,” De- 
 litzsch, Zuth. Zeitschr. 1878, p. 3; also 
 Holtzmann, p. 244.—Schinidt.] 
 
 3 Hofmann. 
 
 4 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 109 [E. T. 125]. 
 
 5 Wetstein in loc. ; Schittgen, Horae, II. 
 p. 18. 
 
 ®In opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 
 II. 1, p. 874, who, at variance with the con- 
 text, understands cipyvn primarily in rela- 
 tion to God ; similarly Calovius and others. 
 
 7 Grotius : yevn. 4 
 
 ® «at, see Winer, p. 388 ; Fritzsche, Quaest. 
 Lue. p. 9 f. 
 
 ®° As Hofmann, Schriftbew. Tl. 1, p. 375, 
 holds, refining on 7d peodr. 7. bp., and con- 
 necting thy €x@pav with katapyyoas. 
 
 10 Vorstius, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Ro- 
 senmiiller, Meier, and others. 
 
 11 Paries intergerinus, found elsewhere 
 
CHAPS) TL, la: 383 
 
 inasmuch as they erroneously translated it as though rév ¢paypdv tod peco- 
 toiyov were used. <A reference, we may add, to a definite gpayudc, which 
 underlies the figurative expression, is not to be assumed, since the words 
 furnish nothing of the sort, and any kind of fence serving as a partition- 
 wall illustrates the éy3pa. Some have thought of the stone screen which in 
 the temple-enclosure marked off the court of the Gentiles, and the inscrip- 
 tion of which forbade every Gentile from farther advance.’ But at most 
 this could only be assumed, without arbitrariness, if that screen had 
 statedly borne the name of gpayuéc. Other references, still more foreign to 
 the matter, which have been introduced, such as to the Jewish districts in 
 large towns, which were marked off by a wall or otherwise,? may be seen in 
 Wolf. Among the Rabbins, too, the figure of a fence is in very frequent 
 use. See Buxtorf, s.v. 10.—A2tcac] in the sense of throwing down,° 
 belongs to the figure, and is not chosen on account of the r#v éySpav, which 
 does not come in till afterwards, although it would be chosen switably there- 
 to.1—It has been wrongly designated as an un-Pauline idea, that Christ 
 through His death should have united the Jews and Gentiles by means of 
 the abolition of the law.®° This union has in fact taken place as a raising of 
 both into a higher unity, vv. 16, 18, 21 f. ; hence that doctrinal principle 
 is sufficiently explained from the destination of Paul as the apostle to the 
 Gentiles and his personal experience, and from his own elsewhere attested 
 universalism, and need not have as a presupposition the post-apostolic 
 process of development on the part of the church gradually gathering itself 
 out of heterogeneous elements into a unity, so as to betray a later ‘‘ cathol- 
 icizing tendency.” * 
 
 Ver. 15. Tjv éySpav] This, still included in dependence upon 2icac, is 
 now the yeodro.yov broken down by Christ : (namely) the enmity. Itis, 
 after the example of Theodoret,* understood by the majority * of the Mosaic 
 law asthe cause of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, in which case the 
 moral law is by some included, by others excluded. But, in accordance 
 with ver. 14, the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of eipfrn, 
 7.é., to the abstract enmity ; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the 
 law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as 
 means from end). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the 
 word itself and with the context, is: the enmity which existed between Jews and 
 the Gentiles, comp. ver. 16. So Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Cornelius & La- 
 pide, Bengel, and others, including Riickert and Bleek ; while Hofmann 
 turns the notion of éy3pa into the mere araddotpiwose of ver. 12, and, refer- 
 
 only in Eratosthenes quoted by Athen. vii. 3 Wetstein, ad Joh. ii. 19. 
 p. 281 D, in Hesychius under «arqAus, and in 4 See Wetstein én loc. 
 the Fathers. In Athen. Z.c. it is masculine: 5 See Schwegler, /.c. p. 889 f. 
 Tov THs Noovys Kat apeTHs mecoToLxov. 6 Baur. 
 1 Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2.4; Antt. viii. 7 Comp. teves in Chrysostom. 
 3. 2f., xv. 11.5, al.; Middoth, ii. 8. So An- 8 Including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clari- 
 
 selm, Ludoy. Cappellus, Hammond, Bengel, us, Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, 
 Wetstein, Krebs, Bretschneider, Holzhau- Flatt, Meier, MHolzhausen, Baumgarten- 
 sen. and others. Crusius, de Wette. 
 
 2 Schottgen and others. 
 
384 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 
 
 ring it to the estrangement on the part of the Gentiles towards the theocra- 
 cy hated by them, removes the distinctive mark of reciprocity demanded 
 by the context. Quite erroneously, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumen- 
 ius, and lately Harless, hold that the enmity of the Jews and Gentiles 
 towards God is meant. In accordance with the context, ver. 14, the peod- 
 rotyov can, in fact, only be one separating the Jews and Gentiles from 
 each other, and not something which separates both jrom God; and how 
 mistaken is such a view also on account of what follows ! for the Mosaic 
 law might be conceived of as producing enmity towards God so far doubt- 
 less as the Jews are concerned (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; Rom. vy. 20, vii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 
 19), but never as respects the Gentiles, who stood aloof from all relation to 
 the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12). [See Note XXIV., p. 401.] — év rH capxi airov] 
 does not belong to ryv éypav (as Lachmann [and Westcott and Hort] also 
 punctuates it) so that ‘‘ the national hatred in His people” would be meant ;? 
 nor yet to 2t%cac,* because in that case this mention of the death of Jesus 
 would be irrelevantly dissevered fromthe modal definition rév véuov katapyq- 
 cac, to which, in the nature of the case, it belongs as an essential element ; 
 but it stands with an emphasis suitable to the context (comp. avroc yap, ver. 
 14) at the head of the specification that now follows, in what way Christ has 
 effected what was said in ver. 14 by airic yap éorw . . . eydpav : so that He 
 by His flesh has done away with the law, namely, when He allowed His flesh 
 to be crucified (Col. i. 21 f.), dissolved thereby the tie with the law that 
 brought men under curse (see on Gal. iii. 13), and thus opened up the justi- 
 fication through faith (Rom. iii. 21 ff.), whereby the institution of the law was 
 emptied of its binding power (comp. Rom. x. 4 ff. vii. 1 ff.; Col. 17.14). The 
 moral commands also of the law had thereby, while not ceasing to be valid, 
 ceased to be held as constituent elements of the law-institute as such justifying 
 in the way of compliance with it ; and its fulfilment, and that in augmented 
 power, now proceeds from the new vital principle of faith (Rom. vill. 4), 
 on which account Christ, although He is the end of the law (Rom. x. 4; 
 comp. 2 Cor. ili. 11), could nevertheless say that He had come ‘to fulfil the 
 law (Matt. v. 17), and Paul could assert : véuov iorauev, Rom. ii. 31. Hof- 
 mann imports into the év rj capi airov the thought : in and with the doing 
 away of His life in the flesh, in respect of which He was an Israelite, Christ 
 has rendered the appertaining to His community independent of the relig- 
 ious-legal status of an Israelite. As though the atoning death of Christ, in the 
 usual dogmatic sense of the apostle, had not been most distinctly indicated al- 
 ready before by the év r¢ ainate rod Xpiotov, ver. 18, as afterwards by the azox- 
 ara2Aagy k.T.A., ver. 16, and by the zpocaywyf, ver. 18! This meaning is not 
 here, any more than at Col. i. 21 f., to be exegetically modified or explained 
 away. — Tov évtoAav év déyuant| to be taken together, yet not in such a way that 
 év stands for oy * or xai,* but as : thelaw of the commandments consisting in 
 injunctions, whereby the dictatorial character of the legal institute (as a 
 whole, not merely partially, as Schenkel imports) is exhibited, The geni- 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Schulthess, Riickert, and others. 
 Engelwelt, p. 193. 3 Flatt. 
 
 *Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, 4 Koppe, Rosenmiiller. 
 
CHAP Mtl. Lo, 385 
 tive tév évtoAdv denotes the contents of the law, and éy déywac the essential 
 form in which the évrodai are given. The connecting link of the article 
 (rav) before év déyuaor was not requisite, since we may correctly say : évré2- 
 AcoVal ri év Séypwate Or éevroAny diddvae év déyuari, and therefore évroAyy év déypate 
 may be conjoined so as to form one conception.’ Comp. oniii. 13; Rom. vi. 4; 
 Gal. iv. 14, iii. 26. This view of the connection is adopted, after the precedent 
 of many older expositors, by Riickert, Matthies, Meier, Winer, pp. 123, 197, 
 Bisping, Schenkel, Bleek [Ewald, Opitz, Weiss, Bibl. Theol.].? If one 
 should 2 refer év déyu. to katapyhoac, there would result—even apart from the 
 fact that with our mode of connecting év 77 capxi airot, this construction is 
 not even possible—the wholly untrue and un-Pauline thought that Christ 
 has through injunctions abolished the law. No doubt some have imputed to 
 év dédyuact the sense praecepta stabiliendo, ‘‘ by establishing the precept,” 4 in 
 doing which they had in view the evangelical doctrine of faith and the gra- 
 tia universalis.® But even thus the sense remains untrue and un-Pauline, 
 seeing that the doing away of the law has taken place not at all in a doctri- 
 nal way, but by the fact of the death of Christ (Rom. vii. 1 f.; Gal. ili. 13 ; 
 Col. ii. 14). And what a change would be made in the meaning of the 
 word déyua, which in the N. T. signifies throughout nothing else than in- 
 junction (Col. ii. 4 ; Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7, xvi. 4; comp. Plat. Legg. i. 
 p. 644 D ; Xen. Anad. iii. 3. 5, vi. 6. 8 ; Dem. 774. 19 ; Herodian, i. 7. 6 ; 
 4 Mace. iv. 23 f.) ! The distinction ought not to have been overlooked be- 
 tween évroAy# and déyua, which latter puts the meaning of the former into the 
 more definite form of the enjoining decree. A peculiar view is taken by 
 Harless® likewise connecting év déyu. with catapyjoac, and holding that év 
 denotes the ‘‘side on which that efficacy of the death of Christ exerts it- 
 self ;’ Christ did not render the law ineffectual in any such capacity as 
 okay TOV peAAdvToV, OY AS Taidaywydv sic Xpiordv, ‘‘a shadow of things to 
 come,” or ‘‘as a schoolmaster unto Christ,” but on the side of the ddyuara." 
 Incorrectly, because déyuacc must of necessity have had the article, and be- 
 cause it is nowhere taught that the law is done away only in a single respect. 
 
 1 There is consequently no need whatever 
 for the evasive view of Theile (in Winer’s 
 Fxeget. Stud. I. p. 188 ff.), which is arbitrary 
 and makes the meaning of the expression 
 simply ambiguous, that Paul has not added 
 the article, because ev ddyn. is to be con- 
 ceived of in the like relation to Tov vouor as 
 to t&v évTodAay. 
 
 2 Several of the older expositors, never- 
 theless, explained: legem mandatorum in 
 decretis sitam, ‘the law of commandments 
 fixed in decrees”’ (Erasmus, comp. Castalio, 
 Beza, Calvin, and others), so that they con- 
 nected év doyu. with tov voxov. But in that 
 case rov must of necessity have stood before 
 ev Soyuz. And to excuse the absence of the 
 article ‘Sob congeriem articulorum,” ‘‘ on ac- 
 eount of the accumulation of articles” 
 (Erasmus), is arbitrary. How often have 
 
 25 
 
 classical writers accumulated articles! 
 Plato, Philed. p. 33 A; Dem. Ol. iii. 11, and 
 many others. They avoid only the coming 
 together of the same article, ¢.g. 76 76 (Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Rep. pp. 332 C, 598 B). 
 Comp. also Buttmann, newt. Cr. p. 80 [E. T. 
 92]. 
 
 3 With the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, Pe- 
 lagius, Chrysostom, and his successors, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Estius, 
 Bengel, Holzhausen, and others, including 
 Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. ii. p. 168 f. 
 
 4 Fritzsche. 
 
 5 See Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsues- 
 tia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Ben- 
 gel, and others. 
 
 ® Followed by Olshausen. 
 
 7**In reference to the commanding form 
 of its precepts,”? Olshausen, 
 
386 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 The Mosaic legal institute as swch, and not merely from a certain side, has in 
 Christ its end (Rom. x. 4); the cma tov peddrdvrov, ‘shadow of things to 
 come,” in the law has only a transient typical destination (see on Col. ii. 17), 
 and the work of the ra:daywyédc, ‘‘ schoolmaster,” is at an end with the at- 
 tainment of maturity on the part of his pupils (Gal. iii. 24 f.).- Incorrect 
 also is the view of Hofmann, p. 377, who, likewise taking év déyyao. as mo- 
 dal definition to xarapyfoac, and for the expression with év comparing 1 Cor. 
 ii. 7, finds the meaning : by the very fact that Christ has put an end to pre- 
 cepts generally, He has invalidated the O. T. law of commandments. The 
 statement that Christ has put an end to déyyata generally, i.e., to commanding 
 precepts in general, is at variance with the whole N. T., which contains num- 
 berless definite commands, and, in particular, with the teaching of Paul, 
 who even places Christianity as a whole under the point of view, Rom. iii. 
 27, ix. 31, Gal. vi. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 21, of a véuo¢ (which, without déyyara, is 
 not at all conceivable '), and specially with Col. ii. 14. Paul would at least 
 have made a limiting addition to éy déyyaor, and have written something 
 like év déyuaoe dovreiag (comp. Rom. vili. 15 ; Gal. iv. 24, v. 1). —iva rode 
 dio... eiphvnv| a statement of the object aimed at in the just expressed ab- 
 rogation of the law, which statement of aim corresponds to what has been 
 said concerning Christ in ver. 14, more precisely defining and confirming 
 the same. MHarless arbitrarily passes over what immediately precedes, and 
 holds that iva. . . eipfvyv expresses the design of 6 roujoac Ta auddrepa Ev, In 
 which case too, we may add, there would result a tautological relation of 
 the thought. — rov¢ dio] The Jews and Gentiles, who before were designated 
 in accordance with the general category under a neuter form, are here con- 
 ceived of concretely as the two men under discussion, of whom the one is the 
 totality of the Jews, and the other that of the Gentiles, out of which two 
 men Christ has made a single new man. This is the collective subject of 
 the kaw xricwc, Gal. vi. 15 (the whole body of Christians). — éy éavr@] is 
 neither, with Grotius, to be taken as: per doctrinam suam, ‘‘ by his doc- 
 trine,” nor, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, as equivalent to dv 
 favrov, ‘‘ by himself,” ? but it affirms that the unity to be brought about out 
 of the two by the new creation was to be founded in Christ Himself, that is, 
 was to have the basis of its existence and continuance in Him, and not in 
 any other unifying principle whatever. In the case, namely, of all individ- 
 uals, from among the Jews and Gentiles, who form the one new man, the 
 death of Christ is that, wherein this new unity has its causal basis ; without 
 the death of the cross it would not exist, but, on the contrary, the two 
 would still be just in the old duality and separation as the Jew and the 
 Greek. Calvin well remarks that in se ipso, ‘‘in himself,” is added ‘‘ne al- 
 ibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant,” ‘that they should not seek unity 
 elsewhere than in Christ.” Comp. Gal. iii. 28. [See Note XXV., p. 401.] 
 This union, negatively conditioned by the abolition of the law, and having 
 its basis in the self-sacrifice of Christ, is positively accomplished as regards 
 
 1 The éd6yuara of Christianity are the true 2 Oecumenius : ov dc’ ayyeAwy H G@AAwY TLVOY 
 
 det mapovta Soynata, ‘‘ always present de- dvvanewrv, ‘neither through angels nor any 
 crees,’’ Plato, 7heaet. p. 158 D. other powers.” 
 
CHAP. II., 16. 387 
 
 the subjects through the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 18. Comp. subsequently ver. 18. 
 But objectively accomplished—namely, as a fact before God and apart from 
 the subjective appropriation by means of the Spirit—it is already by virtue 
 of the death, which Christ has undergone for the reconciliation of both par- 
 ties, Jews and Gentiles, with God; see ver. 16. —xaw6v] For this one is now 
 neither Jew nor Greek, which the two, out of which the one has been made, 
 previously were; but both portions have laid aside their former religious and 
 moral attitude, and without further distinction have obtained the quite new 
 nature conditioned by Christian faith. Is xawév had not been added, ei¢ 
 avdpwroc might be incorrectly conceived of as an amalgam of Jew and 
 Gentile. To exclude, we may add, from xawvév the moral element’ is not 
 merely arbitrary, but, according to the apostolic way of looking at mat- 
 ters, even impossible, 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. iv. 27, vi. 14 f., v. 6. — roy 
 eipivyv| Present participle, because the establishment of peace as what was 
 duly to set in with the designed new creation, was implied in the very scope 
 thereof ; it was that which was to be brought about in and with it. Observe 
 that rocdv eipfvyv is spoken from the standpoint of the design expressed in 
 iva Tovc dbo x.t.A., and is included as belonging to what is designed ; conse- 
 quently : so that He (by this new creation) makes peace (not made peace). 
 elpyvy is, in accordance with the context, the opposite of éySpa, ver. 15, 
 consequently peace of the two portions with each other, not : with God,?* 
 nor: mpdc Tov Oedv Kai Tpd¢ aArAHrove, ‘‘ with God and with one another.” * 
 
 Ver. 16. Continuation of the sentence expressive of the design. Christ 
 has by His death done away with the law, in order to make the Jew and 
 the Gentile into one new man (ver. 15), and (and consequently) so to accom- 
 plish the reconciliation of both with God, that they should as one body be recon- 
 ciled with God through the cross, after He has slain thereon the enmity which 
 hitherto existed between them. —«ai| is the and of the sequence of thought ; 
 from what was before said resulted the way and manner of the reconciliation 
 of the two with God ; hence also azoxaradi. is prefixed. — aroxaradidcow, 
 only here and Col. i. 20 ; in the other Greek writings only xara2?.dcow is pre- 
 served, which is not distinguished from diaAAdoow.* The composition with 
 arxé may, after the analogy of other compounds with azé (comp. aroKavi- 
 orn, aroxatoptdu, al.), denote again ;*® but it may also (comp. azodavudta, 
 arovepareta, al.), strengthen the notion of the reconciliation. The latter is 
 better adapted to the context (év évi céuat: ; and see ver. 18). In oppo- 
 sition to Hofmann’s conversion of the notion into that of the restoration 
 of fellowship with God, see on Col. i. 20. We may add that droxaraaA does 
 not apply to the mutual reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles,® but, as the ex- 
 press r@ OeG says (Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20), to the reconciliation of 
 both with God, whose wrath, namely, against sinners Christ has by His 
 
 1 Meier, comp. Riickert. “He brought again into one flock,” also 
 
 2 Harless. Harless [and Cremer, Worterbuch]. 
 
 § Chrysostom, Oecumenius. 6 Grotius, according to whom 7 @e@ is 
 
 ¢ In opposition to Tittmann, Synon. p. 101; then equivalent to wt Deo serviant / “that 
 see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff. they may serve God.” 
 
 5 Calvin: ‘‘ reduxerit in unum gregem,”’ 
 
388 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 iAaorhprov changed into grace. Comp. on Col. i. 21; 2 Cor. v. 18; Rom. 
 v. 10. — rode audorépove] not again tovc dio, because they are now conceived 
 as united, comp. vv. 14, 18. —év évi céuatc] is held by Chrysostom, Theo- 
 doret, Theophylact, Beza, Calovius, Calixtus, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Harless, Hofmann, Lechler, and others, 
 to be the body of Christ ; by the offering up of one body both are recon- 
 ciled with God. But how superfluous in that case would the d:a rot oravpot be! 
 Moreover, Christ is in fact the subject, and how could it be said of Christ 
 that by a single body He has reconciled both with God, or—as Hofmann 
 gives to the meaning a turn quite departing from the N. T. and especially 
 the Pauline doctrine of atonement—that He has made a single body (His 
 body, namely) to be their unity embracing them in the like fellowship of 
 God,’ since in fact the case of a plurality of bodies on the part of Christ was 
 not even as an abstraction conceivable ? This inappropriateness, hardly 
 excusable by the reference to rob¢ audorépove and not removed by the pure 
 invention of a contrast to the many bodies offered up under the O. T.,* 
 would only cease to be felt, if God were the subject, so that Paul might say 
 that God had by the surrender of.one body reconciled the two (2 Cor. v. 18 ; 
 Col. i. 21) with Himself. Hence Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, Photius, Anselm, 
 Erasmus, Bucer, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Grotius, 
 Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, de Wette, Winer, Bleek, have rightly found in é» céua the 
 unum corpus, ‘‘one body,” which is formed of the Jews and Gentiles united 
 into a cic Kawwde avIpuroc. Comp. on év cua, Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. x. 17; 
 Eph. iv. 4; Col. iii. 15. Christ has reconciled the two in one body, i.e., 
 constituting one body without further separation—the two portions of 
 humanity as one whole—unto God. How entirely is this mode of taking it 
 in keeping with the whole context ! See especially vv. 14, 15. — droxreivac 
 thy ExSpav év aiza] after he shall have slain, ete. ; for it is inserted in the 
 second half of the affirmation of design which begins with the iva of ver. 15, 
 so that it is correlative to the roy eiphyyv of the first half. 
 Grotius correctly observes : ‘‘idem hic valet, quod modo jicac, sed crucis 
 facta mentione, aptior fuit translatio verbi azoxteivac, quia crux mortem 
 adfert,” ‘‘ Here the same applies as above to Atoac, but when mention of 
 the cross is made, the use of the word dzoxteivac is more fitting, because 
 the cross brings death.” And the éy%pa (here personified) is not to be ex- 
 
 On aroxr. 
 
 1 Hofmann, after Tertull. c. Marc. v. 1%, 
 attaches it to the following amoxr., by 
 which, however, the emphasis that mani- 
 
 aroxt., and to refer back év ait to the &v 
 o®ua, The simply correct rendering is giv- 
 en, é.g., in the version of Castalio: “wt in 
 
 festly lies on amoxr. is pushed forward to 
 Sa TOU oTavpod. 
 
 2 “*Tn His person subsists the newness of 
 human nature for them, and in His body, 
 wherein [as a bodilyliving man] Hehas gone 
 unto God, they have the place where man- 
 kind is restored to communion with God,” 
 Hofmann, p. 380. With this explaining 
 away of the atonement it was no doubt 
 consistent to connect 6a tod cravpod with 
 
 sese ex Quobus conderet unum novum hominem 
 Faciendo pacem, et ambos uno in corpore rec- 
 onciliaret Deo per erucem peremtis in ea inim- 
 icitiis,” ‘that in Himself He might produce 
 one new man by making peace, and that 
 He might reconcile both in one body to God 
 by means of the cross, the enmity being re- 
 moved in it.” 
 
 3 Calovius. 
 
GHAR, Wey life 389 
 
 plained otherwise than in ver. 14 ; hence not the Jaw,’ nor the hostile rela- 
 tion of the Jews and Gentiles towards God,* but the enmity of the two 
 towards each other. The aim of the apostle was not to explain the nature of 
 the atonement in general as such, but to show how Christ has reconciled 
 with God the Jews and Gentiles combined into unity, and to this end it was 
 pertinent to say that He had cancelled the enmity which had hitherto sub- 
 sisted between them. The aorist participle, we may add, affirms not some- 
 thing simultaneous with azoxataAd. (ita ut interficeret, ‘so that he might 
 slay,” but something preceding (after that He has slain), so that the relation 
 of time is conceived of otherwise than in the case of the correlative ro:av 
 eipivyv, ver. 15. Paul, namely, has conceived the matter thus : Christ has 
 desired by His death on the cross to cancel the mutual enmity between 
 Jews and Gentiles (see on ver. 15), and then by means of this death to rec- 
 oncile both, who should now in this manner be united into one aggregate, 
 év évi cOuate With God. In reality these are indeed only different sides of 
 the effect of the death of Christ on the cross, not separate and successive 
 effects ; but in the representation unfolding the subject, in which Paul will 
 here, as in a picture, set the matter before us in its various elements, they 
 appear so, and this isin keeping with the whole solemn pathos which is 
 shed over the passage. — év air@] 7.€., on the cross. The reference to cauari® 
 falls with the correct explanation of év év? céuatr. The reading év éavtd 
 (F G, 115, codd. in Jer. Arab. pol. Vulg. It. Goth. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug.) 
 would yield the same sense as that reference to céuat:, but isa conformation 
 to ver. 15, in accordance with which Luther also translated ‘‘ through Him- 
 self.” 
 
 Ver. 17. After Christ has established peace, He has come and has also 
 proclaimed it, to the Gentiles and the Jews. This proclamation, namely, 
 cannot be regarded as preceding the fact by which the peace was established, 
 so that é406v would apply to the bodily advent of Christ upon earth,* and the 
 connection with ver. 14 would be: ‘‘ Christ is peace in deed (ver. 14) and 
 word (ver. 17) ; He not only ts peace, but He proclaimed it Himself at His 
 appearing on earth,” Harless. For, when it is said in ver. 14, aitd¢ yap éorw 
 7 eipyvn jjuav, the time thought of is, as vv. 14-16 show, the time after the 
 crucifixion of Christ, through which and since which He is our peace, so 
 that cai éAdav «.7.2. does not merely attach itself to atric yap éorw 7% eipivy 
 qjua@v and leave all that intervenes out of view ; but, on the contrary, this 
 intervening matter is so essentially bound up with airéc y. é. 7 eip. ju., that 
 now «ai éAVOv «.7.A. can introduce not a zpérepov, but only a torepov of the 
 crucifixion, annexing as it does the further course of the matter. Rightly, 
 therefore, most expositors have understood in éadév an advent following the 
 crucifixion of Christ, in connection with which either the resurrection of 
 Christ has been thought of,®° or His having come in His spirit,® or in the 
 
 1 Michaelis, Koppe, Holzhausen. 4 Chrysostom, Anselm, Estius, Holzhau- 
 2 Most expositors, including Riickert, sen, Matthies, Harless. 
 
 Meier, Harless, Hofmann. 5 Bengel, Riickert. 
 3 Bengel, Semler, Hofmann, following § Olshausen. 
 
 Tertullian. 
 
390 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 preaching that took place through the apostles (so most), in which latter 
 view 2a3évis wrongly by many, as Raphel, Grotius, Wolf, Zachariae, Koppe, 
 Rosenmiiller,! regarded as without significance ; it is in truth an ‘‘insigne 
 verbum,” ‘‘a remarkable word,” Bengel. The correct explanation (comp. 
 ver. 18) is given by Olshausen.? In the Holy Spirit, namely, not only ac- 
 cording to John (John xiv. 18, al.), but also according to Paul, Christ Him- 
 self has come (in so far as it is Christ's Spirit) from heaven to those who 
 have received the Spirit, and dwells and rules in them (Rom. viii. 9, 10; 
 2 Cor. iii. 17, xiii. 5 ; Gal. ii. 20), and this proclamation has taken place at 
 the instance of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), and through the Spirit Himself 
 (Rom. xv-18; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3). The point of time expressed by 
 ebjyyeaicaro is the conversion of the persons concerned, at which they received 
 the Spirit (Gal. iii. 2; Eph. i. 13). Accordingly, the apostle could, with- 
 out writing at variance with history, name first the readers as original 
 Gentiles (juiv roic paxpév), and then the Jews ; for when the Ephesians 
 became Christians, there had already long since been converted not merely 
 Jews, but Gentiles and Jews. Had he, on the other hand, meant the actual 
 coming of Christ upon earth and His oral preaching, the historical necessity 
 would have presented itself of mentioning jirst those that were near and 
 then tl.ose that were afar off. — We may add that the conerete and vividly 
 depicting expression é20dv ebyyy. can the less occasion surprise, as the 
 whole passage bearsa pathetic impress. Comp. also Acts xxvi. 23. — elpqvyy 
 has been, from the time of Chrysostom, ordinarily explained of peace with 
 God, while only a few, as Estius and Koppe, suppose peace with each other 
 to be included ; but Olshausen rightly understands the latter alone, as does 
 also Bleek. Only this is in keeping with the whole connection (see, more- 
 over, the immediately preceding azoxr. tiv éy8pav, and comp. ver. 19), and, 
 moreover, has ver. 18 not against it, but in its favor (see on ver. 18).— 
 huiv toi¢ waxpav and roic éyyi'¢] (both to be explained in accordance with ver. 
 12, and comp. Isa. lvii. 19) are dependent on einyyedicaro,—the view which 
 immediately and most naturally suggests itself. Harless would attach both 
 very closely to eip#v_v,—a course to which he was impelled by his explana- 
 tion of éAvdv eiyyy., in order not to present the apostle as saying what is in- 
 consistent with history (Matt. xv. 24, comp. x. 5 f. ; John x. 16; Matt. 
 xxi. 48, a/.). But the inconsistency with history would still remain.*—The 
 repetition of eipfivnv (see the critical remarks) has rhetorical emphasis, John 
 xiv. 27; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]. This éxyovg of the expres- 
 sion, however,‘ excludes the view of Wieseler, p. 444, that roic éyyi¢ also is 
 in apposition to iuiv, and means specially the Jewish-Christians in Hphesus. 
 
 1 Comp. Meier. 
 
 2Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and de 
 Wette, also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 
 p. 475, and Bleek. 
 
 3 Tf Paul had understood éA8. evyyy. in the 
 sense of Harless, he must at all events have 
 written eip. rots éyyds Kk. eip. Duty Tols waxpar. 
 Harless himself has paraphrased (comp. 
 Erasm. Paraphr.): “‘The contents of his 
 
 message was a peace which availed for all, 
 Jews as well as Gentiles.” Evidently under 
 an involuntary sense of the historical rela- 
 tion, but in opposition to the words, ac- 
 cording to which Harless ought to have par- 
 aphrased ; “availed for all, Gentiles as well 
 as Jews.’ 
 4 Nigelsbach on Hom. J1/. i. 436. 
 
CHAP MET. .18: 19: a91 
 
 Ver. 18. Proof from an appeal to fact for what has just been said : einyy. 
 elphvav buiv Tt. paKkp. kK. eip. Toic éyyic. In this case the main stress of the 
 proof lies in oi dudérepor év évi rveiu. Tf, namely, through Christ, both in 
 One Spirit have the xpocaywy# to the Father, to both must the same news, 
 that of peace, have been imparted by Him. This is the necessary historic 
 premiss of that happy state of unity now actually subsistent through Christ. 
 He must have proclaimed eipyvy to the one as to the other ; of this Paul now 
 gives the probatio ab effectu, ‘‘ proof from the effect.” Others hold that érz 
 introduces the contents of the message of peace.’ But the contents are fully 
 expressed in the eip#vy itself, agreeably to the context ; hence, too, we may 
 not say, with Riickert, that the essence of the eipivy is explained. Accord- 
 ing to Harless, the truth of that proclamation is shown from the reality of the 
 possession. But in this way a subsidiary thought (namely, that the procla- 
 mation was ¢rue) is introduced not merely arbitrarily, but also unsuitably (for 
 the truth of that which has been proclaimed was self-evident). — rj xpo- 
 caywynv| Christ is not conceived of as door,* which is remote from the con- 
 text, but as bringer ; in which case there may be an allusion to the Oriental 
 custom of getting access to the king only through a xpocaywyei¢ (see on 
 Rom. v. 2), but not to sacrificial processions in accordance with Herod. ii. 58, 
 which would be an unsuitable comparison. Before’ Christ had tecenciled 
 men with God, communion with God was, on account of the wrath of God 
 (ver. 3; Rom. v. 10), denied to them ; Christ by His itaorf#piov removed 
 this obstacle, and thus became the rpocaywyetc, through the mediation of 
 whom (6: avrowv) we now and henceforth have the bringing near* unto God. In 
 substance the having the zpocaywy7 to God is not different from the cipiyy 
 mpoc Tov Oedv (Rom. v. 1), and from the filial relationship of the reconciled. It 
 is the consequence of the atoning death of Jesus; the peaceful relation of 
 believers towards God, brought about through this death. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 
 18. Here, moreover, as at Rom. v. 2, the notion of bringing towards, which 
 the world has, is not to be interchanged with that of approach or access,° 
 as though zpécodov were written in the text. Christ by the continuous 
 power and eflicacy of His atoning act is the constant Bringer to the Father. 
 Comp. iii. 12. —év évi rvetuati] for the Holy Spirit is to both one and the 
 same element of life (comp. on Rom. viii. 15), apart from which they can- 
 not have the zpocaywyy to God. The referring of it to the human spirit ° 
 ought to have been precluded by taking note of the Divine 7Zrias in our 
 passage (dt avrov, év él rvebtmate, mpoc Tov TaTépa); Comp. vv. 12, 22. 
 — Observe, further, the difference of meaning between the éyouev (denoting 
 the continuously present possession of the signal benefit) and the écyjxayev 
 of Rom. v. 2 (see on the latter passage). 
 
 Ver. 19. "Apa oiv] draws the inference from vy. 14-18 ; and this infer- 
 ence is the same in its tenor with what was said at ver. 18, but is car- 
 
 1 Baumgarten, Koppe, Morus, Flatt. 5 As still by Riickert, Harless, Bleek. 
 2 John x. 7; Beza, Calvin. 6 Ono8vuasdor, ‘* with one accord,’’ Anselm, 
 3 Meier. Homberg, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosen- 
 
 SeDhwe: 1. 82) Polyb. 1x. 421) xii 74 107; miiller, 
 Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 45. 
 
392 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 ried out in more detail ; for this is just what was to be proved ver. 14 
 ff., —£évor] é.e., such as are not included as belonging to the theocracy, but are 
 related towards it as strangers, who belong to another state ; the opposite is 
 cuurodira: Tov dyiov. Comp. ver. 12, The same is indicated by répocxo: : 
 inquilini,' i.e., those who, coming from elsewhere, sojourn in a land or 
 city without having the right of citizenship (Acts vii. 6, 29 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
 11).2 It is the same as is expressed in classic Greek by jérockou,? in contra- 
 distinction to the roAirye or aoréc.4 [See Note XXVI., p. 401.] The Gen- 
 tiles are in the commonwealth of God only “inquilini, sojourners, not 
 citizens ; they have no zodureia therein ; although they are ruled by God 
 (Rom. iii. 29) and included in the Messianic promise (Rom. iv, 12 f.), they 
 are so in the second place (Rom. i. 16), and without participating in the 
 time-hallowed peculiar prerogatives of the Israelites (Rom. iil. 1, ix. 4 ff). 
 The referring of rapocxo: to the conception of a household (persons pertaining 
 to the house, members of the family) is not to be made good by linguistic 
 usage (not even by Lev. xxii. 10), and is not demanded by the antithesis of 
 oikeiot Tov Ocov,® Inasmuch as oixeioe Tov Oeod sustains a climactic relation to 
 the preceding cvuroA. tov ayiwv, and the two together form the contrast to 
 févoc and xapoixot. The reference to the proselytes ° is quite at variance with 
 the context (vv. 11-13). — a/v éoré] emphatic repetition of the verb after 
 aAAad. Comp. Rom. vill. 15 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; Heb. xii. 18 ff. — cvprodirar] be- 
 longs to the inferior Greek ; Lucian, Soloec. 5 ; Ael. V. H. iii. 44 ; Joseph. 
 Antt. xix. 2. 2.7 —rév dyiwr] t.e., of those who constitute the people of 
 God. These were formerly the Jews (ver. 12), into whose place, however, 
 the Christians have entered as the ’IcpayA tov Ocov (Gal. vi. 16), as the true 
 descendants of Abraham (Rom. iv. 10 ff.) and God’s people (Rom. ix. 5 ff.), 
 acquired as His property by the work of Christ (see on ix. 14). The 
 Ephesians have thus, by becoming Christians, attained to the fellow-citizen- 
 ship with the saints,—which saints the Christians were,—so that rév 
 dyiwv does not embrace either the Jews ® or the patriarchs,’ with whom even 
 the angels have been associated." — cixeior tov Ocov| members of God’s house- 
 hold. The theocracy is thought of as a family, dwelling in a house, of 
 which God is the olixodeoméryc. 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6, x. 21; 
 1 Pet. iv. 17. Comp. WV 13, Num. xii. 7 ; Hos. viii. 1. Harless : belong- 
 ing to the house of God, as the building-stones of the house, in which God 
 dwells. But thus the following figure is anticipated, and that ina way con- 
 
 1 Among Greek writers tdapotxos has not 
 
 this signification, but is equivalent to neigh- 
 bor ; it has it, however, in the LXX. (Ex. 
 xii. 45; Lev. xxv. 6-23). Comp. maporkia, 
 Acts xiii. 17, and in the LXX.; Clem. Cor. 
 ii.15; 
 
 2 See, in general, Wetstein, ad Luc. xxiv. 
 18; Gesen. Thes. 8.v. awn. 
 
 3 Wolf, prol. Dem. Lept. p. xvi. ff.; Her- 
 mann, Staatsalterth. § 115. 
 
 4 Plat. Pol. viii. p. 563 A, al. 
 
 © In opposition to Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, 
 
 Meier, Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel. 
 
 6 Anselm, Whitby, Cornelius & Lapide, 
 Calixtus, Baumgarten. 
 
 7 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 172. 
 
 © Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, Morus. 
 
 ° Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 and others; Theodoret: ayiovs évrad@a ov 
 MOvoy Tos THS XapLTOs, GAAG Kal TOUS Ev VON@ 
 kal Tovs mpd vouov Acyet, ‘* Here by saints he 
 refers not only to those of grace, but also to 
 those of the law and before the law.” 
 
 10 Calvin, Flatt. 
 
CHAP, 11s,20: 393 
 
 trary to the meaning of oixezoc ; and an incongruous contrast is afforded to 
 the méporxor. 
 
 Ver. 20. The conception oixoc Oeot leads the apostle, in keeping with the 
 many-sided versatility of his association of ideas, to make the transition 
 from the figure of a household-fellowship, to the figure of a house-structure, 
 and accordingly to give to oixeioc Tov Oeov a further illustration, which now is 
 no longer appropriate to the former figurative conception, but only to the 
 latter, which, however, was not yet expressed in oixeioe rou Ocov. Comp. 
 Col. ii. 6, 7. —éroxodoundévtec] namely, when ye became Christians. The 
 compound does not stand for the simple term,' but denotes the building wp. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14; Col. ii. 7; Xen. Hist. vi. 5. 12 ; Dem. 1278. 
 27. éni, with the dative, however,’ is not here occasioned by the aorist par- 
 ticiple,* which would not have hindered the use either of the genitive * or of 
 the accusative (1 Cor. iii. 12; Rom. xv. 20) ; but the accusative is not em- 
 ployed, because Paul has not in his mind the relation of direction, and it is 
 purely accidental that not the genitive of rest, but the dative of rest is em- 
 ployed. [See Note XXVII., p. 402. ] — rév azoar. x. rpod. | is taken by Chry- 
 sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Morus, and others, in- 
 cluding Meier, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, as genitive of 
 apposition ; but wrongly, since the apostles and prophets are not the foun- 
 dation, but have Jaid it (1 Cor. iii. 10). The foundation laid by the apostles 
 and prophets*® is the gospel of Christ, which they have proclaimed, and by 
 which they have established the churches ; see on 1 Cor. iii. 10. ‘‘ Tes- 
 timonium apost. et proph. substructum est fidei credentium omnium,” 
 ““The testimony of the apostles and prophets is the support of the faith 
 of all believers,” Bengel. — xpogyrév] has been understood by Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Oecumenius, Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, 
 Baumgarten, Michaelis, and others, including Riickert, of the Old Tes- 
 tament prophets. That not these, however, but the New Testament proph- 
 ets (see on 1 Cor. xii. 10), are intended,® is clear, not indeed from the 
 non-repetition of the article, since the apostles and prophets might be 
 conceived as one class,’ but (1) from the very order of the words," 
 which, especially from the pen of an apostle, would most naturally 
 have been rav rpodytav x. arocréAwy ; (2) from the analogy of iil. 5, iv. 11 ; 
 and (3) from the fact that the foundation-laying in question can, from 
 the nature of the case, only be the preaching of the Christ who has come, 
 because upon this foundation the establishment of the church took 
 
 1 Koppe. 7 Xen. Anabd. ii. 2.5: ot ctpatnyot kat Aoxa- 
 2 Comp. Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 11. yoc; comp. Saupp. ad Xen. Venat. v. 24; 
 3 Harless. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 373. 
 
 4 Hom. JU. xxii. 225; Plato, Legg. v. p. 736 E. 
 
 5 As most expositors, including Koppe, 
 Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Harless, Bleek, 
 correctly take it. 
 
 6 Pelagius, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, 
 Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
 Harless, Meier, Matthies, Olshausen, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek. 
 
 8 This has been very arbitrarily explained 
 by the assertion that the apostles preached 
 the gospel immediately, that they possessed 
 the greater endowment of grace, that the 
 foundation had been no vrecens positum, 
 “not been one recently fixed,” and such 
 like. See specially Calovius and Estius, 
 
394 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 place, and in that preaching the old prophetic predictions were used only 
 as means (Rom. xvi. 26). Comp. also ver. 21. [See Note XXVIII, p. 402.] 
 Harless supposes that the apostles are here called at the same time prophets.? 
 In this way, no doubt, the objection of Riickert is obviated, that, im fact, 
 the prophets themselves would have come to Christianity only by means 
 of the apostles, and would themselves have stood only on the Sepédioc tov 
 arooréawv ; but (a) from the non-repetition of the article there by no means 
 follows the unity of the persons (see above), but only the unity of the cate- 
 gory, under which the two are thought of. (0) There may be urged against 
 it the analogy of iv. 11, as well as that in the whole N. T., where the ec- 
 clesiastical functions are already distinguished ? and prophets are mentioned, 
 apostles are not at the same time intended. It is true that the apostles had of 
 necessity to possess the gift of prophecy, but this was understood of itself, 
 and they are always called merely apostles, while simply those having re- 
 ceived the gift of prophecy, who were not at the same time apostles, are termed 
 prophets ; comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28 f. (¢) There would be no reason whatever 
 bearing on the matter in hand why the apostles should here be designated 
 specially as prophets ; nay, the contrast of Moses and the prophets, arbitrarily 
 assumed by Hofmann, would only tell against the identity (Luke xxiv. 27, 
 44; Acts xxiv. 14; Johni. 46). That objection of Riickert, however, dis- 
 appears entirely when we contemplate the prophets as the immediate and 
 principal fellow-laborers in connection with the laying of the foundation 
 done primarily by the apostles, in which character they, although them- 
 selves resting upon the Geyuédvov of the apostles, yet in turn were associated 
 with them as founders. And the more highly Paul esteems prophecy (1 Cor. 
 xiv. 1), and puts the prophets elsewhere also in the place next to the apos- 
 tles (iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 f.), with so much the more justice might he desig- 
 nate the apostles and prophets as laying the foundation of the churches ; and 
 the less are we warranted, with de Wette, in finding here traces of a disciple 
 of the apostles, who has had before him the results of the apostolic labors as 
 wellas the period of the original prophecy as concluded, or with Schwegler ° 
 and Baur (p. 438), in recognizing traces of Montanism with its new proph- 
 ets as the continuers of the apostolate. — évroc axpoy. avtov ’I. X.] wherein Je- 
 sus Christ Himself is corner-stone. On thismost essential point, without which 
 the building up in question upon the apostolic and prophetic foundation 
 would lack its uniquely distinctive character, hinges the whole completion 
 of the sublime picture, vv. 21, 22. The gospel preached by the apostles 
 and prophets is the foundation, the basis, upon which the Ephesians were 
 built up, z.e., this apostolic and prophetic gospel was preached also at Ephe- 
 sus, and the readers were thereby converted and formed into a Christian 
 
 1 So also Riickert on iii. 5, and Hofmann, 
 Schriftbew. Il. 2, p. 122. The latter adduces 
 as a reason, that pod. is no peculiar N. T. 
 designation like aréor. This, however, it 
 surely is, namely, in the N. T. sense, for 
 which the O. T. word was the most suitable 
 vehicle. Philippi also, Glaubenslehre, I. 
 p. 288, ed. 2, declares himself in fayor of 
 
 Harless. 
 
 2 This is not yet the case at Matt. xxiii. 34, 
 where rather the whole category of Christian 
 teachers is still designated by Old Testa- 
 ment names. In the parallel Luke xi. 49, 
 on the other hand, the apostles are already 
 adduced as such by name. 
 
 3 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 379. 
 
CHAP: I., 21: 395 
 community ; but the corner-stone of this building is Christ Himself, inas- 
 much, namely, as Christ, the historic, living Christ, to whom all Christian 
 belief and life have reference, as necessarily conditions through Himself the 
 existence and endurance of each Christian commonwealth, as the existence 
 and steadiness of a building are dependent on the indispensable corner-stone 
 which upholds the whole structure.’ Only as to the figure, not as to the 
 thing signified, is there a difference when Christ is here designated as the 
 corner-stone, and at 1 Cor. iii. 11 as the foundation. The identity of the 
 matter lies in rdv xeiuevov, 1 Cor. U.c. See on that passage. In the figure of 
 the corner-stone (which ‘‘ duos parietes ex diverso venientes conjungit et 
 continet,” ‘‘ joins and holds two walls coming from different directions,” 
 Estius), many have found the union of the Jews and Gentiles set forth.? But 
 this is at variance with zdoa oixod., ver. 21, according to which for every 
 Christian community, and so also for those consisting exclusively of Jewish- 
 Christians or exclusively of Gentile-Christians, Christ is the corner-stone. — 
 avtow| does not apply to rd ewediw,* for Christ is conceived of as the corner- 
 stone, not of the foundation, but of the building (ver. 21). It belongs to 
 "Ijoov Xpiorov, which with this airov is placed emphatically at the end, in 
 order then to join on by év 6 «.r.4. that which is to be further said of Christ, 
 in so far as He is Himself the corner-stone. The article airoi row’l. X. 
 might be used ; Christ would then be conceived of as already present in 
 the consciousness of the readers :* it was not necessary, however, to use it ;° 
 but the conception is : Christ Himse/f is corner-stone ;° so that Christ Him- 
 self, as respects His own unique destination in this edifice, is contradistin- 
 guished from His laborers, the apostles and prophets.—Whether, it may be 
 asked, is r6 Veuedio masculine (see on 1 Cor. iii. 10) or neuter? It tells in 
 favor of the former that, with Paul, it is at 1 Cor. ili. 11 (also 2 Tim. ii. 19) 
 decidedly masculine, but in no passage decidedly neuter (Rom. xv. 20; 
 1 Tim. vi. 19). Harless erroneously thinks that the neuter is employed by 
 the apostle only metaphorically. 
 
 Ver. 21. An elucidation to évto¢ axpoy. aitov I. X., bearing on the matter 
 in hand, and placing in yet clearer light the thought of ver. 19 f. : in whom 
 each congregation, in whom also yours (ver. 22), organically develops itself unto 
 its holy destination." —év ¢] means neither by whom,® nor upon whom,® but : 
 in whom, so that Christ (for ¢ applies neither to dxpoy., as Castalio, Estius, 
 and Koppe suppose, nor to 7 YeuveAiw, as Holzhausen would have it, but to 
 the nearest and emphatic airov ’Ijoov X.) appears as that wherein the joining 
 
 1 On akpoywrtatos, sc. AtGos, Which does not 6 Ii. vi. 450; Xen. Anabd. ii. 1. 5, Apol. 11, 
 
 occur in Greek writers, comp. LXX. Isa. 
 XXvlii. 16; Symm. Ps. exvii. 22; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 
 on the subject-matter, Matt. xxi. 42. 
 
 2 Theodoret, Menochius, Estius, Michael- 
 is, Holzhausen, Bretschneider, and others. 
 
 3 Bengel, Cramer, Koppe, Holzhausen, 
 Hofmann, IT. 2, p. 122. 
 
 4 He Himself, Christ; see Fritzsche, ad 
 Matth. p. 117. 
 
 5 In opposition to Bengel. 
 
 al. ; see Bornemann, ad Anab. i. 7. 11; Krii- 
 ger on Thue. i. 27. 8. 
 
 7 Observe the apostle’s view of the church, 
 as a whole and in its single parts, as one 
 living organism. Comp. Thiersch, die Kirche 
 im apost. Zeitalt. p. 154, 162; Ehrenfeuch- 
 ter, prakt. Theol. I. p. 55 ff. 
 
 § Castalio, Vatablus, Menochius, Morus, 
 and others, including Flatt. 
 
 ® Estius, Koppe, and others. 
 
396 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 together of the building has its common point of support (comp. i. 10).— 
 zaca oixodouh| not: the whole building,’ which would be at variance with 
 linguistic usage, and would absolutely require the reading (on that account 
 preferred by Matthies, Winer, and others) raca 7 oixodong (see the eritical 
 remarks), but : every building. The former interpretation, moreover, the 
 opposition of which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Reiche,”’ is 
 by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged to proceed from 
 the conception of the whole body of Christians to the community of the 
 readers (ver. 22), but might pass equally well from the conception ‘‘ every 
 congregation,” to the conception ‘‘also ye” (ver. 22), and thus subordi- 
 nate the particular to the general. The objection that there is only 
 one oixodouf*® is baseless, since the collective body of Christians might 
 be just as reasonably, as every congregation for itself, conceived as a 
 temple-building. The latter conception is found, as in 1 Cor. iii. 16, so also 
 here, where the former is linguistically impossible. Chrysostom, however, is 
 wrong in holding that by zaca oixod. is signified every part of the building 
 (wall, roof, etc.), since oixodoug rather denotes the aggregate of the single 
 parts of the building, the edifice, and since not a wall, a roof, etc., but only 
 the building as a whole which is thought of, can grow unto a temple. — 
 cvvapyor. | becoming framed together ; for the present participle represents the 
 edifice as still in the process of building, as indeed every community is engaged 
 in the progressive developement of its frame of Christian life until the Pa- 
 rousia (comp. on 1 Cor. iii. 15). The participle is closely connected with 
 every building, while its framing together, ¢.e., the harmonious com- 
 bination of its parts into the corresponding whole, takes place in Christ, 
 grows, etc. The compound ovvapyodoyeiv (with classical writers cvvapyudcew) 
 is met with only hereand iv. 16, but dpyodoyeiv in Philipp. Thess. 78. — aber] 
 On this form of the present, read in the N.T. only here and at Col. ii. 19, 
 but genuinely classical, see Matthiae, p. 541. — ele vadv ayiov| Final result of 
 this growth. It is not, however, to be translated : unto a holy temple, for 
 the conception of several temples was foreign to the apostle with his Jewish 
 nationality, but : unto the holy temple, in-which there was no need of the 
 article (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16). To realize the idea of the one temple—that is 
 the goal unto which every community, while its organic development of life 
 
 év@: 
 
 1 Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek. 
 
 2The admissibility of the anarthrous 
 form raca oikodouy, in the sense of ‘the 
 whole building,” cannot be at all conceded, 
 
 appears, very unsuitably, no doubt (see 
 above), to have taken it. According to 
 Hofmann, II. 2, p. 123, raca oixod. is meant 
 to signify ‘“‘ whatever becomes a constituent 
 part of a building” (thus also the Gentiles 
 
 since oixodopzy is neither a proper name, nor 
 to be regarded as equivalent to such. See 
 Winer, p. 101; Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 78 
 [E. T. 86]. In general mas in the sense of 
 whole can only be without an article, when 
 the substantive to which it belongs would 
 not need the article even without mao (Krii- 
 ger, § 50,11. 9). Hence aca oixod. can only 
 signify either every building, or else a build- 
 ing utterly. In the latter sense Chrysostom 
 
 who become Christians). As if oicoSou7 could 
 mean constituent part of a building! It sig- 
 nifies, even in Matt. xxiv. 1, Mark xiii. 1 f., 
 edifice. And as if aaa, every part of the 
 building, when in fact only ¢wo constituent 
 parts, namely Jews and Gentiles, could be 
 thought of, were in harmony with this 
 relation ! The rendering is linguistically and 
 logically incorrect. 
 3 de Wette. 
 
CHARS Teac 397 
 
 has its firm support in Christ, groweth up. — év kupim] By this not God is 
 meant, as Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, and others suppose, 
 but Christ (see the following év ©). By the majority it is connected with 
 aytov, in which case it would not have, with Beza, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, 
 Flatt, to be taken for the dative, but* would have to be explained of the 
 ayiéry¢ of the temple, having its causal ground in Christ, thus specifically Chris- 
 tian. But the holiness of the temple lies in the dwelling of God therein (see 
 ver. 22) ; it does not, therefore, jirst come into existence in Christ, but is already 
 evistent, and the church becomes in Christ that which the holy temple 7s, inas- 
 much as in this church the idea of the holy temple realizes itself. Others 
 have rightly, therefore, connected it with aife:, although év is not, with 
 Grotius, Wolf, e¢ a/., to be translated by per. In the case of every building 
 which is framed together in Christ, the growing into the holy temple takes 
 place also in Christ (as the one on whom this further development depends). 
 The being framed together and the growing up of the building to its sacred 
 destination—voth not otherwise than in the Lord. 
 
 Ver. 22. ’Ev ¢] applies to év xvpiw, and is to be explained quite like év ¢ in 
 ver. 21. The reference to vady* appears on account of the immediately pre- 
 ceding év xvpim arbitrary, and, according to the correct apprehension of zaca 
 oixod., aS well as with regard to the following ei¢ xarovxyténpiov k.T.4., impos- 
 sible. — cvvorkodoueioe | is indicative, not imperative,* against which vv. 19, 20 
 are decisive,* according to which Paul says not what the readers ought to be, 
 but what they are; hence he, at ver. 22, attaches in symmetrical relative 
 construction the relation of the readers to that which subsists in the case of 
 every Christian community, ver. 21. The compound, however, may mean 
 either : ye are built along with (the others), comp. 3 Esdr. v. 68 (cvvorkodop- 
 foopuev duiv), 80 that the church of the readers would be placed in the same 
 category with the other churches (so it is ordinarily understood) ; or: ye 
 are builded together, so that civ relates to the putting together of the single 
 parts of the building.® The latter isto be preferred, because the parallelism 
 of vv. 21 and 22 makes the attaching of different senses to the two compounds 
 cvvappoAoy. and cvvocxod. appear groundless. — ei¢ KatotkyrHpiov Tov Ocov| wnto 
 the dwelling of God, quite the same, only with a variation of expression, as 
 before ei¢ vadv dywov was (comp. Matt. xxiii. 21), and pertaining to ovvoikod. 
 The supposition of Griesbach and Knapp, that év ¢ «. i. cvvorxod. is an in- 
 terpolation, and ¢i¢ karork. «.7.A. still belongs to aie: ; as, again, the expe- 
 dient of Koppe and Riickert, that cic xaroux. rod Ocov Means, in order that a 
 dwelling of God may arise; and finally, the assertion of Harless, that xcarouk. 
 rov Ocov is not identical with the vade ayioc, but that the individual Christians 
 were so termed because God dwells in them and the whole forms a vad¢ éys0c, 
 
 1 So also de Wette, Hofmann, Bleek. 
 
 2 Calixtus, Rosenmiiller, Matthies. 
 
 3 Calvin, Meier. 
 
 4 In and of itself the relative clause would 
 not exclude the imperative (in opposition to 
 Hofmann). See, ¢.g., Soph. Qed. Col. 735 
 (@. 731): dv pyr’ oxvetre, Herod. i. 89. Comp. 
 
 the familiar oic6’ 3 Spacov, and the impera- 
 tive often standing after wore. 
 
 § Comp. Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 928 E: 
 oikiay ed cvvwKodounmevynv K. TUYNPLOTLEVY, 
 “a house well-built and put together,” 
 comp, Thue, i. 938. 3; Dio Cass. xxxix. 61. 
 
398 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 —are only different forced interpretations, resulting from the linguistically 
 unwarranted explanation of the above zaca oixodoug as the whole building. — 
 év mvetpare] receives from most expositors an adjectival turn : ‘a spiritual 
 temple, in opposition to the stone one of the Jews.”? How arbitrary gen- 
 erally in itself ! how arbitrary, in particular, not to refer év rvebuare to the 
 Holy Spirit | since we have here, exactly as in ver. 18, the juxtaposition of 
 the Divine Trias, while the context presents nothing whatever to suggest 
 the contrast with a temple of stone. Harless :? ‘‘a dwelling, which is in the 
 indwelling of the Spirit ;” and this, forsooth ! is held to mean : ‘‘ inasmuch 
 as the Spirit dwells in them, they are a dwelling of God and of Christ.” But, 
 apart from the fact that of this ‘‘ and of Christ” there is nothing whatever in the 
 text, in this way év rvebwatt, Which according to the literal sense could only be 
 the continens, ‘‘ containing,” would in fact be made the contentum! ‘ that 
 which is contained.”’ From this the very analogies, in themselves inappropriate 
 (because they are abstracta, ‘‘ abstracts”), which Harless employs : yapa év 
 mvebuartt, ayarn év rv., ‘joy in the spirit, love in the spirit,” ought to have 
 precluded him. The true view is to connect it not merely with xaroux. tov 
 Ocov, but with cvvoikodoueiobe ei¢ katouk. Tod Ocov, and év is instrumental. Ye 
 are being builded together unto the dwelling-place of God by virtue of the 
 Holy Spirit; in so far, namely, as the latter dwells in your Christian 
 congregation (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16 f.; comp. Jas. iv. 
 5), and thereby the relation of being the temple of God is brought about 
 —a relation, which without this indwelling of the Spirit would not occur, 
 and would not be possible. For the Spirit of God is related to the ideal 
 temple as the Shechinah to the actual temple, and is the conditio sine qua non 
 of the same. Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, likewise connects éy mr. 
 only with kato. 7. 0. The objections of Harless to the instrumental ren- 
 dering of év are not valid ; for (a) the circumstance that év rvebwate was 
 placed only at the end not only very naturally resulted from the parallelism 
 with ver. 21, seeing that in ver. 21 there is not contained an element corre- 
 sponding to the év rvetats, and consequently this new element is most nat- 
 urally appended at the end, but the position at the close imparts. also to the 
 év rvev. an unusual emphasis,* comp. also iii. 5 ; and (0) the suggestion that 
 mvevua, as the objective medium, must have the article, is incorrect, seeing 
 that zveiua, with or without an article (in accordance with the nature of a 
 proper noun), is the objective Holy Spirit. 
 
 Norres py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 XVI. Ver. 1. évrac vexpove. 
 
 On this view presented by Meyer, Harless remarks: ‘‘ The supposition of 
 some, that vexpé¢ here means ‘condemned to death,’ ‘liable to death,’ is en- 
 tirely arbitrary, since it has not the least foundation either in Greek or Hebrew.”’ 
 Ellicott : ‘‘ The proleptic reference to physical death, viz., ‘ certo morituri’ (Mey.) 
 
 i Riickert. 2 Comp. Meier and Matthies. 3 Kithner, If. p. 625. 
 
NOTES. 399 
 
 seems irreconcilable with the context. The rAovovoe dv év é2ée1, which seems to 
 specify God’s mercy in extending His resurrectionary power, would thus lose 
 much of its appropriateness, and the particle cai its proper ascensive force.” 
 Braune : ‘‘Spiritual death alone is spoken of, since God is the source of life 
 (Ps. xxxvi, 10), and without Him men are in the shadow of death (Matt. iv. 16 ; 
 Luke i. 79 ; Matt. viii. 22; Luke xv. 24, 32; Rom. vii. 9, 10). Hadie: ‘* With- 
 out putting any polemical pressure on the phrase, we may regard it as spiritual 
 death, not liability to death, but actual death... The epithet implies : 1. Pre- 
 vious life; 2. Insensibility; 3. Inability.” Against the remark of Cremer : ‘* Were 
 we to take vexpéc to denote religious inaction and incapability, we should vio- 
 late the connection of the passage which treats of the reception of salvation ;’’ 
 we need refer only to the entire argument of the preceding chapter that shows 
 that even man’s receptivity for grace proceeds entirely from the divine purpose 
 for his salvation. ‘‘ The Scriptures teach that man in sins is not only weak and 
 sick, but also entirely dead. As now a man who is physically dead cannot, of 
 his own powers, prepare or adapt himself to obtain again temporal life ; so the 
 man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot, of his own strength, adapt or apply 
 himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness, unless he be 
 delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin” (Formula of 
 Concord, p. 553). 
 
 XVII. Ver. 2. tov dépoc. 
 
 The discussion of this topic by Harless is very full (p. 143-161), thorough 
 and discriminating, and his conclusion, that the ajp refers to what is neither 
 earth nor heaven, is more plausible than Meyer's supposition that St. Paul 
 drew this conception from a Rabbinical source. ‘‘ Without venturing to deny 
 that the word may mysteriously intimate a near propinquity of the spirits of 
 evil, it may still be said that the limitation to the physical atmosphere (Meyer) 
 is aS precarious in doctrine as the reference to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting 
 a death-world’ (Eadie), or to the common parlance of mankind (Alford), is too 
 vague and undefined”’ (Ellicott). 
 
 XVIII. Ver. 3. réxva dvoee dpyie. 
 
 On Meyer’s discussion, see Eadie: ‘‘The same may be said of Meyer’s inter- 
 pretation, ‘through the development of natural disposition;’ for if that disposi- 
 tion was natural, its very germs must have been in us at our birth, and what 
 is that but innate depravity ?’’ As to the objection ‘‘that the word cannot refer 
 to original depravity, because it is only of actual sins that the apostle speaks 
 in the preceding clauses,” we may reply with Olshausen, that in this clause 
 actual sins are pointed out in their ultimate foundation “‘ in the inborn sinful- 
 ness of each individual by his connection with Adam.’’ Harless: ‘The @iicvc 
 of an individual thing denotes the peculiarity of its being, which is the result 
 of its being, as opposed to every accessory quality; hence gvcee eivat or roveiv Te 
 means to be and to do anything by virtue of a state, or an inclination not ac- 
 quired but inherent.” To this Alford adds: ‘If this be correct, the expression 
 will amount to an assertion on the part of the apostle of the doctrine of origi- 
 nal sin. There is from its secondary position no emphasis on gicec ; but its 
 dcectrinal force as referring to a fundamental truth otherwise known is not 
 thereby lessened. And it is not for Meyer to argue against this by assuming 
 
400 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 original sin not to be a Pauline doctrine. If the apostle asserts it here, this 
 place must stand on its own merits, not be wrested to suit an apparent precon- 
 ceived meaning of other passages . . . It would be easy to show that every one 
 of them (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8,9, v. 12, vii. 9, xi. 21; Gal. ii. 15) is consistent 
 with the doctrine here implied.” Ellicott: ‘‘It must fairly be said that the un- 
 emphatic position of géce renders it doubtful whether there is any special con- 
 trast to yapits, or any direct assertion of the doctrine of Original Sin ; but that 
 the clause contains an indirect, and, therefore, even more convincing assertion 
 of that profound truth, it seems impossible to deny.” Riddle: « The attitude 
 here taken as respects this fearful fact of a universal natural state of condemnation 
 is precisely that which the Scriptures hold towards the question of the exist- 
 ence of God: it is not proved but assumed.” To the above it may be added 
 that the interpretation of Rom. xi. 16, 21; Gal. ii. 15; 1 Cor. vii.4; Matt. 
 xviii. 2 f.; xix. 14 f., indicated by Meyer under (4) and (5), renders the regenera- 
 tion of those there mentioned impossible, since it makes of them by nature 
 the children of God, and grace is conferred already by generation. The fullest 
 treatment of this passage is in Harless, pp. 165-180. 
 
 XIX. Ver. 9. iva x.7.A. 
 
 The prima gratia of the scholastics here mentioned is thns described by 
 Melanchthon, Apology of Aug. Conf., p. 86, § 17: ‘The adversaries, not to 
 pass by Christ altogether, require a knowledge of the history concerning 
 Christ, and ascribe to Him, that He has merited for us that a habit be given, 
 or as they say prima gratia, which they understand as a habit, inclining us the 
 more readily to love God. . . They imagine that the will can love God ; but 
 nevertheless this habit stimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully,’’ 
 p. 111, § 41. ‘They err who imagine that he had merited only a prima gratia, 
 and that afterward we please God and merit eternal life by our fulfilling of the 
 law.” 
 
 XX. Ver. 10. oi¢ mpoeroiwacev 6 Oeoc. 
 
 ‘«God, before we were created in Christ, made ready for us, prearranged, pre- 
 pared a sphere of moral action, or a road, with the intent that we should walk in 
 it, and not leave it ; this sphere, this road was épy)a ayaa” (Ellicott). “ Though 
 in such works there be no merit, yet faith shows its genuineness by them. In 
 direct antagonism to the Pauline theology is the strange remark of Whitby, 
 ‘that these works of righteousness God hath prepared us to walk in are con- 
 ditions requisite to make faith saving.” ... Works cannot impart any elements 
 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 [i.e., 
 Christ’s merit.—Ed.]. Works only prove that the faith we have isa saving faith’”’ 
 (Eadie). ‘‘The Holy Ghost in the Ten Commandments shows the regenerate in 
 what good works ‘God hath before ordained that they should walk’” (Form. 
 of Concord, p. 597). ‘*The source of all good works, the apostle says, is the 
 new birth’’ (Ib.). 
 
 XXT. Ver. 11. du6. 
 
 Stier makes the ground of the dé extend still further back, and the point to 
 lie especially ‘‘in the miserable condition from which they have now been de- 
 
NOTES. 401 
 
 livered.”’ Ellicott’s suggestion that it refers “ to the declaratory portion of the 
 foregoing paragraph, vy. 1-7 (vv. 7-10 being an argumentative and explana- 
 tory addition),” harmonizes with this. Essentially the same, Eadie and Braune. 
 
 XXII. Ver. 11. i76 ti¢ Aeyouévyg mepitops. 
 
 «« The circumcision made with hands in the flesh is designated as a Aeyouévn, 
 i.e, as something not real; it is even a xararou (Phil. iii. 3), a mutilation 
 without a purpose. Circumcision has not lost any significance in itself, since it 
 has been fulfilled in a typical sense’’ (Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of N. T., I. 118). 
 
 XXIII. Ver. 12. ywpi¢ Xpicrov. 
 
 Harless, followed by Ellicott, makes the succeeding clauses explanatory of 
 what is contained in these words. Grotius, de Wette, and Hadie interpret it 
 as *‘ without the promise of Christ.’” Calovius: ‘ Destitute of faith in Christ, 
 and without His saving knowledge.’’ The true interpretation includes this, 
 but comprehends still more. For it is the absence also of that personal com- 
 munion of man with Christ which is designated as the mystical union, Gal. ii. 
 20 ; John xv. 5: Eph. iii. 17. 
 
 XXIV. Ver. 15. rv éyOpav. 
 
 The context points to the enmity of man towards God which lies back of 
 this enmity of Jew and Gentile, to which primary reference is here made 
 (Braune, Eadie). Ellicott co-ordinates the two ideas. Alford interprets it as en- 
 mity to God. Calovius and Harless regard “hatred” as standing for ‘‘ cause of 
 hatred,” pointing to the ceremonial law in the tov véuov tv évtoAdv. See Eadie 
 for examples from the classics (Tacitus V. 4, 5; Horace, Satires, I. ibe, 70) 
 Juvenal), illustrating the hatred of Gentiles to Jews ; also ‘Judaism at Rome’’ 
 by Huidekoper, § 3, New York, 1880. 
 
 XXYV. Ver. 15. iva trove dvé Krion «.T.A. 
 
 Martensen makes a striking application of this passage to the relation of the 
 individual to the Church (Chr. Ethics, I. 213): ‘‘ They” (i.e., Christians) ‘‘ are 
 all one, because only in their totality are they the new man. That is to say, 
 that the new man is not perfectly realized in any single one of them, and with- 
 out unity each of them is merely a fragment, reflecting only a single ray of 
 Christ’s image ; for only the entire church can mirror Christ’s kingdom,” 
 
 XXVI. Ver. 19. mdpockor. 
 
 The Greek metic was ‘‘at Athens a resident alien who paid a certain tax 
 but enjoyed no civic rights’ (Liddell and Scott). He was intermediate between 
 the févoc and the doréc. In Sophocles, Antigone, 852, it is applied to one whose 
 home is neither among the living nor the dead. The best illustration of the 
 condition of metics will be found in the oration of Lysias (who was himself a 
 metic) against Eratosthenes. Cf. Grote’s History of Greece, chapter Ixv. 
 Cremer defines the N. T. rapo.koc, ‘‘one who dwells in a place without the 
 rights of a home.” 
 
 26 
 
402 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 XXVII. Ver. 20. ém) ro Geperio. 
 
 Schmidt in the revised Meyer dissents, as also do Braune, Alford, and 
 Ellicott. The dative denotes a more absolute and more closely fitting relation, 
 and its use instead of the genitive is not accidental. 
 
 XXVIII. Ver. 20. rév amocréAwv Kai mpodytav. 
 
 To these arguments, Eadie adds the following : ‘‘In writing to persons who 
 had been Gentiles, whose faith in Christ rested not in old predictions realized 
 in Him, but on apostolic proclamation of His obedience and death—a reference 
 to the seers of the Hebrew nation would not have been very intelligible and 
 appropriate. To Jews with whom the apostle had ‘reasoned out of the Script- 
 ure,’ and whom he had thus convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the refer- 
 ence would have been natural and stirring ; but not so in an address to the 
 Gentile portion of the church, situated in the city of Diana.” 
 
CHAP. III. 403 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 3. éyvwpichn] Elz. Matth. Reiche have éyvdpice, in opposition to decisive 
 testimony. A more precisely defining gloss. — Ver. 5. Before érépacc Elz. has, 
 likewise against decisive testimony, év, which was attached on account of the 
 double dative. — Ver. 6. airov] after érayy. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon 
 preponderating evidence, to be deleted. — Ver. 7. éyevounv] Lachm. Tisch. 
 [Treg.] Riick. [West. and Hort] read éyevy$nv, after AB D* F G 8. With this 
 preponderant attestation the more to be preferred, in proportion to the ease 
 with which the more current form might involuntarily creep in. — 77)v dofeicar | 
 Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riick.: rij¢ dofeionc, approved also 
 by Griesb. Attested, it is true, by A BC D* FG 8, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Latin 
 Fathers ; but how readily would the genitive present itself to the mechanical 
 copyist after ver, 2! comp. ver. 8. — Ver. 8. év roic.] A BC 8, min. Copt. have 
 merely toic. So Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Rickert. Strongly 
 enough attested ; specially as the parallel in subject-matter, Gal. i. 16, offered 
 év as an addition. — The neuter 76 tAovroc is also here and at ver. 16 prepon- 
 derantly attested. — Ver. 9. tavrac] suspected by Beza, placed within brackets 
 by Lachm. But it is wanting only in A 8, two min. Cyr. Hilar. Jer. Aug. The 
 omission, at any rate too feebly attested, may have been accidental, or even 
 after év toic¢ veo intentional. — otxovoyia] Elz. has ko.vwvia, in opposition to 
 almost all the witnesses. An interpretation. — After «ricavr: Elz. has dca "Ijaov 
 Xpiorod, which is defended, it is true, by Rinck (in whose view Marcion had 
 deleted it) and by Reiche (who holds it to have been omitted by the orthodow), 
 but is condemned by the decisive counter-testimony as an exegetico-dogmatic 
 addition. — Ver. 12. rv mappyoiav kK. THY Tpocaywynv] The second r7v is wanting 
 in A B 8* 17, 80, Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] Riick.; but its super- 
 fluousness occasioned the omission. F G have r7v rpocaywyny ei¢ THY Tappyciar, 
 a change produced by the absolute tv mpocay. — Ver. 14. tod xvpiov juav ’ Iycov 
 X. is wanting in ABC §8 17, 67** Copt. Aeth. Erp. Vulg. ms. and important 
 Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Riick. Harless. An addition to rarépa 
 readily offering itself, although defended by Reiche (on insufficient internal 
 grounds). — Ver. 16. 6¢7] ABC FG 8, 37, 39, 116, and several Fathers have 
 6g. So Lachm, [West. and Hort] and Riick. With this important attestation 
 dw is here the more to be preferred, as diy offered itself to the copyists from i. 
 17. — Ver. 18. Bafoc x. toc] Lachm. [West. and Hort] reads toc x. Bafoc, on 
 considerable but not decisive evidence. But the sequence of thought, ‘‘ height 
 and depth,” was more familiar. Comp. Rom. viii. 39.— Ver. 21. év ri éxxAnoia 
 év Xpiotw ‘Incov] So D*¥* K L, min. Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. and other Greeks. 
 But ABC §& 73, 80, 213, Copt. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. Jer. Pel. have éy rt. éxxd. 
 kai év X. ’I. (so Lachm. [West. and Hort] and Riick.). D* F G, It. Ambrosiast. 
 have év X. "I. cai tH éxxA. Only 46 and Oros. have év X. ’I. merely, without év ri 
 éxkA., evidence which is far too weak to justify suspicion of év r7 éxxA. (in oppo- 
 
404 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 sition to Koppe and Riick.). The xa/, although strongly attested, is an old un- 
 suitable connective addition ; and the placing of év r. éxxd. after év X.’I isa 
 transposition in accordance with the sense of rank, Hence, with Tisch. and 
 Reiche, the Recepta is to be upheld. 
 
 ConreNtTs.—On this account am I, Paul, the prisoner of God for the sake 
 of you, the Gentiles (ver. 1). Effusion over the nature of his office as apos- 
 tle of the Gentiles (vv. 2-12), which concludes with the entreaty to the 
 readers not to become discouraged at the sufferings which he is enduring 
 on their behalf (ver. 13). On this account he beseeches God that they 
 might be inwardly strengthened in the Christian character, in order that 
 they may know the whole greatness of the love of Christ, and thereby be- 
 come filled with all divine gifts of grace (vv. 14-19). Doxology, vv. 20, 21. 
 
 Ver. 1. On this account, namely, in order that ye may be built unto the 
 dwelling of God by means of the Spirit (ii. 22),—on this behalf, that your 
 Christian development may advance towards that goal, am I, Paul, the fet- 
 tered one of Christ Jesus for the sake of you, the Gentiles. The position of 
 Paul in fetters on account of his labors as the apostle of the Gentiles * could 
 only exert a beneficial influence upon the development of the Christian life 
 of his churches, as edifying and elevating for them (comp. ver. 13), as, on 
 the other hand, it must have redounded as a scandal to them, if he had 
 withdrawn from the persecutions (Gal. vi. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.; Phil. i. 17 
 f.). Hence the rotrov yap emphatically prefixed. —éya IavAoc] in the con- 
 sciousness of his personal authority (comp. 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ; 1 Thess. 
 ii. 18; Col. i. 23 ; Philem. 9), which the bonds could not weaken, but 
 only exalt (2 Cor. xi. 23 ff). — 6 déopuog rov I. X.] The article denotes the 
 bound one of Christ kav’ é¢oyfv, ‘* pre-eminently,” such as Paul could not 
 but, in accordance with his special relation to Christ (Gal. i. 1, vi. 17), ap- 
 pear to himself and others. The genitive expresses the author of the being 
 bound. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8; Philem. 9. See Winer, p. 170. Paul regards 
 himself, in keeping with the consciousness of his entire dependence on Christ 
 (as dovdoc Xpicrov), as the one whom Christ has put in chains.—As regards the 
 construction, by many the simple eivi isrightly supplied after 6 déopto¢g tov Xp. 
 I.,? so that 6 déoucoc tow X. ’1. is predicate, in connection with which some 
 have neglected the article, others have rightly had regard to it.* He is, 
 however, the déoycoc of Christ on behalf of the Gentiles ; and this thought 
 leads him in the sequel to explain himself more fully regarding his vocation 
 as apostle of the Gentiles, whereupon he only briefly returns to the point 
 of his imprisonment in ver. 13, after having been led away from it by the 
 detailed exposition of the theme, to which he had been incited by the ixép 
 tov ?vov. Free movement of thought natural in a letter. Supplementary 
 additions, such as legatione fungor, ‘‘am discharging the duties of the em- 
 
 1“ Quia gentes Judaeis adaequabat, incidit 2 Syriac, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras- 
 in suorum popularium odium,”’ ‘* Because mus, Cajetanus, Beza, Elsner, Calovius, 
 he made the Gentiles equal to the Jews, he Wolf, Michaelis, Paraphr. ; Morus, Koppe, 
 incurred the popular hatred of his own Rosenmiiller [Schenkel], and others. 
 nation,’ Drusius. Comp. Grotius, Calovius. 3 See especially Beza. 
 
CHAP. III., 2. 405 
 bassay,”? or hoe scribo, ‘‘am writing this” (Camerarius, and the like),* are 
 not implied in the context, and are therefore erroneous. Others have re- 
 garded the discourse as broken off, and have found the resumption either at 
 ver. 8,? or at ver. 13,‘ or at ver. 14,° or only at iv. 1.° But all these hypoth- 
 eses are—inasmuch as, according to the above explanation, ver. 1 in it- 
 self yields with ease and linguistic correctness a complete and suitable sense 
 —unnecessary complications of the discourse. Baumgarten-Crusius regards 
 the discourse as entirely broken off under the pressure of the crowding 
 thoughts, so that it is not at all resumed in the sequel.—After ver. 1 only 
 a comma is to be placed. 
 
 Ver. 2. Confirmation of that which has just been said, izip budav tov evar, 
 by the recalling of what the readers have heard concerning his vocation. 
 ‘* For you, the Gentiles,” I say, upon the presupposition that, etc. This presup- 
 position he expresses by ¢iye, i.¢., tum certe si, ‘‘ then certainly if,” ’ it being 
 implied in the connection (for of his church he could not presuppose anything 
 else), not in the word itself, that he assumes this rightly. He might have 
 written cizep, if at all, provided that, or cizep ye, provided namely,* but he has 
 conceived the presupposition under the form at least if, if namely, and so 
 denotes it? Comp. on Gal. iii. 4 and 2 Cor. v. 3 ; wherever eiye is used and 
 the assumption is a certain one (as also at iv. 21), the latter is to be gath- 
 ered from the connection. From whom the readers had heard the matter in 
 question, their own consciousness told them, namely, from Paul himself and 
 other Pauline teachers, so that eiye yxobcare x.7.A. isa reminder of his preach- 
 ing among them. Hence our passage is wrongly regarded as at variance with 
 the superscription pic ’Egeciovc, and as pointing to readers to whom Paul was 
 not personally known ; while others, as Grotius,’ have, without any ground in 
 the context, assigned to the simple dxote the signification bene intelligere, 
 “‘ understand well ;” Calvin, on the other hand, had recourse to the altogeth- 
 er unnatural hypothesis : ‘‘ Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, ewm taewisse de 
 his rebus,” ‘It is credible that when he was engaged at Ephesus he was silent 
 concerning these matters ;” and Béttger ”’ refers it to the hearing of this Hpis- 
 tle read, against which the very dvaywécxovrec that follows in ver. 3 is deci- 
 sive. Estius very correctly states that ciye is not ‘‘ dubitantis, sed potius affir- 
 mantis ; neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii, guibus P. 
 ipse evang. plusquam biennio praedicaverat, ‘‘of one doubting, but rather of 
 one affirming ; for the Ephesians could not have been ignorant to whom Paul 
 
 1 Ambrosiaster, 
 
 Castalio, Calvin, Vata- Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, Bisping, 
 
 blus. 
 
 2 Already in early witnesses supplement- 
 ary additions are met with in the text: 
 mpeoBevw in D* EF 10, followed by Castalio 
 and Calvin ; postulo in Clar., Germ. ; xexav- 
 xnuac in 71, 219, a. 
 
 3 Oecumenius, Grotius. 
 
 4 Zanchius, Cramer, Holzhausen. 
 
 ® Theodoret, Luther, Piscator, Calixtus, 
 Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Homberg, 
 Schéttgen, Bengel Baumgarten, and others, 
 including Flatt, Lachmann,Rickert, Winer, 
 
 Bleek ; de Wette, characterizing this con- 
 struction as ‘‘ hardly Pauline.” 
 
 6 Erasmus Schmid, Hammond, Michaelis 
 in note to his translation. 
 
 7 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 308. 
 
 8 Xen. Mem. i. 4. 4, Ana. i. 7.9; often in 
 the tragedians. 
 
 ®So also Rinck, Sendschr. der Korinth. 
 p. 56, who, however, takes the correct view 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 954. 
 
 10 Beitr. ili. p. 46 ff. 
 
406 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 himself had preached the Gospel for more than two years.” * Paul might have 
 expressed himself in the form of an assertion (7jkovoate ydp, OY éret pKoboare), 
 but the hypothetic form of expression constitutes a more delicate and sug- 
 gestive way of recalling his preaching among them,” without, however, con- 
 taining an obliquam reprehensionem, *‘ indirect reproof,” * of which the context 
 affords no trace.—r7v oikovopiay THE yapitoc K.T.A.|] the arrangement (see on i. 
 10) which has been made regarding the grace of God given to me with reference 
 to you (zhe yaprrog is the objective genitive). The more precise explanation 
 is then given by érz cata aroxdAvpw x.7.2. The ydpic is here, in accordance 
 with the context (ri¢ do. jor eic buac), the divine bestowal of grace that took 
 place in the entrusting him with the apostolic office. Comp. on Rom. xii. 3, 
 xv. 15. Others, like Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Rosen- 
 miiller, et al., have explained oixov. rt. yap. as the office of administering 
 evangelic grace; but against this it may be urged that not ric dofeionc, but 
 thv dofeicav, must have been afterwards used. This mistake is avoided by 
 Wieseler, p. 446 f., where he takes it as: the office for which I have been 
 qualified by the grace conferred upon me on your behalf. This office the 
 readers had heard, inasmuch as they had heard the preaching of the apostle. 
 But how are we to justify the expression ‘‘to hear the office,” instead of 
 ‘‘to hear the official preaching”? The words would merely say : if ye have 
 heard of the office, etc., Gal. i. 18 ; Col. i. 4; Philem. 5. 
 
 Ver. 3. In this more detailed specification of the oikovouia meant in ver. 
 2, Kata aroxadvw has the emphasis: by way of revelation, expressing the 
 mode of the making known, in accordance with a well-known adverbial 
 usage.* In substance the dv aroxadinvewe of Gal. i. 12 is not different. Ac- 
 cording to the history of the conversion in Acts xxvi. (not according to 
 Acts ix. and xxii.), we have here to think not merely of the disclosures 
 that followed the event near Damascus (as Gal. i. 12), but also of the reve- 
 lation connected with this event itself ; for the contents of what is revealed 
 is here the blessing of the Gentiles, and with this comp. Acts xxvi. 17, 18, 
 as also Gal. i. 16 ; hence from xara aroxd2. we may not infer a post-apostolic 
 time of composition.® — éyvwpicby| namely, on the part of God ; comp. vv. 
 2, 5. —70 pvorhpiov] see on 1. 9 ; it applies here, however, not to the counsel 
 of redemption in general, but to the inclusion of the Gentiles init. It is 
 _ not until ver. 6 that the apostle comes to express this special contents which 
 is here meant. — kaféc down to the end of ver. 4, is not to be treated as a pa- 
 renthesis, inasmuch as 6, ver. 5, attaches itself to the év 76 wvor. tr. X. im- 
 mediately preceding. —xafoc mpoéypara év ddiyw] as I before wrote in brief, 
 
 
 
 1De Wette dogmatically lays it down 
 that the readers had no need, if the apostle 
 had already exercised his apostolic calling 
 among them, now first to learn from him- 
 self that he had received it. But in so 
 speaking he has not attended to the fact 
 that the object of the nxovcate is not the re- 
 ception of the apostolic vocation in general, 
 but the mode of this reception (namely, 
 kata amokaduwiy, ver. 3), This account of 
 
 the manner in which he had become their 
 apostle he communicated to them when he 
 was with them, and of ‘hishe reminds them 
 now. 
 
 2 As also the Attic writers, in place of 
 ézet ye, delicately use the hypothetic eiye ; 
 see Kiihner, ad@ Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1. 
 
 3 Vitringa, comp. Holzhausen. 
 
 4 Bernhardy, p. 241. 
 
 5 Schwegler. 
 
CHAP. III., 4. 407 
 refers not to xara aroxdAvyv, but to éyvap. wot Td wvoThp., aS is shown by ver. 
 4, where Paul characterizes that which was before written as evidence of 
 his knowledge of the mystery, but not as evidence of the revelation by which 
 he has attained to this knowledge. Groundlessly, and at variance with the 
 subsequent present avayvécxovrec, Calvin, Hunnius, and others have? re- 
 ferred rpoéyp. to an epistle which has now been lost, in support of which view 
 the passage in Ignatius éy doy éxictoAq? has been made use of.* It applies 
 (not toi. 9, 10, as many would have it, but), as is proved by the here meant 
 special contents of the pvorgpiov (ver. 6), to the section last treated 
 of, concerning the Gentiles attaining unto the Messianic economy of salva- 
 tion, ii. 11-22.4—év ddiyo] did Bpayéwv, ‘‘in short,” Chrysostom: év is 
 instrumental.? See Acts xxvi. 28.° The same is expressed by ovrtéuwe, 
 Acts xxiv. 4, summarily. Wetstein well puts it: ‘‘ pauca tantum attigi, 
 cum multa dici possent,” ‘‘T have touched upon only a few things, although 
 many could be said.” Following Theodoret, Beza (with hesitation), Calvin, 
 Grotius, Estius, Erasmus Schmid, Koppe, and others have taken it as a 
 more precise definition of the rpé : paulo ante, ‘shortly before.” But ina 
 temporal sense év ddiyw means nothing else than in a short time (see on Acts 
 Xxvi. 28; Comp. Plat. Apol. p. 22 B ; Dem. xxxiii. 18 ; Pind. Pyth. viii. 
 131 : év 0 ddiyw Bpotéy 76 Teprvdy absera, ‘the delight of mortals will in- 
 crease),” which is not suitable here ; xpd oAiyov must have been used (Acts 
 v. 36, xxi. 38; 2 Cor. xii. 2, al. ; Plat. Symp. 147 E, al.)." 
 
 Ver. 4. In accordance with which ye, while ye read it, are able to discern, 
 etc.*° — rpoc 6 applies to that which Paul rpoéypaye, and xpédc¢ indicates the 
 standard of the judging; in accordance with which.’ The inference : ov« 
 éypawev boa éypyv, aAW boa éyOpovv voeiv, ‘‘ He wrote not as much as was 
 necessary, but as much as they were capable of understanding,” ” finds no 
 justification at all in what Paul has previously written. — dvaywéckorrec] not 
 attendentes, ‘‘ attending,” *' but, as always in the N. T., legentes, ‘‘reading.” 
 — THY obveciv ov év TH pvaTnpiw Tov X.| is to be taken together, and before év 
 it was not needful to repeat the article, because ovwévar év (to have under- 
 standing in a matter) was a very current expression (2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; 
 Josh. i. 7; Dan. i. 17). Comp. 3 Esdr. i. 33: tHe ovvécewe avrov év TO vou 
 
 kupiov. The genitive rov Xpiorov is ordinarily taken as genitivas objecti, ‘‘ an 
 
 1 Although it was already rejected by 
 Theodoret. 
 
 2 See Introd. § 1. 
 
 3 See Fabric. Cod. Apoc. I. p. 916. 
 
 4 Comp. already Oecumenius. 
 
 5 Yet it may also be conceived of locally, 
 as Thue. iv. 26. 2; 96. 2 (see Kriiger): in 
 small space, in a concise passage. 
 
 ®§ Comp. the classical 6v dAtywv, Plat. Phil. 
 p. 31 D, Legg. vi. p. 778 C, é€v Bpaxet and év 
 Bpaxéor (Dem. 592, 8). 
 
 7 Comp. oAtyov te mpétepov, Herod. iv. 81. 
 
 § Wiggers (Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 438) re- 
 gards as subject the Ephesians, not as 
 such, but as representatives of the Gentile 
 world : “ve Gentiles.” Arbitrarily imported, 
 
 and entirely unnecessary. Doubtless the 
 ovveots Of the Ap. ev TO pvoTHpiw ToD X. must 
 have been entirely beyond doubt for the 
 readers in consequence of their personal 
 connection with him; but thereby his 
 appeal to what he has just written does not 
 become inappropriate, but only the more 
 forcible and effective. There lies a cer- 
 tain pelwors in this reference to that which 
 he has just written. 
 
 *See Bernhardy, p. 205; Ellendt, Lew. 
 Soph. 11. p. 652; Winer, p. 361. 
 
 10 Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom ; Ben- 
 gel compares ex ungue leonem, ““you may 
 know the lion from its claw.” 
 
 11 Calvin. 
 
408 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 objective genitive :” the mystery which has reference to Christ. But, even 
 apart from Col. i. 27, the whole subsequent detailed statement as far as ver. 
 12 suggests the contextually more exact view, according to which Paul 
 means the pvorfpiov contained in Christ. Christ Himself, His person and 
 His whole work, especially His redeeming death, connecting also the Gen- 
 tiles with the people of God (ver. 6), is the coneretum of the Divine mys- 
 tery. — The assailants of the genuineness of the Epistle find ver. 4 incom- 
 patible with the apostolic dignity,’ nay, even ‘‘self-complacent and courting 
 favor.” ? But here precisely the point brought into prominence, that the 
 mystery had become known to him xara aroxddviw, justifies the stress laid 
 upon his civeow in the mystery, so far as he has already manifested the 
 same in his Epistle. The apostle might have appealed in proof of this 
 sivecic to his working, but he might also—especially taking into account 
 the change which had meanwhile occurred in the personal composition of the 
 church—adduce for this purpose his writing, in doing which his very 
 apostolic dignity raised him above considerations of the semblance of self- 
 complacency and the like. Hardly would another, who had merely as- 
 sumed the name of the apostle Paul, have put into his mouth such a self- 
 display of his cvvectc—which, in order not to fall out of his assumed apos- 
 tolic part, he would rather have avoided. — As to cbveaic, see on Col. i. 9. 
 Ver. 5. Not an explanation, to what extent he was speaking of amystery :* 
 for that the readers knew, and the design of bringing in a mere explanation 
 would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse ; 
 but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging 
 to the number of those who had received the revelation of the mystery—an 
 outburst, which was very naturally called forth by the sublime contents of 
 the pvoripiov. — étépase yeveaic| may be either a definition of time, like the dative 
 at ii. 12 (so taken wswally) ; in that case yeveaic is not periodis or temporibus, 
 ‘« periods” or ‘‘ times,” in general, but: in other generations (comp. on ver. 21) ; 
 or it may express the simple dative relation, so that yeveaic is generationibus :* 
 which to other generations was not made known, according to which toic vioig Tév 
 avép. would form a characteristic epexegesis.° This was my previous view. Yet 
 the former explanation, as being likewise linguistically correct, and withal 
 more simple and more immediately in keeping with the contrast viv, is to be 
 preferred. The érepacyev. are the generations which have preceded the viv; and 
 Toi¢ violg Tov avOp. (not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance, 
 that it characterizes men according to their lower sphere conditioned by their 
 ‘Cortum naturalem,” ‘‘ natural origin,” ° under which they were incapable 
 in themselves of understanding the pvorfpiov. Comp. Gen. xi. 5; Ps. viii. 
 5, x1. 5 ; Wisd. ix. 6. That specially the O. T. prophets are meant by roic¢ 
 vioi¢ Tov avOpor., as Bengel supposed,’ is wrongly inferred from roz¢ ayiorg 
 
 
 
 1 de Wette. 307. 
 
 2 Schwegler. ® Bengel. 
 
 ® Riickert, Meier. 7 In quite an opposite way Jerome would 
 4 Vulgate. exclude the ancient patriarchs and prophets 
 
 5 Lobeck, ad Aj. 808; Bernhardy, p. 55; from the viots trav avép.; for these were 
 Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, pp. 272, rather sons of God! 
 
CHAP; IIL:, d. 409 
 
 amooréaoe K.T.A., since the contrast does not lie in the persons,’ but in the 
 time (étépaic yeveaic . . . viv). It is true Ezekiel often bears the name 
 DIX-}3, ‘Son of man” (vii. 1, xii. 1, a/.), not, however, as prophet, but as 
 san ; and thereby likewise his human lowliness and dependence upon God 
 are brought home to him. — dc] By this expression, which (in opposition to 
 Bleek) is to be left as comparative, the disclosure made to Abraham and the 
 ancient prophets of the future participation of the Gentiles in Messiah’s 
 kingdom (Gal. iii. 8 ; Rom. ix. 24-26, xv. 9 ff.) remains undisputed ; for 
 ‘‘fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum, ‘‘ to 
 them this mystery was as it were far off, and displayed under covering,” 
 Beza ; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making 
 known of the later complete revelation of the mystery (Rom. xvi. 26). — 
 voy] in the Christian period. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 12. — amexario6n] not a repe- 
 tition of éyvepichy, but the distinguishing mode in which this manifestation 
 took place, is intended to be expressed : xara aroxddvyuw éyvopicty, ver. 38. 
 — Ttoi¢ dylow aroor. k.t.A.] is not to be divided by a comma after dyioc,? so 
 that aroor. aiz. x. zpod. would be apposition or more precise definition, 
 whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted. 
 The predicate holy was already borne by the Old Testament prophets 
 (2 Kings iv. 9; Luke i. 70; 2 Pet. i. 21), and this appellation at our passage 
 by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion ;? but 
 it is very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the 
 recipients of the revelation amidst the mass of the viol tov avOpdzwr, in ac- 
 cordance with the connection, as God’s special messengers and instruments, 
 as Gytot Oeov avOpuro (2 Pet. i. 21) ; whereupon the apostolic consciousness 
 in Paul was great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate sug- 
 gested by the connection,* while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets 
 in general, whereas, immediately afterwards, at ver. 8, in speaking of him- 
 selfin particular, he gives full play to his individual deep humility. How 
 can we conceive that the author should thus in one breath have fallen owt 
 of his assumed part at ver. 5 with roic¢ dyiow, by a ‘‘slip,”* and then have 
 resumed it at ver. 8 with éuol 76 éAayiorotépw 1—avrov| not of Christ,® but of 
 God, whose action is implied in éyvwpicy and arexadioOn. — Kai rpodhrace | 
 quite as at ii. 20 — éy zvetyatc] The Holy Spirit is the divine principle, 
 through which the arexatigy took place. Comp. i. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 10 ff. 
 Riickert wrongly takes it as : in an inspired state, which rvevua never Means, 
 but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit. 
 Comp. on ii. 22. Koppe and Holzhausen connect év rvebuare (sc. odor) with 
 mpodfrac. In this way it would be an exceedingly superfluous addition, 
 since prophets, who should not be év rv., are inconceivable, whereas a rev- 
 
 
 
 1The dmootoAo. and mpodHrat were also 4A side-glance at the Jews, who would 
 viot Tay avOp., but a sacred éxdAoyy, “ selec- have seen a blasphemy in the apostolic 
 tion,” of the same. message of the joint-heirship of the Gen- 
 2 Lachmann, Bisping. tiles (Lange, Apostol. Zettalt. I. p. 128), is 
 3 de Wette derives ay.ors from the passage utterly remote from the connection. 
 Col. i. 26 recast in post-apostolic times; 5 Baur. 
 Baur: from the post-apostolic reverential 6 Bleek. 
 
 looking back to the apostles. 
 
410 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 elation was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means 
 of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects év mv. even 
 with dyiow, so that the sense would be : zn sacred enthusiasm! and Ambro- 
 siaster! with the following eva: «.r.A. Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain 
 év rvepuate from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account 
 of the prophets that it is applied to the apostles also. 
 
 Ver. 6. Hpexegetical infinitive, more precisely specifying the contents of 
 the pvaripiov : that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, ete. This eiva (which is 
 not to be changed into should be) is objectively contained in the redeeming 
 work of Christ, and the subjective appropriation takes place by the conver- 
 sion of the individuals. —ocvykAnpovdua] denotes the joint possession (with 
 the believing Jews) of eternal Messianic bliss,—a possession now indeed 
 still ideal (Rom. viii. 24), but to be really accomplished at the setting up 
 of the kingdom. See oni. 11,14, v. 5; Acts xx. 32; Rom. viii. 17; Gal. 
 iii. 28.—ctocwua kat ovupétoya x.t.A.] That which is already sufficiently 
 designated by ovyxAnp. is yet again twice expressed, once figuratively and 
 the next time literally ;? in which no climax is to be found,’ but the great 
 importance of the matter has led the apostle, deeply impressed by it, to ac- 
 cumulated description.* ctocwua denotes belonging jointly to the body (i.e., as 
 members to the Messianic community, whose head is Christ, i. 23, ii. 16). 
 The word does not occur elsewhere, except in the Fathers,° and was per- 
 haps formed by Paul himself. Comp. however, cvccwuatoroeiv, Arist. de 
 mundo, iv. 30. cvupétoyoc, too, occurs only here and v. 7, and besides, in 
 Josephus, Bell. i. 24. 6, and the Fathers.° The érayyedia is the promise of 
 the Messianic blessedness, which God has given in the O. T., comp. ii. 12. 
 He, however, who has joint share in the promise is he to whom it jointly relates, 
 in order to be jointly realized in his case ; hence 7 érayyedia is not to be 
 interpreted as res promissa, ‘‘a promised matter,” which several’ have re- 
 ferred to the Holy Spirit (Gal. iii. 14; Heb. vi. 4; Acts ii. 39), but at 
 variance with the context (cvyxdnp.). The thrice occurring ov has the 
 mpotov of the Jews (Acts iii. 26 ; Rom. i. 16) as its presupposition.* — év 76 
 Xpior] dependent on eivaz, applies to all three elements, as does also the 
 following da tov evayy. In Christ, as the Reconciler, the cvyxAnpovouia k.T.A. 
 of the Gentiles is objectively founded ; and through the gospel, which is 
 proclaimed to them, the subjective appropriation in the way of faith is 
 brought about. The annexing, with Vatablus, Koppe, and Holzhausen, év 
 TG Xpor@ to tHe éxayy., is not to be approved, just because the reader, as he 
 needed no more precise definition in connection with cvykAyp. and cbocapa, 
 
 1 Comp. Erasmus. 
 
 2 Harless thinks, the one time after the an- 
 alogy of persons, and the other time after the 
 analogy of things. But as well in cvoowpa as 
 in over. the relation of persons and of 
 things is combined. 
 
 3 Jerome, Pelagius, Zanchius, Schenkel. 
 
 4On the accumulation of synonymous ex- 
 pressions in earnest emotional discourse, 
 comp. Diintzer, Aristarch. p. 41. 
 
 5 See Suicer, 7hes. IT. p. 1191. 
 
 ® Comp. cuppetéxw, 2 Mace. v. 20; Xen. 
 Anab. vii. 8.17; Plat. Theaet. p. 181 C. 
 
 7Menochius, Grotius, Bengel; comp. 
 Estius. 
 
 ® But the thought that the substantial 
 contents of the gospel are identical with 
 Judaism (Baur, Neutest. Theol. p. 276) is in- 
 correctly imported. See,in opposition to 
 it, especially ii. 15. 
 
CHAMPA tones All 
 
 understood also of himself what éxayyedia was meant, and the absolute ric 
 érayy. (see the critical remarks) is more emphatic. 
 
 Ver. 7. Ardéxovoc] Comp. Col. i. 23; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; also Luke i. 2. Paul 
 became a servant of the gospel when he was enjoined by God through Christ 
 (Gal. i. 1, 15 ff. ; Acts ix. 22, 26) to devote his activity to the proclamation 
 of the gospel. The distinction from imnpérne (used by Paul only at 1 Cor. iv. 
 1) is not, as Harless supposes, that dvdxovoc denotes the servant in his activ- 
 ity for the service, while irnpérn¢ denotes him in his activity for the Master 
 (see, in opposition to this, 1 Cor. xil. 3 ; Rom. xiii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 3 ; Col. i. 
 7, iv. 6) ; but both words indicate without distinction of reference the relation 
 of service, and the difference lies only in this, that the two designations, in 
 accordance with their etymology, are originally borrowed from different con- 
 crete relations of service (dvax., runner ; inp, rower ; see the Lexicons, and 
 on didxovoc, Buttm. Levil. I. p. 218 ff.) ; in the usage, however, of the N. T., 
 both words have retained merely the general notion of servant, as very fre- 
 quently also with Greek writers. [See Note XXIX., p. 431.] In opposition 
 to Harless it may be also urged that not only is the expression dsaxoveiv Twi 
 te used, but also in like manner tryperetv twi te... The gift, which was con- 
 ferred upon Paul by the divine grace, and in consequence of which he became 
 a servant of the gospel, is, agreeably to the context, the apostolic office (comp. 
 vv. 2, 8), not the donwm linguarum, ‘‘ gift of tongues,” * nor yet the gift of 
 the Holy Spirit.* — xara tiv évépy. tr. duu. adtod] belongs to riv dobeicdy por. 
 To the efficacious action of the power of God (comp. ver. 20, and on i. 19) the 
 bestowal of the gift of grace leads back the mind of the apostle, in the con- 
 sciousness of what he had been before, Gal. i. 13 ff. ‘‘Haec est potentiae 
 ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid efficere,” ‘‘ This is the efficacy of his 
 power, viz., to make out of nothing something grand,” Calvin. By the be- 
 stowal, in fact, of that gift of the divine grace Saul had become changed 
 into Paul ; hence xara rv évipy. tr. Suv. adrod. 
 
 Ver. 8. The apostle now explains himself more fully on what had been said 
 in ver. 7, and that entirely from the standpoint of the humility, with which, 
 in the deep feeling of his personal unworthiness, he looked forth upon the 
 greatness and glory of his vocation. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9. — After ver. 7a 
 
 ‘full stop is to be placed, and roi¢ @veow ebayy. is the explanation of the 
 xapic ain. Harless regards éuoi . . . airy asa parenthetic excalamation, 
 like ii. 6, and rote 2v. evayy. as a more precise definition of what is meant 
 by depea. He finds it contrary to nature to meet in the long intercalation 
 (vv. 2-13) a halting-point, and yet not a return to the main subject. But in 
 opposition to the whole view of such an intercalation, see on ver. 1. And 
 hardly could it occur to areader not to connect ehayyeA/cacha with the imme- 
 diately preceding 7 ydpic airy, specially when 7 éAayororépw x.7.2. points to 
 the contrast of the greatness of the vocation, which very greatness is de- 
 picted, and in how truly grand a style ! from roic @veorw forward. — On the 
 forms of degree constructed from the superlative (or even the comparative, 
 
 1 Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 46, Cyr. i. 6. 39; Soph. 2 Grotius. 
 Phil, 1012. ° Flatt, after older expositors. 
 
412 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 as 8 John 4), sce Sturz, ad Maitt. p. 44; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 185 f. ; 
 Winer, p. 65. In the analysis the comparative sense it to be maintained (the 
 least, lesser than all).—The expression of humility ravrtwr ayior,' t.€., than all 
 Christians, is even far stronger than 1 Cor. xv. 9. 
 ‘He did not say than the apostles,” Chrysostom. What was the ground of 
 this self-abasement (which, indeed, Baur, p. 447, enumerates among the 
 ‘heightening imitations”) the reader knew, without the necessity for Paul 
 writing it to him,—namely, not the consciousness of sin in general,’ in 
 which respect Paul knew that he stood on the same level with any other 
 (Rom. iii. 22, xi. 82 ; Gal. iii. 22), as with every believer upon an equal footing _ 
 of redemption by the death of Christ (Gal. iii. 13, 14 ; Rom. vii. 25, vill. 2), 
 but the deeply humbling consciousness of having persecuted Christ, which, inex- 
 tinguishable in him, so often accompanied his recalling of the grace of 
 the apostolic office vouchsafed to him (1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6 ; 
 comp. 1 Tim. i. 18). —roic &veoww] Paul was apostle of the Gentiles. —76 
 aveeiyv. TAovTOC Tov Xpiotov| By this is meant the whole divine fulness of salva- 
 tion, of which Christ is the possessor and bestower, and which is of such a 
 nature that the human intellect cannot explore it soas to form an adequate 
 conception of it. This does not hinder the proclamation, which, on the ~ 
 contrary, is rendered possible by revelation, but imposes on the knowledge 
 (1 Cor. xiii. 9-12) as on the proclamation their limits. As to avegcyv., see on 
 Rom. xi. 33. 
 
 Ver. 9. Kai ¢wrica révrac] According to Harless, who is followed by 
 Olshausen [Hofmann and Braune], Paul makes a transition to all men: 
 ‘‘not, however, to the Gentiles alone, but to all.” Wrongly, since Paul must 
 have written kai ravtac dwrica, as he had before prefixed roi¢ éveow. mdvrag 
 applies to all Gentiles, and the progress of the discourse has regard not to 
 the persons, but to a particular main point (xe/, and in particular), upon 
 which Paul in his proclamation of the riches of Christ gives information to 
 all Gentiles. — gwricar] collustrare, ‘‘to lighten,” of the enlightenment of the 
 mind (John i. 9), which is here to be conceived of as brought about by 
 means of the preaching. Comp. Heb. vi. 4,° x. 32; Ps. exix. 130; Ecclus. 
 xlv. 17. Docere, ‘‘ to teach,” * hits doubtless the real sense, but unwarrant- 
 ably abandons the jigure. The possible difficulty that Christ Himself is in 
 fact the light (John i. 9, xii. 35) disappears on considering that the apostles 
 are mediately the enlightened ones (2 Cor. iv. 4; Matt. v. 14), the proclaim- 
 ersand bearers (Acts xxvi. 18) of the divine light and its moral powers (v. 8). 
 —tic¢ 7 otxovouia x.7.A.| t.€., what is the arrangement, which is made with regard 
 to the mystery, etc. As to oixovoyuia, see oni. 10, iii. 2; the mystery is that 
 indicated as to its contents in ver. 6 ; and what has been adjusted or ar- 
 ranged with regard thereto (7 oixovouia tov uvornipov) consists in the fact that 
 
 OvK eize TOv amoaTéAwr, 
 
 
 
 1 The readings av3pH7wv in 4and Chrys., 
 amoctoAwy in Archel., and ayiwy amroortoAwy 
 in 46, are attempts at interpretation, of 
 which avdpai7wyv was meant to guard against 
 understanding the ayiwy of the angels; 
 ayiwy is wanting only in Marcion and 72*, 
 
 and Semler ought not to have looked upon 
 it as spurious. 
 
 2 Harless. 
 
 3 And Bleek, ad loc. 
 
 4Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and 
 * others. 
 
CHAP. III., 9. 413 
 this mystery, hidden in God from the very first, was to be made known in 
 the present time through the church to the heavenly powers. See what fol- 
 Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Col. i. 
 26. — ard trav aidver| from the world-periods, since they have begun to run 
 their course, from the very beginning. The mystery, namely, was decreed 
 already xpd tov aidvwr, 1 Cor. ii. 7, comp. Eph. i. 4, but is conceived of as 
 hidden only since the beginning of the ages, because there was no one pre- 
 viously for whom it could be hidden. The same thing with a7 rév aiévor 
 here is denoted at Rom. xvi. 25 by the popular expression ypdvore aiwviore, 
 ‘‘times eternal.” We may add that a76 rév aidvwr occurs in the N. T. only 
 here and Col. i. 26 ; elsewhere is found the expression current also in Greek 
 authors, a7’ aiavocg (Luke i. 70 ; Acts iii. 21), and é« rov aidvoc (John ix. 32). 
 —T@ Ta Tavra KTicavts] guippe qui omnia’ creavit, ‘inasmuch as he created 
 all things.” Herein lies—and this is the significant bearing of this more pre- 
 cise designation of God—a confirmation of what has just been said, rod aroxe- 
 Bengel aptly observes: ‘‘rerum omnium 
 creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae, pro potestate Dei uni- 
 versali liberrime dispensatae,” ‘‘ The creation of all things is the foundation 
 of all the rest of the economy unrestrictedly regulated according to the uni- 
 versal power of God.” He who has created all that exists must already have 
 had implicitly contained in His creative plan the great unfolding of the 
 world, which forms the contents of this mystery, so that thus the latter was 
 ard Tov aiévev hidden in God. Comp. on 6 roy taita yvword an’ aidvoc, 
 Acts xv. 18, and as tothe idea which underlies our passage also, that already 
 the creative word contemplated Christ as its aim,* Col. i. 16 ff., and the 
 commentary thereon. Riickert thinks that Paul wishes to indicate how far 
 it may not surprise us that He, from whom all things are derived, should 
 have concealed a part of His all-embracing plan, in order to bring it to light 
 only at the due time. But, apart from the fact that the creation of all 
 things does not at all involve as a logical inference the concealment of a 
 part of the divine plan, it was not the aroxexpuy. in itsclf that needed a 
 ground assigned for it, since in fact this predicate is necessarily implied in 
 the notion of pvorjpiov, but the aroxexp. dvd TOV aldvor. 
 
 lows. — adroxexpuy.| ceorynuévov, Rom. xvi. 25. 
 
 Kpun. amd TOV alov. év TE OE&Q. 
 
 This a7xd rov 
 aidvev is the terminus a quo, which was introduced with the kriow trav ravTor. 
 At variance with the context, Olshausen holds that Paul wished to call at- 
 tention to the fact that the establishment of redemption itself [of which the 
 apostle in fact is not speaking] is a creative act of God, which could have 
 proceeded only from Him who created all things. 
 ravra kric. in connection with iva x.r.A., ver. 10. 
 
 Harless places + ra 
 But see on ver. 10. 
 
 1 The totality of that which exists, the 
 whole world. Every limitation of this wni- 
 versal meaning is unwarranted, as when 
 Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others refer it 
 to mankind. ‘‘Unus Deus omnes populos 
 condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se yocat,”’ 
 “As one God created all nations, so also 
 does He now eall all to Himself,” Beza. 
 
 Holzhausen, too, arbitrarily limits it to all 
 spiritual beings, called to everlasting life ; 
 while Matthies mixes up also in «tioav7e the 
 effecting of the spiritual blessedness. 
 
 2 Hence els “Incodv Xptotrov would have 
 been amore correct gloss than 6a ’Incod 
 Xp., which the fecepta has. 
 
414 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 RemarK.—When id "Inco Xpiorod is recognized as not genuine (see the 
 critical remarks), the possibility is taken away of referring x«rioavt. to the 
 moral creation by Christ, as is done by Calvin, Zanchius, Calixtus, Grotius, 
 Crell, Locke, Semler, Morus, Koppe, Usteri, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
 others. But even if those words were genuine, the formal and absolute xrigecv, 
 as well as the emphatically prefixed and unlimited ra ravra, would justify only 
 the reference to the physical creation, Gen. i. Comp. Calovius and Reiche. 
 
 Ver. 10. “Iva] not ecbatic (Thomas Aquinas, Boyd, Zanchius, Estius, 
 Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen), introduces the design, not, 
 however, of 76 ra mdvta Kricavtt, as, in addition to those who understand 
 «ric. of the ethical creation, also Harless would take it.’ The latter sees in 
 TO Ta TavTa KTicayTe iva K.7.A. an explanation ‘‘ how the plan of redemption 
 had been from all ages hidden in God ; inasmuch as it was He who created 
 the world, in order to reveal in the church of Christ the manifoldness of His 
 wisdom.” But the very doctrine itself, that the design of God in the crea- 
 tion of the world was directed to the making known of His wisdom fo the 
 angels, and by means of the Christian church, has nowhere an analogy in the 
 N. T. ; according to Col. i. 16, Christ (the personal Christ Himself) is the 
 aim of the creation of all things, even of the angels, who are here included 
 in ra ravta. But as yvwpioh evidently corresponds to the aroxexpvupévon, 
 and viv to the ard rév aidver, we cannot, without arbitrary disturbance of 
 the whole arrangement of this majestic passage, regard iva yvwpioby as other 
 than the design of tov aroxexp. ard Tov aidver év TO Oecd. This statement of 
 aim stands in exact significant relation to the vocation of the apostle, ver. 
 8 f., through which this very making known to the heavenly powers was 
 partly effected. The less is there reason for taking iva yvop. «.t.A., with de 
 Wette (on ver. 11) and Hofmann? (who are followed by Schenkel), after 
 earlier expositors, as defining the aim of the preaching of Paul, ver. 8f. ; in 
 which case, besides, it would be offensive that Paul should ascribe specially 
 to his work in preaching as its destined aim that, in which the other 
 apostles withal (comp. in particular Acts xv. 7), and the many preachers to 
 the Gentiles of that time (such as Barnabas), had a share. The joining on 
 to the adjectival element azoxexp. x.r.2. produces no syntactical incongruity, 
 but isas much in keeping with the carrying forward of the discourse by 
 way of chain in our Epistle, as in accord with the reference of so significant 
 a bearing to ver. 8 f. —yvupicbj viv] The emphasis is not upon viy,* but 
 upon yropiof}, in keeping with the aroxexp. : in order that it should not 
 remain hidden, but should be made known, etc. —rai¢ apyaic x. tT. éovotac] 
 See oni. 21. The angelic powers are to recognize in the case of the Christian 
 church the wisdom of God ;—what a church-glorifying design, out of 
 which God kept the pvorjpiov from the beginning locked up in Himself ! 
 To the heavenly powers (comp. 1 Pet. i. 12), which therefore are certainly 
 not thought of as abstractions, the earthly institute is to show the wisdom of 
 
 1§0 also Baur refers it, p. 425, but ex- 2 Schriftbew. I. p. 361. 
 plains the thus resulting aim of the creation 3 Riickert and others. 
 from the doctrine of the Valentinians. 
 
CHAP. III., 10. 415 
 God ; an even, however, is quite arbitrarily inserted before raic apy.’ The 
 explanation of the diabolic powers,? which Vorstius, Bengel, Olshausen, 
 Hofmann, Bleek at least understand as included, is entirely foreign to the 
 context (it is otherwise at vi. 12), even though év roi¢ érovpaviow (comp. 1.3, 
 20), were not added. Throughout the whole connection the contrast of 
 earth and heaven prevails. Wrongly, too, we may add, secular rulers,*® 
 Jewish archons,* heathen priests,® and Christian church-overseers,® have been 
 understood as here referred to (comp. i. 21); while Koppe would embrace 
 “‘quicquid est vi, sapientia, dignitate insigne,” ‘‘ whatever is remarkable 
 for force, wisdom, dignity,” and would only not exclude the angels on 
 account of év roic éxovp. —-év roi¢ éxovp. 18, aS always in our Epistle (see oni. 8), 
 definition of place: in heaven, not : in the case of the heavenly things, which are 
 to be perceived in connection with the church’ and such like * [See above, 
 Note IL, on ch. i. 3.] It is most naturally to be combined (comp. vi. 12) with 
 Taic apy. kK. T. &Eove., in which case it was not needful to place raic before év toi¢ 
 éxoupaviow, seeing that the év toi¢ éxovpav., more precisely fixing the definition 
 of the notion of the apyai and éfovoia (for even upon earth there are dpyai 
 and é£ovoia:), is blended into a unity of notion with those two words,° so 
 that there is no linguistic necessity for connecting, as does Matthies,” év toi¢ 
 éxoup. With yywp. —The question why Pauldid not write simply toi¢ ayyédore 
 is not to be answered, with Hofmann, to the effect, that the spirits ruling 
 in the ethnic world are intended, because such a special reference of the 
 general expression +r. apy. x. 7. éfovc. must have been specified (by the addi- 
 tion of ray évev, or something of that sort); but to the effect, that the 
 designation of the angels on the side of their power and rank, in contradis- 
 tinction to the dia tic éxxAnoiac, serves for the glorifying of the éxxrycia. The 
 designation corresponds to the fulness and the lofty pathos by which the 
 whole passage is marked. In i. 21, also, an analogous reason is found, 
 namely, the glorifying of Christ. It is to be observed, in general, that the 
 name dyyeAoc does not occur at allin our Epistle. — did rH¢ éxxAgoiac] The 
 
 1 Grotius, Meier. 
 
 2 Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, not Estius. 
 3 Zeger, Knatchbull. 
 
 4 Schéttgen, Locke. 
 
 heavenly—as the kingdom of God.”’ In the 
 heavenly kingdom the wisdom of God be- 
 comes manifest by means of the church, 
 and particularly to these high and mighty 
 
 5 van Til. ones, because these are now, in the heayen- 
 6 Zorn. ly kingdom founded by Christ, brought, by 
 7 Zeltner, comp. Baumgarten. means of the church, to the consciousness of 
 5 See in Wolf. their powerlessness.—Thus, in fact, there are, 
 
 ® Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 195. 
 
 10 The whole apprehension of our passage 
 by Matthies is mistaken. He refers to 7a 
 mavta «tic. to all that God has either cre- 
 ated in the natural reference of the term, 
 or accomplished in a spiritual respect for 
 the salvation of men. According to his 
 view, ‘va applies to 76 ta 7. Ktio.; apxat Kat 
 
 as well in the notion of «rigew as in that of 
 apxat «. e€ove., two wholly different con- 
 ceptions combined, in opposition to the 
 hermeneutic principle of the unity of the 
 sense ; Ta erovpavia is arbitrarily generalized 
 in a spiritualistic way, and the thought that 
 the apyai cai e€ovciac are brought to the 
 consciousness of their powerlessness is 
 
 efovaiac are ‘“‘the high and mighty ones 
 who live in the world, or even in an.invis- 
 ible spiritual manner play their part in the 
 same ;” ta émovparia is to be taken ‘Sas the 
 actually subsisting aggregate of all that is 
 
 purely imported, and the more mistakenly, 
 inasmuch as it is God’s cod¢iéa, not His 
 Svvauts, Of which it is here said that it is 
 made manifest to the apxai cat éfous. 
 
416 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 
 
 Christian church (i.e., the collective body of believers regarded as one com- 
 munity, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28, x. 82, xv. 9; Gal. i. 11 ; Phil. iii. 6 ; Col.i. 
 18, 24,—hence not betraying the later Catholic notion) is, in its existence 
 and its living development, as composed of Jews and Gentiles combined in 
 a higher unity, the medium de facto for the divine wisdom becoming known, 
 the actual voucher of the same ; because it is the actual voucher of the 
 redemption which embraces all mankind and raises it above the hostile 
 contrast of Judaism and heathenism,—this highest manifestation of the 
 divine wisdom (Rom. xi. 32 f.). To the angels, in accordance with their 
 ministering interest in the work of redemption (Matt. xviii. 10 ; Luke xv. 
 7,10; 1 Cor. xi. 10; Heb. i. 14.; 1 Pet. i. 12), the church of theredeemem: 
 is therefore, as it were, the mirror, by means of which the wisdom of God 
 exhibits itself to them. [See Note XXX., p. 431.] — woAvmoixAoc].1 It 
 signifies much-manifold, i.e., in ahigh degree manifold, quite corresponding 
 to the Latin multivarius. That it signifies very wise” has been erroneously 
 assumed from Aesch. Prom. 1808, where roix:Aoc means crafty. As roAvroi= 
 kiAoc, the wisdom of God manifests itself to the angels through the church, 
 inasmuch as the counsel of the redemption of the world is therein pre- 
 sented to them in its universal realization, and they thus behold the mani- 
 fold ways and measures of God, which He had hitherto taken with reference 
 to the Jews and Gentiles, all now in their connection with the institute of 
 redemption,—all uniting in this as their goal. The church is thus for 
 them, as regards the manifold wisdom of God, the central fact of revelation ; 
 for the rodurorkitove ddov¢ Ocov, Which they before knew not as to their ulti- 
 mate end, but only in and by themselves (and how diverse were these ways 
 with the Jews and with the Gentiles !), they now see in point of fact, 
 through the church (‘‘haec enim operum divinorum theatrum est,” ‘ for 
 this is the theatre of divine works,” Bengel), as zoduroixiAoc cogia. Thus 
 by the appearing of the éxxAyoia as a fact in the history of salvation, the 
 wisdom of the divine government of the world has been on every side 
 unveiled and brought to recognition. Entirely without warrant, Baur 
 assumes, p. 429, that the Gnostic cogia, with its heterogeneous forms and 
 conditions,? was present to the mind of the writer. 
 
 Ver. 11. Kara zpdfeow tov aidvev] belongs neither to roAvroixAoc,* nor to 
 cogia,° nor does it relate to ver. 9,° nor yet to all that precedes from ver. 8 or 
 ver. 5,* but to iva yrupioby «.7.4., giving information important in its bearing 
 on this iva : in accordance with the purpose of the world-periods, i.e., in con- 
 formity with the purpose which God had during the world-periods (from 
 the commencement of the ages up to to the execution of the purpose) ; for 
 already xpo kataBoArye kéopuov it was formed, i. 8, but from the beginning of 
 the world-ages it was hidden in God, ver. 9. On the genitive, comp. Jude 
 6; Ps. exlv. 13; Winer, p. 169. Others, incorrectly, take it as : the pur- 
 pose concerning the different periods of the world, according to which, namely, 
 
 
 
 ! Eur. Jph. 7. 1149; Eubul. in Athen. xy. 4 Holzhausen. 
 p. 678 D; Orph. vy. 11, Ix. 4. 5 Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 2 Wolf, Koppe, Rosenmiiller. 6 Michaelis. 
 
 3 Comp. Iren. Haer. i. 41. 7 Flatt, comp. Zanchius, Morus. 
 
CHAP OMinay laa Las 41? 
 God at first chose no people, then chose the Jews, and lastly called Jews 
 and Gentiles to the Messianic kingdom;?’ for it is only the one purpose, ac- 
 complished in Christ, that is spoken of. See what follows. According to 
 Baur, xara rpd0eow rovaidv. means : according to what God ideally proposed 
 to Himself in the aeons (that is, the subjects of the divine ideas, constitut- 
 ing as such the essence of God). According to the Gnostic view, this 
 returns, after it has been accomplished in Christ, as the realized idea back 
 into itself. — fv éroiyoev év X. ’I.] applies not to codia,*? but to tpdfecv, and 
 
 means : which He has fulfilled in Christ Jesus.6 Comp. 76 0éAnua roveiv (il. 
 3; Matt. xxi. 31; John vi. 38), ty yrouny roveiv (Acts xvii. 17). Others: 
 which He has formed in Christ Jesus.* Linguistically admissible. Comp. 
 
 Mark iii. 6, xv. 1; Isa. xxix. 15; Herod. i. 127. But the context tells in 
 favor of the first-named interpretation, since what follows is the explana- 
 tion assigning the ground of the purpose not as formed, but as carried into 
 effect ; hence not merely év Xpior@ is said, but év Xpior@ "Iyood (comp. i. 5), 
 since not the forming of that purpose, but its accomplishment, took place in 
 the historically manifested Messiah, Jesws—in Him, in His personal self- 
 sacrifice is the realization of that divine purpose contained. 
 
 Ver. 12. Ev 6 «.7.”.] gives the experimentally (éyouer) confirmatory proof 
 for the just stated jy éroincev év X. I. See oni. 7. — rv rappyciav] denotes 
 not the libertatem dicendi, ‘‘ freedom of speech,” as at vi. 19, since not mere- 
 ly the apostle’s® experimental consciousness, but that of the Christian is, in 
 harmony with the context, expressed by éyouev; and the limitation to 
 prayer © is entirely arbitrary. It is rather the free, joyful mood of those recon- 
 ciled to God, in which they are assured of the divine grace (the opposite : 
 fear of God’s wrath). Comp. Heb. iii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19, 35 ; 1 John ii. 28, 
 iii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14; also Wisd. v. 1, and see Grimm in loc.; Bleek on 
 Hebr. 1.1, p.416 f. This rappycia nar’ éFoxHvé, ‘ pre-eminently,” is de- 
 noted by the article. —xai t7v xpocaywyjv| See on ii. 18. Likewise a for- 
 mally consecrated notion. — év rerobjoer] Fundamental disposition, im which 
 we have, etc. For without confidence (see, as to reroif., on 2 Cor. i. 15) the 
 rappyoia and the zpocaywyf are not possible. How gloriously is this reroifyouc 
 on the part of the apostle expressed at e.g. Rom. viii. 38 f. !— dia ri¢ rioTews 
 airov| Causa medians, ‘‘instrumental cause,” of the éyouev «.7.4. Christ is 
 the objective ground on which this rests, and faith in Christ is the subjec- 
 tive means for its appropriation and continued possession, Rom. v. 1,2. In 
 avrov there is implied nothing more than in eic airéy (see on Rom, iil. 22 ; 
 Gal. iii. 22), and what Matthies finds in it (the faith having reference to 
 Him alone) is a sheer importation. 
 
 Ver. 13. Once more reviewing the whole section concerning the great 
 contents of his office as apostle of the Gentiles (vv. 2-12), he con- 
 
 ' Schoettgen, comp. Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Baum- 
 garten, Semler. 
 
 2 Jerome, Luther, Moldenhauer. 
 
 3So Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Zacha- 
 riae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, Mat- 
 thies, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek and 
 
 2% 
 
 others. 
 
 4 So Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, Mo- 
 rus, e¢ al., including Flatt, Riickert, Meier, 
 Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius; also Hof- 
 mann, Schriftbew. I. p. 230. 
 
 5 Vatablus. 
 
 ® Bengel, Holzhausen. 
 
418 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 cludes it, in especial retrospective reference to the introduction there- 
 of (ver. 1), with the entreaty to the readers not to become discouraged, 
 etc., in order thereupon yet further to attach to ver. 14 ff. a rich out- 
 pouring of intercession for them, which terminates in an enthusiastic 
 doxology (ver. 20f.). According to this view, dio has its reference not merely 
 in ver. 12, but in the whole of what Paul has said, vv. 2-12, regarding his 
 office, namely : On that account, because so great and blissful a task has by 
 God’s grace been assigned to me in my calling, I entreat you, etc. The 
 greater the office conferred by God, the less does it become those whom it 
 concerns to take offence or become downcast at the sufferings and persecu- 
 tions of its holder. — 7 éxxaxeiv] applies to the readers: that ye become not 
 disheartened, faint-hearted and cowardly in the confession of the gospel,— 
 not to Paul: that I become not disheartened, as Syriac, Theodoret, Jerome, 
 Bengel, Semler, and others, including Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius [Hofm. Braune, Cremer Wérterb.], take it. In opposition 
 to the latter, it may be urged that the supplying of Oeéy after airodua, 
 demanded in connection therewith, is in no wise indicated by the context, 
 which rather in the bare airotwa: (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, x. 2) conveys only the 
 idea of arequest to the readers (it is otherwise at Col. i. 9; Jas. 1. 6). 
 Further, #rv¢ gor défa tuév manifestly contains a motive for the readers, to 
 fulfil that which Paul entreats. Only from rotrov yapiv, ver. 14, begins an 
 intercession for the readers, that God may strengthen them.’ The won, finally, 
 after @2fpeor is wholly superfluous, if Paul is imploring constancy for him- 
 self ; but not, if he is beseeching the readers not to become faint-hearted, 
 while he is suffering for them.—As to the form éyxaxety in Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf, and Riickert, see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. — év rai¢ OAineci pov irép wm. | 
 in the tribulations which I endure for your sake (namely, as apostle of the 
 Gentiles). Comp. Paul’s own so touching comment upon this irép tuév, in 
 Phil. ii. 17. The év denotes the subsisting relation, in which their courage is 
 not to give way. See Winer, p. 346. To this conception the explanation 
 on account of? is also to be referred. irép iuev is rightly attached, without 
 repetition of the article, to raic¢ Ai. wov, because one may say OAiBecba drép 
 tivoc (2 Cor. i. 6 ; comp. Col. i. 24). Comp. on Gal. iv. 14. Harless con- 
 nects ixép ip. with airovuar : IT pray for your benefit. How violently opposed 
 to the order of the words, and, with the right view of airoiua:, impossible } 
 — ric éoti 06£a buoy] is designed to animate to the fulfilment of the entreaty, 
 so that ric introduces an explanation serving as a motive thereto,? not 
 equivalent to 7, but referring what is predicated ‘‘ad ipsam ret naturam,” 
 ‘to the very nature of the subject,” 4 like gui quidem, quippe qui, utpote 
 qui. ru may be referred either to the 7 éxkaxeiv,® or to taic OAipeot wov bmép 
 juav (so usually). In either case the relative is attracted by the following 
 
 1 Harless finds, with Rhenferd (in Wolf), 
 the connection: “ ut p70 se primum, tum pro 
 Ephesiis oret.”” But this change of the per- 
 sons would have needed to be indicated by 
 emphatic pronouns, if it were not to be 
 looked upon as imported. 
 
 2 Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Estius, and 
 
 others. 
 
 3 Herm. ad Oed. R. 688; Ellendt, Lex. 
 Soph. U1. p. 385. 
 
 4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 190. 
 
 5 Theodoret, Zanchius, Harless, Olshau- 
 sen, Schenkel. 
 
CHA Perirs, 145 Malo. 419 
 dé£a, and this not as Hebraizing,' but asa Greek usage.? The usual reference 
 is the right one ; the sufferings of the apostle for the readers were a glory crt 
 the latter, it redounded to their honor that he suffered for them,* and this 
 relation could not but raise them far above the éxxaxeiv, else they would not 
 have accorded with the thought brought to their consciousness by the #ri¢ 
 éori déEa tuov. The referring of 7rv¢ to su) éxxaxeiv is inconsistent with the 
 correct explanation of the latter (see above) ; for if Paul had said that it 
 was glorious for the readers not to grow faint, he would either have given 
 expression to a very general and commonplace thought, or else to one of 
 which the specific contents must first be mentally supplied (gloria spiritualis, 
 ‘spiritual glory”); whereas the proposition: ‘‘my tribulations are your 
 glory,” isin a high degree appropriate alike to the ingenious mode of ex- 
 pression, and to the apostolic sense of personal dignity, in which is im- 
 plied a holy pride. Comp. Phil. ii. 17. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15.4 Totrov yap] on this account, in order that ye may not become 
 disheartened, ver. 13. Against the view that there is here a resumption of 
 ver. 1, see on that verse. —kdurto x.t.2.] tiv Katavevvypévgy dénoww EdhAwoer, 
 ‘He indicated his entranced supplication,” Chrysostom. See on Phil. ii. 
 10. ‘‘ A signorem denotat,” ‘‘ from the sign he denotes the thing,” Calvin ; 
 so that we have not, with Calovius and others, to think of an actual falling 
 on his knees during the writing. Comp. Jerome, who makes reference to 
 the genua mentis, ‘‘knees of the mind.” — rpéc] direction of the activity : 
 before the Father. —é& ob xaoa rarpia x.7.2.] Instead of saying : before the 
 Father of all angels and men (a designation of God which naturally suggested 
 itself to him as an echo of the great thoughts, ver. 10 and ver. 6), Paul ex- 
 presses himself more graphically by an ingenious paronomasia, which can- 
 not be reproduced in German (rarépa . . . ratpid) : from whom every family 
 in heaven and upon earth bears the name, namely, the name zarpia, because God 
 is rarfp of all these ratpiai. Less simple and exact, because not rendering 
 justice to the purposely chosen expression employed by Paul only here, is the 
 view of de Wette : ‘‘every race, z.e., every class of beings which have arisen 
 (2), bears the name of God as its Creator and Father, just as human races 
 bear the name from their ancestor, e.g., the race of David from David.” — é&¢ 
 ov] forth from whom ; origin of the name, which is derived from God as 
 Tathp.° —raoa ratpia| matpid, with classical writers ordinarily zazpa, is equiv- 
 
 1 Beza, Matthies, and many. 
 
 2 Comp. as regards the ordinary exegesis, 
 according to which the number also is at- 
 tracted, Dem. ¢. Aphod. p. 853. 381: Exer . . . 
 oySonkovTa pev pvas, Hv eAaBe mpoika THs 
 wntpos ; and see, in general, Winer, p. 150. 
 
 3 This assertion stands in correct connec- 
 tion with his high apostolic position. That 
 the apostle as Séop10s tov Xpicrod suffered 
 for the Gentile-Christians, could only re- 
 dound to the honor of the latter, inasmuch 
 as they could not but appear of the higher 
 value. the more he did not refuse to under- 
 go afflictions for them. This we remark in 
 
 opposition not only to Riickert, who finds 
 it most advisable to leave the contents of 
 the clause indefinite, in order not to deprive 
 it of its oratorical significance, but also in 
 opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who 
 are of opinion that the sufferings of the 
 apostle could not in themselves be any 
 glory for the Gentile-Christians. They are 
 so on account of the dignity of the sufferer, 
 and of his velation to those for whose sake he 
 suffered. 
 
 4 On ver. 15, see Reiche, Comm. Crit. 
 p. 156 ff. 
 
 5 On ovopdgeo dar ex, comp. Hom. ZZ. x. 68: 
 
420 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 alent to gens, a body belonging to a common stock, whether it be meant in 
 the narrower sense of a family,’ or in the wider, national sense of a tribe 
 (Acts iii. 25 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 28 ; Ps. xxii. 27 ; Herod. i. 200). In the latter 
 sense here ; for every gens in the heavens can only apply to the yarious 
 classes of angels (which are called rarpcai, not as though there were propaga- 
 tion among them, Matt. xxii. 30, but because they have God as their Creator 
 and Lord for a Father [see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. II. 106, Amer. ED.] ; as a 
 suitable analogue, however, to the classes of angels, appear on earth not the 
 particular families, but the nationalities. Rightly Chrysostom and his suc- 
 cessors explain the word by yeveai or yévy. The Vulgate has paternitas, a 
 sense indicated also by Jerome, Theodoret, and others. Theodoret says : 6c 
 dAnhoc imapyet Tatyp, b¢ ov Tap’ GAAov TovTO AaBav Eyer, AAW avTo¢ Toi¢g GAAoLC 
 petadédwxe Tovto, ‘* who is truly a father, since he has this, not by receiving 
 it from another, but himself communicated it to the rest.”” This view (comp. 
 Goth.: ‘‘all fadreinis’”’) is expressed by Luther (approved in the main by 
 Harless [and by Cremer, Lexicon]) : Who is the true Father over all that are 
 called children, etc. But xarpid never means fathership or fatherliness (ra- 
 tpéryc), and what could be the meaning of that fathership im heaven ?? 
 naca, every, shows that Paul did not think only of two rarpiai, the totality 
 of the angels and the totality of men,* or of the blessed in heaven and the 
 elect on earth,* but of a plurality, as well of angelic as of human zarprai ; 
 and to this extent his conception is, as regards the numerical form, though 
 not as regards the idea of rarpid, different from that of the Rabbins, accord- 
 ing to which the angels® are designated as familia superior, ‘‘the higher 
 family.” * Some have even explained raca ratpid as the whole family, in which 
 case likewise either the angels and men," or the blessed in heaven and Christians 
 on earth,® have been thought of : but this is on the ground of linguistic usage 
 erroneous. Comp. on ii. 21. [See Note XXXI., p. 431 seq. ] — ovouagerac] 
 bears the name, namely, the name rartpid ; see above. The text does not 
 yield anything else ;° and if many ” have understood the name children of 
 
 matpovev ex yeveyns ovouagwy avSpa Exactov. 
 Xen. Mem. iv. 5. 123 €pyn S€ wai 7d Stadéye- 
 ada. ovopacidyvar eK TOU OVUVLOVTaS KoLYH 
 BovAeveodar. Soph. Qed. R. 1036. 
 
 17To this head belongs also the Jewish- 
 genealogical distinction from @vAn, accord- 
 ing to which matpea denotes a branch of 
 one of the twelve tribes (fvA@v). See on 
 Luke ii. 4. Similarly in the sense of a 
 family-association often with Pindar. On 
 the relation of the word to the kindred 
 dpatpia, see Boeckh, ad Pind. Nem. V. L. 
 iv. 47; Dissen, p. 887; Hermann, Staatsal- 
 terth. § 5. 4, 10. 
 
 2 Jerome findsit in the archangels, and 
 Theodoret says: ovpaviovs matépastovs 
 mvevmattikovs Kade, and cites 1 Cor. 
 iv. 15. 
 
 3 Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, and 
 others. 
 
 4 Calovius, Wolf. 
 
 5 With the Cabbalists, the Sephiroth. 
 
 6 See Wetstein, p. 247 f. ; Buxtorf., Zea. 
 Talm. p. 1753; Schoettgen, Horae, p. 1237 f. 
 
 7 Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Meier, 
 Olshausen, and earlier expositors. 
 
 8 Beza. 
 
 ® For the very reason that Paul does nof 
 put any defining addition to dvoyagerar (in 
 opposition to Reiche’s objection). Nor is 
 it to be objected, with Reiche, that the 
 human zazpra bears the name not from 
 God, but from the human ancestor. This 
 historical relation remains entirely unaffect- 
 ed by the /igher thought, that they are 
 calledwrazpia from the universal, heavenly 
 Father. 
 
 10 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, 
 Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and 
 others, including Flatt and Olshausen. 
 
CHAP. III., 14, 15. 421 
 
 God, thisis purely imported. Others have taken ‘‘ nomen pro re,” ‘‘ the name 
 for the thing” (Zanchius, Menochius, Estius, et al.), so that ovowafecbac 
 would denote evistere. So, too, Riickert, according to whom Paul designs 
 to express the thought that God is called the Father, inasmuch as all that 
 lives in heaven and upon earth has from Him existence and name (7.e., dig- 
 nity and peculiarity of nature). Contrary to linguistic usage ; sivas ovoudterar 
 must at least have been used in that case instead of ovoudfera:.* Incorrectly 
 also Holzhausen : dvouafew means to call into existence. Reiche takes é& ov 
 ovouaterac (of whom it bears the name) as the expression of the highest domin- 
 ion and of the befitting reverence due, and refers raca razpua év ovp. to the 
 pairings of the Aeons. The former without linguistic evidence : the latter 
 a hysteroproteron. 
 
 Remark 1.—In 2£ 0d . . . dvouaterar God is certainly characterized as univer- 
 sal Father, as Father of all angel-classes in heaven and all peoples upon earth. Comp. 
 Luther’s gloss: ‘All angels, all Christians, yea, all men, are God’s children, 
 for He created them all.’’ But it is not at all meant by the apostle in the bare 
 sense of creation, nor in the rationalistic conception of the all-fatherhood, when 
 he says that every tarpia derives this name é« Ocov, as from its father ; but in 
 the higher spiritual sense of the divine Fatherhood and the sonship of God. 
 He thinks, in connection with the é& od, of a higher ratpdfev than that of the 
 mere creation. For rarpvai, so termed from God as their rarzp, are not merely 
 all the communities of angels, since these were indeed vioi Ocov from the begin- 
 ning, and have not fallen from this vidryc ; but also all nationalities among 
 men, inasmuch as not only the Jews, but also all Gentile nations, have obtained 
 part in the Christian viofecia, and the latter are ovyKAnpovoua Kal ovoowpua Kai 
 aupétoya THC Erayyediac Ev TH XptoTG (ver. 6). If this has not yet become com- 
 pletely realized, it has at any rate already been so partially, while Paul writes ; 
 and in God’s counsel it stands ideally as an accomplished fact. On that account 
 Paul says with reason also of every nationality upon earth, that it bears the 
 name satpid, because God is its Father. Without cause, therefore, Harless has 
 taken offence at the notion of the All-fatherhood, which is here withal clearly 
 though ideally expressed, and given to the passage a limitation to which the 
 all-embracing mode of expression is entirely opposed: ‘‘ whose name every 
 child [i.e., every true child] in heaven and upon earth bears.” Consequently, as 
 though Paul had written something like: é& ob méca dAnOtvy matpia K.7.A. 
 With a like imported limitation Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘‘ omnis cognatio spiritu- 
 alis, qua conglutinantur sive angeli in coelis, sive fideles in terris,” ‘‘ every spir- 
 itual relationship, whereby either angels in heaven, or the believing on earth 
 are united.” 
 
 Remark. 2.—With the non-genuineness of Tov kvpiov judv "I. X. (see the crit- 
 ical remarks) falls also the possibility of referring 2£ od to Christ.2 But if those 
 words were genuine (de Wette, among others, defends them), é& od would still 
 apply to God, because éé vd «.7.2, characterizes the fatherly relation, and iva 06 
 «.T.A. applies to the Father. — Lastly, polemic references, whether in opposition 
 
 1Comp. Isaeus, de Menecl. her. 41: rov 2 Beza, although with hesitation, Calvin, 
 Tatépa, ov eivat wvonacdny, Plat. Pol. iv. p. Zanchius, Hammond, Cramer, Reiche, and 
 428 E: dvoudgovtai tives eivar. others. 
 
422 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 to the particularism of the Jews,! or even in opposition to ‘‘scholam Simonis, qui 
 plura principia velut plures Deos introducebat, ‘“«the school of Simon, which 
 introduced a number of principles, as though a number of gods,” ? or, in oppo- 
 sition to the worship of angels,* or in opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of 
 Syzygies,* are to be utterly dismissed, because arbitrary in themselves and in- 
 appropriate to the character and contents of the prayer before us. 
 
 Ver. 16. "Iva 6] (see the critical remarks) introduces the design of the 
 Kaurto k.t.A., and therewith the contents of the prayer. Comp. oni. 17, — 
 Kata TO wAovTOC THE OdENE aiTov] 7.e., In accordance with the fact that His glory 
 is in so great fulness. Comp. oni. 7. It may be referred either to 66 ipiv 
 or to what follows. The former is the most natural ; comp. i. 17. <Ac- 
 cording to His rich fulness in glory, God can and will bestow that which is 
 prayed for. The ddfa, namely, embraces the whole glorious perfection of 
 God, and can only with caprice be limited to the power® or to the grace.* — 
 Suvauer kparawOjvac| instrumental dative : with power (which is instilled) to 
 That which effects this 
 strengthening is the Holy Spirit (dd tov rvebwaroc aitov). Comp. Rom. xy. 
 18. According to Harless, it is dative of the form,’ so that the being 
 strengthened in power is regarded as opposed to the being strengthened 
 in knowledge, or the like. But to what end would Paul have added 
 etc Tov gow arop., if he had meant such special strengthening? The 
 strengthening is to concern the whole inner man; hence the reference 
 to a single faculty of the mind (Olshausen refers dvvauer primarily to the 
 will) has no ground in the context. Others have explained it adverbially : 
 in a powerful manner.’ In this way divayzic would be power, which is ap- 
 plied on the part of the strengthener.* But our interpretation better accords 
 with the contrast of éxxaxeiv, which implies a want of power on the part of 
 the readers. — tic tov éow avbpwrov| eic, not for év,”” but in reference to the in- 
 ner man, containing the more precise definition of the relation.” The inner 
 man (not to be identified with the xa:voc avOpwroc) is the subject of the voc, the 
 rational and moral ego,—the essence of man which is conscious of itself as 
 an ethical personality,—which is in harmony with the divine will (Rom. 
 vil. 16, 25) ; but in the case of the unregenerate is liable to fall under 
 bondage to the power of sin in the flesh (Rom. vii. 23), and even in the 
 case of the regenerate ” needs constant renewing (iv. 23 ; Rom. xii. 2) and 
 strengthening by the Spirit of God, whose seat of operation it is (dvvapec 
 
 be strengthened; opposite of éxxaxeiv, ver. 13. 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Calvin, Zanchius, and 8 Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2. 
 
 others. 10 Vulgate, Beza, and others. 
 2 Estius. 11 See Kiihner, IT. § 557, note I. 
 3 Michaelis. 12 Tt must be decided exclusively by the 
 4 Reiche. connection on each oceasion, whether (as 
 
 5 Grotius, Koppe, and others. 
 
 ® Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, and others; 
 comp. Matthies, Holzhausen, Olshausen. 
 
 7 Comp. icxvew Tots cHpacr, Xen. Mem. ii. 
 aude 
 
 ® Beza, Vater, Riickert, Matthies. See 
 Bos, ed. Schaef. p. 743 ; Matthiae, p. 897. 
 
 here and 2 Cor. iv. 16; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 4) 
 the inner man of the regenerate is intended, 
 or that of the unregenerate (Rom. vii. 22). 
 The man is regenerate, however (in opposi- 
 tion to the evasive view in Delitzsech, Psych. 
 p. 880 f.), only of water and the Spirit (Tit. 
 iii. 5). 
 
CHAP. II1., 17. 423 
 
 KparawOyvar dia Tov Tvebuatoc), in order not to be overcome by the sinful de- 
 sire in the caps, of which the wuvy7, the animal soul-nature, is the living 
 principle (Gal. v. 16 f. ). The opposite is 6 &&o dvOpwroc (2 Cor. iv. 16), 
 z.e., the man as an outward phenomenon, constituted by the caua rij¢ capkéc 
 (Col. ii. 11), which, by reason of its psychical quality (1 Cor. xv. 44), is the 
 seat of sin and death (Rom. vi. 6, vii. 18, 24). The inner man in and by 
 itself is—by virtue of the moral nature of its votc, as the Hyo exerting the 
 moral will, and assenting to the divine law (Rom. vii. 20, 22)—directed to 
 the good, yet without the renewing and strengthening by the Holy Spirit 
 too weak for accomplishing, in opposition to the sinful principle in the 
 cape, the good which is perceived, felt, and willed by it (Rom. vii. 15-23). 
 [See Note XXXII., p. 452.] We may add, it is all the less an ‘‘ absurd as- 
 sertion,”’ that the conceptions 6 éow and 6 2 aOpwroc are derived from 
 Plato’s philosophy,* inasmuch as for the apostle also the voic in itself is the 
 moral faculty of thinking and willing in man ; inasmuch, further, as the 
 Platonic dichotomy of the human soul-life into rveiua (vovc) and wvyq is 
 found also in Paul (1 Thess. v. 23 ; comp. Heb. iv. 12), and inasmuch as 
 the Platonic expressions had become popular (comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 4), so 
 that with the apostle the Platonism of that mode of conception and expres- 
 sion by no means needed to be a conscious one, or to imply an acquaintance 
 with the Platonic philosophy as such. [See Note XXXIII., p. 432.] 
 
 Ver. 17. Karoixjoat «.7.A.| Parallel to dvvdyer xpatawOyva, ete., which 
 **declarat, quale sit interioris hominis robur,” ‘‘ declares the nature of that 
 strength which belongs to the inner man,” Calvin. According to Riickert, 
 something different from what forms the object of the first petition is here 
 prayed for, and there is a climax. In this way we should have, in the 
 absence of a connecting particle, to take the infinitive, with de Wette, as 
 the infinitive of the aim ; but the circumstance that with Christians the 
 being strengthened by the Spirit, who is indeed the Spirit of Christ, can- 
 not at all be thought of as different from the indwelling of Christ (Rom. 
 wi. 9) 10> 2 Cor. xi.9; Phil. iv. 13 ; Rom: xv. 17 f.), and. the subse- 
 quent éppif. «. tefeu., which manifestly further expresses the conception of 
 the kpatawjva, decide for the former view. The explanatory element, 
 however, lies in the emphatically prefixed xarovxjou : that Christ may take 
 up His abode by means of faith in your hearts. In the Holy Spirit, namely, 
 which is the Spirit of Christ (see on Rom. viii. 9, 10; Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6 ; 
 2 Cor. ii. 17), Christ fulfils the promise of His spiritual presence in the 
 hearts (John xiv. 23; comp. above, on ii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), in which 
 faith is the appropriating instrument on the part of man (hence did tHe rlo- 
 tewc). Where thus there isaxpatacodgvac did tov rvebuaroc, there is also 
 to be found a cxarocxgoae of Christ ; because the former is not possible 
 without a continuous activity of Christ in the hearts. Opposed to the 
 caroxjoa Of Christ in the hearts is a transitory (xpécxacpoc) reception of the 
 Holy Spirit (Gal. ili. 3). A more precise definition, by virtue of which the 
 
 1 Harless. and Philo, in Wetstein, and Fritzsche on 
 2 See the passages from Plato, Plotinus, Rom. vii. 22. 
 
424 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 clause karovkjoat x.7.2. may in reality be an explanatory clause to that which 
 precedes, is thus before us, namely, in the prefixed emphatic karovjoar it- 
 self. This in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who find this more pre- 
 cise definition only in the following év ay. épfut. «. tebe. —On xatorxety in 
 the spiritual sense, comp. Col. i. 19, ii. 9 ; Jas. iv. 5; 2 Pet. ili. 13; Test. 
 XII. Patr. pp. 652, 7384; and the passages in Theile, ad Jac. p. 220. 
 The conception of the temple, however, is not found here ; for the temple 
 would be the dwelling of God, and Christ the corner-stone, ii. 20 ff. 
 
 Ver. 18. ’Ev ayarn éppit. x. Tebfepu.'] is not to be separated by interpunction 
 from the following iva, because it belongs to iva x.r.2.:1 in order that, rooted 
 and grounded in love, ye may be able, etc. Thus the aim of the two preced- 
 ing parallel infinitive clauses is expressed, and the emphatically prefixed év 
 ay. éppit. x. Tebeu. is quite in keeping with the Pauline doctrine of the ricric 
 Sv ayarne évepyovuévn, Gal. v. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiii. Through the strengthening 
 of their “1ner man by means of the Spirit, through the karouxjoas of Christ 
 in their .earts, the readers are to become established in love, and, haying 
 been established in love, are able to comprehend the greatness of the love 
 of Christ. How often iva and other conjunctions follow a part of the sen- 
 tence which is with special emphasis prefixed, no matter whether that part 
 of the sentence be subject or object (Rom. xi. 31 ; 2 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 
 7; Acts xix. 4; Gal. ii. 10, al.), may be seen in Fritzsche,? Buttmann.® 
 Comp. on Gal. ii. 10.* év ay. éppit. x. Tee. 18, on the other hand, connected 
 with what precedes by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Estius, Er. 
 Schmid, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Riickert, Mat- 
 thies, Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, holding 
 that it attaches itself, with abnormal employment of case, predicatively to 
 év taic Kapd. huov." To the abnormal nominative of the construction contin- 
 ued in participles there would be in itself nothing to object ;° but here the 
 perfect participles are opposed to this, since they in fact would express not 
 the state into which the readers are to come,’ but the state in which they 
 already are,* the state which is presupposed as predicate of the readers.° But 
 to the desire that the readers might be strengthened, and that Christ might 
 make His dwelling in their hearts, the presupposition that they were already 
 év ayary éppiCouévor Would stand in quite illogical relation. Present partici- 
 ples would be logically necessary : ‘‘inasmuch as ye are being confirmed in 
 love,” namely, by the fact that Christ takes up His dwelling in you. 
 De Wette, on the other hand, is wrong in appealing to Col. ii. 7, where, in- 
 
 1 Comp. Lachmann. natural, inasmuch as the predicate is 
 
 2 Ad Rom. II. p. 541. 
 
 3 Neut. Gr. p. 333 [E. T. 389]. 
 
 4 This construction is here followed by 
 Beza, Cajetanus, Camerarius, Heinsixs, 
 Grotius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Rosen- 
 miiller, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel, and others, 
 including Winer, § 63, 1, and Buttmann 
 [E. T. 299]. Comp. already Photius in Oe- 
 cumenius. 
 
 ° Harless holds that the changing of the 
 construction is here, as Col. ii. 2, the more 
 
 equally applicable to capStars and buay, and 
 as an essential element must stand forth in- 
 dependently. 
 
 ® See already Photius in Oecumenius, ad 
 loc. ; Winer, p. 505, Buttmann, p. 256 [B. T. 
 299]. 
 
 7™“Tta utin amore sitis stabiles,” “That 
 ye may be stable in loye,’’ Morus. 
 
 §So also Riickert. 
 
 ® So Harless and Olshausen. 
 
CHAP Til, sltee 425 
 
 deed, in the case of éppiGouévor the having received Christ appears as having 
 already preceded. — év ayazy] is, in accordance with the following figures, 
 the soi/ in which the readers were rooted and grounded, namely, in dove, the 
 effect of faith, Christian brotherly love ; hence there is no reason in the rela- 
 tion of faith to love’ for supplying after épfif. x. rebeu., with Holzhausen 
 and Harless, év Xpior@, which is not even required by the anarthrous ayary; 
 for without an article (ir amando, ‘‘in loving”), it has ‘* vim quasi verbi,” 
 ‘Cas it were the force of a verb,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.9. Such a 
 supplement is, however, the more arbitrary, inasmuch as there is already a 
 definition by év ; consequently the reader could not light upon the idea of 
 supplying such in thought. év ay. éppul. x. TeOeu. is prefived with emphasis, 
 because only the loving soul is in a position to recognize the love of Christ 
 (comp. 1 John iv. 7ff.). Erroneously Beza says :  ‘ charitatem intellige, gua 
 diligimur a Deo,” ‘understand charity, whereby we are beloved of God,” ? 
 and Bengel holds that the love ef Christ, ver. 19, is meant ; agai which 
 in the very mention of love along with faith (i. 15; 1 Cor. xiii.) the absence 
 of a genitival definition is decisive.- [See Note XXXIV., p. 432 seq.] — 
 éppit. Kai reBewer.| a twofold figurative indication of the sense: steadfast and 
 enduring. Paul, in the vivacity of his imagination, conceives to himself the 
 congregation of his readers as a plant (comp. Matt. xiii. 3 ff.), perhaps a 
 tree (Matt. vii. 17), and at the same time as a building. Comp. Col. ii. 7 ; 
 1 Cor. ili. 9. Passages from profane literature for the tropical usage of 
 both words may be seen in Raphel, Herod. p. 534 ; Bos, Hvere. p. 183 ; 
 Wetstein, p. 248.2— éicytonre] ye may be fully able (Ecclus. vii. 6 ; Plut. 
 Mor. p. 801 E ; Strabo, xvi. p. 788). — xataAaBécbac| to apprehend, xatavoeiv. 
 Comp. Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25 ; Josephus, Antt. viii. 6. 5, with classical 
 writers in the active. Comp. on Johni. 5. Strangely at variance with the 
 context (because the object is not suited thereto), Holzhausen takes it to 
 mean to lay hold of, asa prize in the games (1 Cor. ix. 24 ; Phil. ili. 12). — 
 avy maot Toic ayiowe| The highest and most precious knowledge (Phil. iii. 8) 
 Paul can desire only as a common possession of a/l Christians ; individuals, 
 for whom he wishes it, are to have it in communion with all; as the knowl- 
 edge of the ground of salvation, so the attaining of the salvation itself (Acts 
 XX. 32). —Ti Td wAdro¢ k.7.A.] Sensuous illustration (arbitrarily declared by 
 de Wette to be ‘‘ hardly” in keeping with the Pauline style) of the idea : 
 how great in every relation. The deeply affected mind with its poetico-imag- 
 inative intuition looks upon the metaphysical magnitude asa physical, mathe- 
 matical one, cwwatikoic oxhuwact, ‘in corporeal characters,” 4 extending on every 
 side. Comp. Job xi. 7-9, The many modes of interpreting the several di- 
 mensions in the older expositors may be seen in Cornelius 3 Lapide and 
 Calovius. very special attempt at interpretation is unpsychological, and 
 
 1 Calvin already aptly remarks: ‘‘neque naces debeamus esse in caritate,”’ ‘ How 
 enim disputat P., wbt salus nostra fundata firm and tenacious we should be in love”). 
 
 sit... sed quam firma et tenax debeat in 2 So also Calovius, Wolf, and others. 
 nobis esse caritas,’ ‘*‘ For Paul does not 3 Comp. the Fathers in Suicer’s Zvhes. II. 
 dispute as to where our love isfounded... __p. 905. 
 
 but how firm and tenacious love in us 4 Chrysostom. 
 
 should be” (rather; ‘‘ quam firmi et te- 
 
426 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 only gives scope to that caprice which profanes by dissecting the outpour- 
 ing of enthusiasm.! Of what, however, are these dimensions predicated? Not 
 of the Christian church, as the spiritual temple of God, Rev. xxi. 16,? which 
 is at variance with the context ; inasmuch as a temple is not spoken of 
 either before or after (tefeueAcwpévor . . Not of the 
 work of redemption,* because, after anew portion of the discourse is com- 
 menced with ver. 14, the pvorfpiov is not again mentioned ; hence also not 
 of the mystery of the cross, in connection with which marvellous allegories 
 are drawn by Augustine and Estius from the jigure of the cross.* Not of 
 the love of God to us ;° because previously év ayary does not apply to this 
 love. Not of the ‘‘ divine gracious nature,” ° which would only be correct if 
 the predicates were exclusive attributes of the divine nature, so that, as a 
 matter of course, the latter would suggest itself as the subject. Not of the 
 wisdom of God, which de Wette quite irrelevantly introduces from Col. ii. 
 3; Job xi. 8. The love of Christ to men, ver. 19, is the subject,’ the bound- 
 less greatness of which is depicted.* Instead, namely, of the apostle add- 
 ing ti¢ ayary¢e Tov Xpiorod immediately after ioc and thus bringing to a 
 close the majestic flow of his discourse, now, when he has written as far as 
 boc, there first presents itself to his lively conception the—as regards sense, 
 climactically parallel to the just expressed karaAaBéoba . . . toc—oxymoron 
 yrovae tiv irepBaAAovoay Tie yvocewc; he appends this, and can now no longer 
 express the love of Christ in the genitive, so that 1d mAdroc . . . bpoc 
 
 . TO TAGpwua Tov Bod !). 
 
 1 By way of example, we subjoin some of 
 these modes of explanation, €.g., Oecu- 
 menius ; it isindicated that redemption and 
 the knowledge of Christ were foreordained 
 from eternity (u7j«os), extend to all (7Aaros), 
 reach even to hell in their efficacy (Bavdos), 
 and that Christ has ascended above the 
 heavens (WWos). Erasmus, Paraphr.; ‘ alti- 
 tudine ad angelos usque se proferens, pro- 
 Junditate ad inferos usque penetrans, long- 
 ttudine ac latitudine ad omnes hujus mundi 
 plagas sese dilatans,” ‘‘ in height reaching 
 to the angels, in depth penetrating to hell, 
 in length and breadth stretching itself to all 
 the regions of this world.” Grotius, ‘‘latis- 
 sime se effundit in omnes homines, et in 
 longum, 7.é., in omnia saecula se extendit, 
 et ex infima depressione hominem liberat, 
 et in loca suprema evebit,” ‘‘ Most widely 
 does it diffuse itself towards all men, and in 
 its length it extends to all nations, and in its 
 depth frees man from the /owest depression, 
 and elevates him to the highest places.” For 
 other instances, see Caloyvius. 
 
 2 Heinsius, Homberg, Wolf, Michaelis, 
 Cramer, Koppe, and others ; Comp. Bengel. 
 
 3 Chrysostom: 70 pvaotyptoy 7d Urép Vudv 
 oikovoundev, Theophylact, Oecumemius, 
 Theodoret, Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Calo- 
 vius, and others, including Riickert, Meier, 
 Harless, Olshansen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Bleek. 
 
 4 According to Estius, the length applies 
 to the upright beam of the cross as far as 
 the cross-beam ; the breadth, to the ecross- 
 beam ; the height, to the portion projecting 
 above the cross-beam; the depth, to the 
 portion fixed in the ground. He compre- 
 hends the /ength of the cross, who perceives 
 that from the beginning to the end of time 
 no one is justified save by the cross; the 
 breadth, who reflects that the church in all 
 the earth has come forth from the side of 
 Christ; the height, who ponders the sub- 
 limity of the glory in heaven obtained 
 though Christ ; the depth, who contemplates 
 the mystery of the divine election of grace, 
 and is thereby led to the utterance, Rom. 
 xi. 832! This as a warning instance how 
 even the better exegetes, when they give 
 the reins to subjectivity, may lose them- 
 selves in the most absurd attempts at inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 5 Chrysostom : 70 péyedos Tis ayamys TOD 
 @cov, ‘the greatness of God’s love.” Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Vatablus, 
 Grotius, Baumgarten, Flatt. 
 
 6 Matthies. 
 
 7 Castalio, Calvin, Calixtus, Zachariae, 
 Morus, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen. 
 
 §Comp. Luther: “that nothing is so 
 broad, long, deep, high, as to be beyond the 
 power and help of Christ.” 
 
CHAP; IE; 19. 42Q7 
 
 remains without a genitive, but lays claim to its genitival definition as self- 
 evident from the ayaryv tov Xpiorov Immediately following. 
 
 Ver. 19. T'vévac] Parallel to catataBéodar. —ré] and, denotes, in a repeti- 
 tion of words of corresponding signification (xara7aBéicda . . . yvavar), the 
 harmony, the symmetrical relation of the elements in question ;1 hence we 
 have the less to assume a climax in connection with yrévai re «.7.2., since this 
 must have been hinted at least by yrovar dé, or more clearly by paAdov dé xat 
 yvova, or the like. —riv irepBarr. ti¢ yvdoewc| The oxymoron (‘‘ suavissima 
 haec quasi correctio est,” ‘‘ This is a very charming correction, so to speak,” 
 Bengel) lies in the fact that an adequate knowledge of the love of Christ 
 transcends human capacity, but the relative knowledge of the same opens 
 up in a higher degree, the more the heart is filled with the Spirit of Christ, 
 and thereby is itself strengthened in loving (vv. 17, 18), which knowledge 
 is not of the discursive kind, but that which has its basis in the consciousness 
 of experience. Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly says : 7d yvOvar avti Tod aroAadvcat 
 Aéyet, ext mpaypatov elrav tiv yvdo.v, o¢ év Wadug TO éyvdpicd¢e por ddove Cyc, 
 avr Tov év arodatoe: pe tHe Cane Katéotyoac, ‘‘He says ‘to know,’ instead of 
 ‘to enjoy,’ speaking of knowledge in respect to things, as in the Psalm, 
 ‘Thou hast made known to me the ways of life,’ instead of ‘Thou hast put 
 me in the enjoyment of life.’”” The genitive ric yvécewc is dependent on the 
 comparative irepBarAovear,? not upon ayaryv, from which construction the 
 reading of Jerome,*® ayaryv tie yvécewc, has arisen, which in any case—even 
 though we should understand, with Grotius, the love (to God and one’s 
 neighbor) which flows from the knowledge of Christ—yields an inappropriate 
 sense, and obliterates the oxymoron. —aydryv tov Xpiorov| genitive of the 
 subject. It is the love of Christ to ws (Rom. viii. 35), shown in His atoning 
 death (Gal. ii. 20 ; Rom. v. 6 f., a/.). Incorrect (although still unhappily 
 enough defended by Holzhausen) is the view of Luther, 1545 :4 ‘that to 
 love Christ is much better than all knowledge.” At variance with the 
 words, since r7v izepB. tH¢ yvoc. can only be taken adjectively ; and at vari- 
 ance with the context, since love to Christ is not spoken of in the whole 
 connection. Comp., on the other hand, vv. 8, 12. —iva rAypwOjre x.7.2.] Aim 
 of the é&ofbew KataAaBéchar . . . Xpiotov : in order that ye may be filled up to 
 the whole fulness of God. 1d rAGpwpya tot Beov (comp. iv. 13, TA;pwua Tod 
 Xpiorov) is, according to the context, which speaks of the operationes gratiae, 
 ‘* operation of grace” (vv. 16-18, 20), the charismatic fulness, which is be- 
 stowed by God. Hence the sense : in order that ye may be filled with divine 
 gifts of grace to such extent, that the whole fulness of them (xav has the empha- 
 sis) shall have passed over upon you. rAhpoua namely, the definite meaning of 
 which is gathered from the context (comp. on i. 10, i. 23), has, by virtue of 
 its first signification : id quo res impletur, ‘that with which a thing is 
 filled,” often also the derived general signification of copia, tA0vToc, rAAOoc, 
 because that, by which a space is made full, appears as copiously present. 
 
 
 
 1 Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 105. +In the earlier editions he had correctly : 
 2 Hom. Z/. xxiii. 847; Plat. Gorg. p. 475 C; the love of Christ, which yet surpasses all 
 Bernhardy, p. 170. knowledge. 
 
 3 Also A, 74, 115, Al., Ar. p. 
 
428 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 So Song of Sol. v. 12: rAypouata idarTor, Rom. xv. 29! rAgpwpa evaoyiac 
 Xpiorov, Eph. iv. 13;1' Eur. Jon. 664 : ¢iAwov rAjpoya. Comp. Hesychius : 
 rhipapa’ xAjboc, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 471. Quite so the German Fitlle. 
 Grotius takes it actively, thus as equivalent to rAgjpwow, making full: 
 “‘donis, guibus Deus implere solet homines,” ‘‘ the gifts wherewith God is ac- 
 customed to fill men.” This is not, indeed, at variance with linguistic usage 
 (see on i. 10), but less simple, inasmuch as the passive rAypobyre most natu- 
 rally makes us assume for 777poua also the passive notion, namely, that of 
 the experienced divine fulness of gifts. Others, retaining the signification ; 
 id quo res impletur, ‘‘that wherewith a thing is filled,” but not the signifi- 
 cation copia, ‘‘ fulness,” derived therefrom, have assumed as the meaning : 
 the perfection of God. See Chrysostom : wAnpovoba: rdong apeTig He TAR PHS 
 éativ 6 Oedc, ‘to be filled with all the virtue whereof God is full.” 
 Comp. Oecumenius and others. Recently so Riickert : ‘‘in order that you 
 may be continually more filled with all perfection, until you have finally at- 
 tained to all the fulness of the divine perfection.” Comp. Olshausen. But 
 this goal cannot possibly be thought of by Paul as one to be realized in the 
 temporal life (1 Cor. xiii. 10-12). This also in opposition to Matthies, who 
 understands the infinite fulness of the—in grace, truth, etc., inexhaustible 
 —essence of God, which has become manifest in Christ. Harless here, too 
 (but see oni. 23), will have the gracious presence of the divine dd&a, with 
 which God fills His people, to be meant ; just as Holzhausen make us think 
 of the Shechinah filling the temple.? The church, however, is not according 
 to the context here meant by zAjpaua ;3 and the turgid and involved analysis 
 given by Schenkel in this sense is quite an arbitrary importation of meaning, * 
 since cic. T. tAHp. T. O. Can only state simply that the rAnpwbjvai is to be a 
 Jull one, consequently rav 7d rAApwua must be the totality of that which is 
 communicated by the rAnpobjva. — cic] does not stand for év,° and does not 
 signify either : into the very (becoming merged into), as Matthies, nor wp tow- 
 ards, as Schenkel explains it, to which zAjpeua is not suitable ; but it in- 
 dicates the quantitative goal of the fulfilment.*® 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. That which is strictly speaking the prayer, the petition, is at 
 an end ; but the confidence in the Almighty, who can still do far more, 
 draws forth from the praying heart a right full and solemn ascription of 
 praise, with the fulness of which that of Rom. xvi. 25-27 is to be compared. 
 — trip ravta romjoa] to be taken together. \ To be able to do beyond all, i.e., 
 more than all is a popular expression of the very highest active power ; so that 
 mavra is quite unlimited, and it is not, with Grotius, arbitrarily to be limited 
 by quae hactenus visa sunt, ‘‘ what has hitherto been seen.” This irép ravta 
 does not belong to duvayévw,’ because otherwise rovjoa: would be superflu- 
 
 1 Not even in John i. 16, where, rather, the 
 context (ver. 14: wAyjpys xdpiros x.7.A.) de- 
 mands the first signification : that, of which 
 Christ is full. 
 
 2 Comp. Baumgarten, Michaelis. 
 
 5 Koppe, Stolz, and others. 
 
 4 The world-whole (?) fulfilling itself (2) in 
 God, i.e., completing itself unto the expression 
 
 of the highest perfection, reflecting itself in the 
 church (?), in so far as there is no longer found 
 in it any want, any kind of defect.”” A com- 
 plication of ideas, of which the clear-headed 
 rational Paul was quite incapable. 
 
 ® Grotius, Estius, Rosenmiiller. 
 
 ®§ Matthiae, p. 1348. 
 
 7 Holzhausen. 
 
CHAPP Ais elt 429 
 
 ous ; nor does izép stand adverbially (2 Cor. xi. 23), as Bengel would have 
 it, which could not occur to any reader on account of the xavra standing be- 
 side it. There is nothing at which the action of God would have its limit ; 
 He can do still more. —izepexrepicood dv aitotu. 7 voovtu.| a more precise 
 definition to the universal and indefinite irép ravra, specializing and at the 
 same time enhancing the notion of irép : above measure more than what we ask 
 or understand. According to Riickert, dv airoiyu. has reference to ravra : Paul 
 namely, instead of adding dv airoiu. immediately after rdavra, has first for 
 the strengthening of the izép introduced the additional brepexrep., and now 
 must needs annex in the genitive what ought properly, as construed with 
 xavra, to follow in the accusative. A course in itself quite unnecessary ; 
 and if the apostle had been concerned only about a strengthening of the 
 ixép, and he had, in using rdyra, already had 4& airoiy. in his mind, he must 
 have written after irepextep.: TavTov & airoiu.3 So that the sense would be: 
 more than all (which we ask, etc.), exceedingly more than all, which we ask, 
 etc. — imepexrepicoov] is, with the exception of 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13 (Elz.), 
 codd. at Dan. iii. 22, nowhere else preserved.! | The frequent, and in part 
 bold, compounds with tép used by Paul are at such places in keeping with 
 the intensity of his pious feeling, which struggles after adequate expression. 
 — oy, for roitwv a, is genitive of comparison.? —7j| Whether our asking or our 
 apprehending be regarded, the one as the other is infinitely surpassed by God’s 
 active power. ‘‘ Cogitatio latius patet quam preces ; gradatio,” ‘‘ Thought 
 takes a wider range than prayers ; a gradation,” Bengel.— rv évepyoup. | not 
 passive,” * but middle. See on Gal. v. 6. — év jjiv] in our minds, appeal to the 
 consciousness of experience with regard to the divine power, which is at 
 work in the continued enlightenment and whole Christian endowment of 
 the inner man.* Michaelis arbitrarily refers it to the miraculous gifts, which 
 in fact would be applicable only to individuals. 
 
 Ver. 21. ai7¢] pointing back with rhetorical emphasis.* — 7 dééa] se. cin : 
 the befitting honor. Comp. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20. 
 Certainly God has the glory (i. 17), from which fact Harless explains the 
 article ; but it is not of this that the doxologies speak, not of this fact being 
 testified to God, but of His receiving the human praise, which to Him per- 
 tains (Rev. iv. 11). Compare the conception, doivac défav ré O24, Luke 
 xvii. 18 ; Acts xii. 23; John ix. 24 ; Rom. iv. 20 ; Rev. iv. 9. — év ri éxnd. 
 év Xpior@ “I.| not to be taken together,* against which we may decidedly 
 urge, not indeed the want of the article,—since 7 éxxAyoia év XpiorG, the 
 Christian church, might be combined as one idea in contradistinction from 
 the Jewish, or any other éxxAyoia whatever, —but the utter superfluousness 
 of this distinguishing designation ; for that 7 éx«anoia was the Christian 
 church, the éxcAnoia car ’éoxqv, ‘* pre-eminently,” was self-evident. Rather is év 
 
 1 Comp., however, vzepexreptaaas, 1 Thess. # Chrysostom aptly remarks that this, too, 
 v. 13; Clem. Cor. 1.20; Alay &k mepiccod, we should neither have asked nor hoped. 
 Mark vi. 51; wmepreprcoas, Mark vii. 37; 5 See Schaef. dMelet. p. 84; Kiihner, IL., 
 vmepreptagevw, Rom. y. 20; 2 Cor. vii. 4. p. 330. 
 
 2 See Bernhardy, p. 139. ® Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, 
 
 3 Estius. Flatt, Holzhausen, Meier, Olshausen. 
 
430 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 rh éxxa. the outward domain in which God is to be praised, and év Xprorg the 
 spiritual sphere in which this ascription of praise is to take place ; for not 
 outside of Christ, but in Christ—as the specific element of faith, in which 
 the pious life-activity of the Christian moves—does he praise God. Comp. 
 vv. 5, 20. Allied, but not identical (in opposition to Grotius and others), is 
 the conception dia Xpiorod, Rom. i. 8, vil. 25. Both conceptions : Col. iii. 
 17. — ele racac tac yevedc K.7T.A.] unto all generations of the world-age of world- 
 ages.! This cumulation of the expressions is solemn. The aidy tév aiévev 
 denotes the eternal world-period beginning with the Parousia, the aiay péAdwv, 
 conceived of as the superlativum, ‘‘ superlative,” of all world-periods,’ in so 
 far as it, just as the last and eternal one, transcends all other aidveg since 
 the beginning of the world. Comp. Dan. vii. 18; 3 Esdr. iv. 38. The 
 plural expression of aidvec tov aidvev’ (Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20, al.) is not 
 different as to the thing intended, but is so as to the conception ; since in 
 it the Messianic period, although equally thought of (comp. also on Luke i. 
 50) as the superlative of all the aidvec, is not thought of in its wnity with- 
 out distinction, but as a continuous series of several periods : consequently 
 not asa single totality, as in the case of 6 aiév, but according to the several 
 constituent parts, which collectively form the whole of the Messianic eter- 
 nity,—in short, not as the time of times, asin our passage, but as the times of 
 times. [See Note XXXV., p. 433.] By etc racac rac yevedc x.7.A. the thought is 
 expressed, that the indicated ascription of praise to God will extend to all the 
 generations of the (nigh) Messianic world-period, #.e., that this ascription of 
 praise in the church is to endure not only up to the Parousia, but then also 
 ever onward from generation to generation in the Messianic aeon,—conse- 
 quently to last not merely é¢ rd zapév, ‘‘ for the present,” but also é¢ 76 aiduor, 
 ‘‘forever.” On yeved, generation (three of which about = 100 years), comp. 
 Acts xiv. 16, and the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha in Schleusner’s 
 Thes.; from Greek writers, in Wessel.* The designation of the successive 
 time-spaces of the everlasting Messianic aiév by yeveai, is derived from the 
 lapse of time in the pre-Messianic world-period—in which with the chang- 
 ing generations one age of man ever succeeds another—by virtue of a cer- 
 tain anthropological mode of regarding eternity. Of the church, however, 
 it is presupposed that she herself (and so, too, will it be with her praising 
 of God) endures on into the everlasting aiév, but not that she has still a very 
 long temporal duration before the Parousia, according to which de Wette 
 has here found a contradiction to the apostle’s expectation elsewhere of the 
 nearness of the Parousia. The Parousia brings for the éxxAjoia not the end, 
 but the consummation. Hofmann,‘ retaining xai before év Xp. ’I. (see the 
 critical remarks), would have ei¢ rdoac rac yevedc x.7.2.,t0 belong only to év 
 Xp. ’I., and not to év rq éxkAnoia ; for only at present and upon earth does 
 the glorification of God take place in the church, but in Christ it takes place 
 eternally. Incorrectly, because even the temporal glorification does not 
 
 1“ aidves, periodi oeconomiae divinaeab  Bengel. 
 una quasi scena ad aliam decurrentes,”’ 2 Winer, p. 220. 
 ‘periods of the divine economy extending, 3 Ad Diod. I. 24. 
 as it were, from one scene to another,” 4 Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 127. 
 
NOTES. 431 
 
 take place otherwise than éy Xpior@ ’Inoov, consequently the cai would have 
 had its logical position only after Xpioré "Incov. If kai were genuine, it 
 would not be equivalent to dé, as would need to be assumed on Hofmann’s 
 view, but it would be et quidem, idque, ‘‘ and indeed,” ‘‘and that too,” how- 
 ever superfluous and cumbrous such a stress laid on it might be. Accord- 
 ing to Baur, p. 433, there meets us again here the Gnostic idea of the aidvec, 
 in accordance with which they, ‘‘as the yevea? tov aidvog tov aidvwr, are 
 the aeons in the sense, in which God Himself, as the extra-temporal unity 
 of time, individualizes Himself in the aeons as the elements of self-unfold- 
 ing time.” In this way one may over-urge Gnosticism. 
 
 Norrs py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XXIX. Ver. 7. didkovoc. 
 
 “The meanings of dvaxovoc and drnpétne are much more nearly allied ; they do 
 in fact continuously run into one another, and there are a multitude of occa- 
 sions on which they might be promiscuously used ; the more official character 
 of the tmypétn¢e is the point in which the distinction between them resides.”’ 
 Trench’s Synonyms of the N. T., Second Series, p. 57. 
 
 XXX. Ver. 10. dud tig éxxAnoiac. 
 
 Eadie develops this thought with great eloquence : ‘‘ The church 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 origination and extine- 
 tion 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 
 principalities and powers in heavenly places’ beheld with rapture other and 
 brighter phases of a wisdom which had often dazzled them by its brilliant 
 and profound versatility, and surprised and entranced them by the infinite ful- 
 ness 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 Pet. i, 12.’’ 
 
 XXXI. Ver. 15. mdoa rarpid k.T.A. 
 
 The exact meaning of this passage is, that as every clan or family bears the 
 name of its ancestor (as, for example, in modern times Luther and Washington 
 are the names of more remote ancestors of the individuals so well known to the 
 world), so every patria is simply a perpetuation of the name of the pater 
 whence it ultimately springs. Wherever the patria is found its paternity is at 
 once indicated. If we find those who are members of a patria, ‘‘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 dif- 
 
432 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 / 
 ferent products of the same divine workmanship, but they merge into one fam- 
 ily—‘all they are brethren.’ Every tazpia must surely possess unbounded con- 
 fidence in the benignity and protection of the taryjp, and to Him, therefore, 
 the prayer of the apostle is directed” (Eadie). 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 16. tov gow avPpwror. (1). 
 
 The higher powers of the unregenerate man are here regarded by Meyer as 
 not entirely dead with respect to spiritual things; they are only impaired, 
 directed to the good, but without the Holy Spirit too weak to effect anything. 
 Cf. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. This is perfectly consistent with Meyer’s interpreta- 
 tion of chap. ii. 1, which see, and, on the other side, Note XVI., p. 398seq. To 
 the student of church history the name of a serious error in the early church 
 will be readily suggested. Yet Dr. Riddle is right in maintaining that Dr. 
 Hodge goes too far in classifying all interpretations that insist upon a dis- 
 tinction between ‘‘the inner man’’ and ‘the new man,’’ as semi-Pelagian, 
 ‘The inner man”’ is the sphere in which ‘‘the new man” is developed, ‘‘ the 
 central point of the human personality” (Harless, Chr. Ethics, p. 195), ‘* not 
 the pure in antithesis to the impure, but only that in the regenerate man which 
 daily experiences renewal . . . In antithesis to the externality of the worldly 
 life, it is the inner man upon which the grace of God lays hold, the inner man 
 which daily is renewed while the outward man perishes’ (Harless on Eph. iii. 
 16). Hence in its application, as here, it may often by synecdoche be almost 
 identical with ‘‘ the new man.’’ Elsewhere 6 éow (éow%ev) dvOpwroc certainly 
 designates the regenerate internal nature of man (2 Cor. iv. 16 ; Eph. iii. 16 ; 
 cf. 1 Pet. iii. 4), although even there not in itself, but only in respect of the 
 connection’’ (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychology, p. 446). So Ellicott, Eadie, Braune. 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 16. 7év éow avfpwrov. (2). 
 
 The relation of the expression to the Platonic philosophy is well indicated by 
 Cremer (Lexicon, p. 104 sq.): ‘‘This Platonic reflection, with its identification 
 of the intellectual and moral nature, may be regarded as the expression, in 
 Platonic form, of a presentiment of the truth, such as readily dawns on the 
 human mind ; but we must not, therefore, suppose that St. Paul’s expression 
 had this basis—it was the outcome rather of his own moral and religious ex- 
 perience in its harmony with the words of divine revelation,”’ 
 
 XXXIV. Ver. 18. év ayary. 
 
 Westcott and Hort attach this clause to the preceding verse. As to Meyer’s 
 interpretation ; ‘‘ The absence of the article is unduly pressed, both by Meyer 
 (in amando), and Harl. (subjective love, man’s love to Christ), such omissions in 
 the case of abstract nouns, especially when preceded by prepositions, being 
 not uncommon in the N. T., see Winer's Gr. § 19. 1, p. 109, and comp. Middle- 
 ton, Gr. Art. vi. 1, p. 98 (ed. Rose).” (Ellicott). So Eadie, in almost the same 
 words, who adds: ‘‘ But the entire context proves that the love referred to is 
 the grace of love. One would have expected a genitive of possession, if aydary 
 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 
 
NOTES. 433 
 
 Christ’s love to us and our love to Christ. 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. 
 . . . This love is the root and foundation of Christian character, as all ad- 
 vancement is connected with its existence and exercise. ‘He prayeth well 
 whe loveth well.’ Love is the fundamental grace.’’ Yet only as the fruit of 
 faith, as the preceding verse shows. 
 
 XXXV. Ver. 21. tov aidvoc tév aidvur. 
 
 «‘The addition of the genitive strengthens the idea. It is a periphrasis for 
 the superlative, Matthiae, § 430” (Cremer). ‘‘ Harless finds a difference between 
 the two expressions ai@vec TOv aidverv and aidy Tdv aidver, the former being 
 rather exlensive, and conveying the idea of ravtec¢ aidvec, the latter being rather 
 intensive, and more strictly in accordance with the Hebrew superlative. This is 
 ingenious, but apparently of doubtful application, as in actual practice the dif- 
 ference between the two expressions is hardly appreciable’’ (Ellicott). ‘* Eter- 
 nity is conceived as containing ages, just as our ‘age’ contains years ; and 
 then those ages are thought of as made up, like ours, of generations. Like the 
 similar expression aidvec Tv aidvwr, it is used by a transfer of what we know 
 in time, to express imperfectly and indeed improperly the idea of eternity”’ 
 (Alford). 
 
 28 
 
434 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 6. After mdow Elz. has, with min. Chrys. Theodoret, tuiv ; for which 
 DEFGkKLIand many min., also several vss. and Fathers, read 7juiv. So 
 Griesb. and Scholz. But neither pronoun is present in A BC Sand several 
 min. vss. and Fathers. The pronouns are exegetic additions, designed to se- 
 cure the reference of ravTwr, TavTwr, Tdowv to the Christians. — Ver. 7. The ar- 
 ticle of ydépic is wanting in B D* F G L, Dam. min. Deleted by Lachm. 
 [Treg.] But it was more easily absorbed through the preceding H than 
 brought in through writing it twice ; and in ils favor tell the readings 7 yapuic¢ 
 abt in C** 10, 31, Cyr., and 7 ydapec atrov in Aeth., in which the article is 
 glossed. — Ver. 8. Before édwxe Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. have xai, which has 
 against it A C** D* E F G 8$* 17, Copt. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. and several Latin 
 Fathers, and hence is suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. [and 
 Tisch.] But considerable witnesses still remain in favor of xai ; and since the 
 LXX. does not have it at Ps. Ixviii. 19, the omission seems to have taken place 
 in accordance with the LXX. — Ver. 9. After xaréBy Elz. has rparov, in opposi- 
 tion to decisive witnesses, although defended by Reiche. A more precisely 
 defining addition, as is also yépy in Elz. after xavér. Less weighty authority, 
 it is true, testifies against this wépy (hence it is retained not only by Reiche, 
 but also by Lachm. Scholz, Riick. [Hof. Braune, West. and Hort]), but it betrays 
 itself asa glossing product of the very old explanation of the descent into 
 hell, in order to designate the place whither Christ descended as subterranean. 
 —Ver. 15. Instead of 6 Xpioréc, A BC 8* min. Fathers have merely Xpuoréc. 
 So Lachm. and Tisch. [Treg. and West. and Hort]. To be preferred, on ac- 
 count of the oldest ms. attestation. — Ver. 16. wépovc] A C, 14, 66 (on margin), 
 Syr. Arr, Copt. Arm. Vulg. and several Fathers have péAovc, which, after Grot. 
 Mill, and Bengel, is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Riick. (not 
 Lachm). An interpretation in accordance with the context. G has pérpouc, 
 which likewise testifies in favor of pépove. — Ver. 17. Aoura] is wanting with 
 AB D* FG &, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Clem. Cyr. and Lat. Fathers. 
 Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. [Tisch. Treg. West. and 
 Hort]. But how naturally might it be omitted, since Paul was speaking to 
 Gentiles who were now Christians, and upon a comparison with 1 Thess. iv. 5! 
 —Ver. 18. éoxoricuévor] Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], read éoxotwpé- 
 vot, following AB &, Ath. Rightly ; the current form was brought in, — Ver. 
 26. The article before rapopy., deleted by Lachm. ['Treg. West. and Hort.], is 
 wanting in A B &*, and is more likely to have been added on account of the 
 definite reference in the text, than to have been omitted. — Ver. 27. ure] All 
 uncials have zydé On that account, even apart from the greater linguistic 
 probability, rightly approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch, Scholz, 
 Riick. and Harless. — Ver. 28. 10 dyafov taic yepoiv] Many variations, among 
 which rai¢ idiawe yepoi 76 ayafév (so Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick.) is by far 
 the best attested reading (A D E F G §* min. Ar. pol. Copt. Sahid. Aeth, Arm. 
 
CHAP. Iv., I. : 435 
 
 oC 
 
 Vulg. It. Basil, Epiph. Naz. Jer. Aug. Pel.). The shortest readings are : merely 
 Td ayafdév with Clem., and merely raic yepoiv with Tertull. Harless (comp. 
 Mill) conjectures that the latter is the original form, and that 1 Cor. iv. 12, Gal. 
 v. 10 gave occasion to glosses. But only 1 Cor. iv. 12 is here parallel, because 
 Gal. vi. 10 does not speak of literal labor. There would hence be more war- 
 rant for regarding the simple 76 dya#év in Clement as original, But in opposi- 
 tion to this, it may be urged that raic yepoiv is wanting in no other witness, 
 and is in the highest degree appropriate to the connection ; whereas 70 ayafov, 
 since the mention is of manual labor, might easily appear inappropriate. The 
 true reading accordingly I hold to be raic¢ yepot rd dyabov, which remains, if we 
 delete idiacc in Lachm., as an addition from 1 Cor. iv. 12. And with this agree 
 also B &** Amiat. Ambrosiast., which actually read rai¢ yepol To ayahov [West. 
 and Hort : rai¢ yepoiv 76 ayabdbv. | —Ver. 29. ypeiac] D* E* FG, 46, Arm. in sever- 
 al codd. of Vulg., codd. of It., Lat. codd. in Jer. and several Fathers : 
 miorewc. An interpretation.— Ver. 32. dé] is wanting, no doubt, in B 
 and min. Clar. Germ. Clem. Dam. Oec., and is deleted by Lachm., but was 
 easily dropped out through the last syllable of yivecbe. Omitted, it was then 
 in accordance with v. 1 made up for, in many witnesses, by odv (D* F G, lect. 
 6, 14, codd. of It.). — tuiv] Lachm. : jyiv, after B** D E K L, min. Syr. utr. Ar. 
 pol. Sahid. Arm. Chrys. in comm., Theodoret, Theophylact. But 7juiv appears 
 an alteration in accordance with v. 2 ; where, no doubt, the variations jude and 
 duov are found, but in opposition to so decisive a preponderance of witnesses 
 reading jude and fav, that dude and juav only become an evidence for the 
 originality of our div. 
 
 ContENTs.—The paraenetic portion of the Epistle begins with the general 
 exhortation to the readers to live worthily of their vocation, whereupon, es- 
 pecially, mutual loving forbearance and the preservation of Christian unity 
 are brought prominently forward (vv. 1-3). Thereon follows, vv. 4-16, a 
 detailed exhibition of those relations, which render the preservation of 
 Christian unity a duty, namely—(q) that there is one body, one Spirit, etc., 
 vv. 4-6. Further, (%) that to every individual is grace given in the measure 
 in which Christ apportions His gift, vv. 7-10. And (ce) that Christ has giv- 
 en the different teachers, until all should have attained to unity of the faith 
 and of knowledge, in order that dependence on false teaching may cease, 
 and, on the other hand, the truth may be acknowledged in love, and thus 
 all may grow in relation to Christ the head, from whom the whole church, 
 the body, accomplishes in love its organic development to perfection, vv. 
 11-16. Hereupon the discourse returns to the form of exhortation, namely, 
 that they no longer walk after a Gentile manner (vv. 17-19). They had, in- 
 deed, been quite otherwise taught, namely so, as it is truth in Jesus, that 
 they should lay aside the old man, and, on the other hand, should be re- 
 newed in their mind and should put on the new man (vv. 20-24). Lastly, 
 thus grounded, there follow the special exhortations no longer to lie, but to 
 speak the truth ; not to sin in anger, etc.; no longer to steal, but to work, 
 etc.; to hold no bad discourse, but, etc.; not to be bitter, passionate, 
 etc., but kind, compassionate, forgiving (vv. 25-82). 
 
 Ver. 1. See on vy. 1-6, Winzer, Commentat., Lips. 1839. — rapaxara| 
 
436 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 ‘“ Parte doctrinae absoluta venit, ut solet, ad adhortationes,” ‘‘after the doc- 
 trinal portion is finished, he comes, according to his custom, to exhortations,” 
 Grotius. No doubt, there presently begins again at ver. 4 a doctrinal ex- 
 position as far as ver. 16, but itis swbservient to the paraenesis, and is itself 
 pervaded by the paraenetic element (vv. 14, 15). —ovv] deduces the exhor- 
 tation from the immediately preceding ii. 21. For a walk in keeping with 
 the vocation, through which one belongs to the church, is what is practical- 
 ly in keeping with the praise of God in the church. The suitableness of 
 this nearest reference gives it the preference over the more vague ordinary 
 view, that civ draws its inference from the whole contents of the first three 
 chapters. Comp. on Rom. xii. 1.—?y 6 déopuoc év xvp.] gives to the rapa- 
 Kado obv a touching force ‘‘ad excitandum affectum, quo sit efficacior exhor- 
 tatio,” ‘‘for the purpose of exciting emotion, whereby his exhortation might 
 be the more efficacious,” Estius ; comp. Calvin. Similarly Ignat. Tradl. 12: 
 mapakarei buac Ta Seoud pov, & évexev’Inoov Xpiotov repipépw, ‘‘ my chains which 
 I bear for the sake of Jesus Christ beseech you.” But all that has been 
 said about exciting sympathetic feeling,’ cheering obedience,” and the like, 
 is quite inappropriate, since it was just in his sufferings that Paul was 
 conscious of all his dignity with holy pride (comp. iii. 13 and on Gal. vi. 
 17). So here, too, in the zapaxadé, the reader was to be affected by the 
 consciousness of the dignity and greatness of the martyr who utters it. Ac- 
 cording to others, Paul wishes to present himself as an example.* In that 
 case he must at least have written : tapuxadé obv éyo 6 déou, év kup. Kal bwag 
 akiwe TepiT. K.T.A. —év kvpiw| does not belong to rapaxadd,* but to 6 déopuoc, 
 beside which it stands, and which alone needs its significant reference ; 
 comp. lii. 1; Phil. i. 13. Paul was the prisoner in the Lord (the article as 
 iii. 1), for he did not endure a captivity having its ground apart from Christ, 
 —such as one suffers who for any other reason is placed in bonds,—but in 
 Christ his being bound had its causal basis, just because he was bearing the 
 chains for Christ’s sake ; without, however, év kupiw signifying ‘‘ for Christ’s 
 sake” (comp. on Gal. i. 24), as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many would 
 have it. Comp. rather, ovvepyoc év Xpiot@, ayarnroc év Kupiw, Oéxiwoc év Xpior@, 
 éxAextoc év Kvpiw, Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 9, 10,13, a7. It gives to the déoycoc its spe- 
 cific character, by which therefore the captivity was essentially distinguished 
 from any other. — év kupiw| is annexed without an article, because it is blend- 
 ed with 6 décyuoc into a unity of conception. The genitive designation, ili. 
 1, expresses the same thing, but otherwise conceived of. — d&iwe mepitarqjoa 
 x.7.4.| @.e., to lead such a life-walk as is appropriate to the call to the Messi- 
 anic kingdom issued to you (at your conversion), ‘ne sint tanta gratia indig- 
 ni,” ‘‘ lest they be unworthy of such grace,” Calvin. Comp. Phil. i. 27 ; 
 
 1 Koppe and older expositors. Christ’s sake more than a king does in his 
 2“Ut Paulum obsequio exhilararent,” diadem.”’ 
 “That they should delight Paul by their 4 Harless, Olshausen ; comp. also Koppe. 
 obedience,”’ Bengel. 5 Semler, Koppe with hesitation; Zan- 
 
 > Theodoret aptly remarks: tots 6a tov chius already suggested, but did not ap- 
 Xprotov decpots évaBpvverar waddov 7 BactAreis prove it. 
 diadjpart, “He delights in his bonds for 
 
CHAP. IV., 2. 43% 
 
 Col. i. 10; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Thess. 1. 11; Matt. iii. 8; Rom. xvi. 2; Bern- 
 hardy, p. 140. The future possession of the kingdom, forsooth, is destined 
 only for those whose ethical frame is renewed and sanctified by the Holy 
 Spirit. See vv. 21. ff., 30; Rom. viii. 4 ff., xiv. 17; Gal. v. 21 f.; 1 Cor. 
 vi. 9 f., al. —7c] as at i. 6; and see on 2 Cor. i. 4. Attracted instead of 
 qv. Yet Paul might have written 7, 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 20. 
 
 Ver. 2. Mera do. rarevvogp. x. tpad7.| the characteristic dispositions ac- 
 companying this repiuraryoa ; see Winer, p. 337, and with regard to raayc, 
 oni. 8 ; it belongs to doth substantives. On the subject-matter, comp. Matt. 
 xi. 29 ; Col. iii. 12. . The opposite of humility: ta iwy2a gpovetv, Rom. xii. 
 16, xi. 20 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17; doxeiy eivai t, Gal. vi. 3. Onthe notion of rpaédryc, 
 gentleness, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. [See Note XXXVI., p. 483 seq. ] — 
 pera waxpo0.| is attached by Calvin, Estius, Zeltner, Calixtus, Baumgarten, 
 Michaclis, Zachariae, Riickert, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, to the fol- 
 lowing aveyéuevor. But the very repetition of the preposition, to which 
 appeal is made, most naturally points backwards, so that wera waxpof. appears 
 as parallel to pera m. tarervodp. k. tpadt., inasmuch, namely, as Paul makes 
 the general be followed by the special, and then gives to the latter the elu- 
 cidation aveyduevor x.7.A. Besides, pera paxpod., if it belonged to aveyéu., 
 would have an undue emphasis, since without long-suffering the avéyecba 
 adaqrwy Would not exist at all; Col. ii1.12f. Bengel and Matthies, follow- 
 ing Theodoret and Oecumenius, have attached the whole pera 7. tar. x. 
 mpaét., meta paxpoO. to aveyouevor. But in this way we lose the gradual tran- 
 sition from the general agiwc¢ mepurat. 7. xa. to the special aveydou. adaga., which 
 under our construction is very naturally brought about. —aveydou. adAp2. év 
 ayaryn| The reciprocal forbearance in (ethical habit) love (comp. Rom. xv. 1 ; 
 Gal. vi. 2) is the practical expression of the paxpofuuia. Comp. Col. iii. 13. 
 It consists in the fact that we ‘‘aliorum infirmitates aequo animo ferimus, 
 nec ob ea, quae nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed 
 personam constanter amamus, etsi vitia in odio habeamus,” ‘‘ bear the infir- 
 mities of others with patience, and do not withdraw from his friendship 
 because of those things in our neighbor that displease, but constantly love 
 his person, even though we have his vices in hatred,” Calovius. The nominative 
 of the participle (comp. Col. i. 10) is put cara 7d vootuevor, because the logical 
 subject of afiw¢ repirar., ver. 1, is bueic.1 Ignoring this familiar construction, 
 Heinsius, Knatchbull, and Homberg have placed a full stop after ver. 1, and 
 then supplied estote, ‘‘be ye,” to the participles—a course which would only 
 be admissible if, as in Rom. xii. 9, this concise, pregnant mode of expres- 
 sion were implied in the context. —év aydry] belongs to the preced- 
 ing. On the thing itself, comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4. Lachmann, Holzhausen, 
 and Olshausen attach it to orovdafovrec. The reason given by Olshausen, 
 that, as the paxpo?. is only a form of expression of love, év aydéry could 
 not belong to what precedes, would be set aside, even if it were in 
 itself valid, by the correct separation of era waxpof. from daveydu. And ave- 
 x6u. arAnr., taken alone, renders the discourse simply abrupt. How harmo- 
 
 1 See on iii. 18; comp. on 2 Cor. i. 7, and Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 970. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 nious is the structure, when both participial clauses begin with the partici- 
 ple and close with the definitions attached by év, in which definitions there 
 is opened up the whole ethical domain (Jove and peace) to which the before- 
 named special virtues belong (1 Cor. xiii.) ! 
 
 Ver. 3. Parallel of aveyéuevor x.7.2., which is characterized as respects the 
 effort by which it must be upheld. — rjv évéryra tov rvetparoc] The rvgipa is 
 not the human spirit, so that in general animi studiorumque consensus, ‘* har- 
 mony of mind and desires” is meant,’ but, as is shown from ver. 4, and is in 
 itself clear from the exhortation to the Christian life (ver. 1), the Holy Spirit, 
 instead of which we have not, with de Wette and Schenkel, to understand 
 the Christian spirit of the community ; the N. T. knows not this modern 
 notion, but knows only the Holy Spirit of God, as that which rules in the 
 church (ii. 22), and upholds and develops its specific life, so that the latter 
 has precisely in the kowovia tov mvetuarog (Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 18) its 
 common source and support. Rightly already Chrysostom (rd rvevpa rove 
 yévet kat tpdrore Stadopéie SteotyKérac évoi, ‘* the Spirit unites those separated in 
 race and in ways of difference”) and his successors, Beza, Calovius, Bengel, 
 and others, including Harless, Winzer, Bleek, and Ch. F. Fritzsche :? the 
 Comp. Phil. i. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 13; John 
 And this unity is the identity of faith, of love, of sentiment, of 
 hope, etc., in the different subjects who are moved by the Spirit. —év ro 
 ourdéicuw TIC elphvyc] is attached by Lachmann to what follows, whereby the 
 parallelism with the preceding participial clause is destroyed. And after the 
 definition by év 76 cvvdécuw rie eip. being prefixed, several of the following 
 elements of unity would not be appropriate, since even without the bond of 
 peace there is one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father. — éy is ordinarily 
 taken as instrumental: through the bond of peace. In opposition to the par- 
 allelism with év aydéry 3 and through the unity of the Spirit the bond of 
 peace is preserved, not the converse. Hence : in the bond of peace, by which 
 is denoted the ethical relation, in which they are to preserve the unity of the 
 Spirit, namely, while peace one towards another must be the bond, which is to 
 envelope them. rie eipivyc, accordingly, is genitive of apposition. Comp. cbv- 
 decuoe evvoiag Kai gidiac, ‘a bond of good will and friendship,” Plut. Wwm. 
 6 ; Acts vill. 23 ; Isa. lviii. 6. Others : ‘‘vinculum, quo paz retinetur,” ‘a 
 bond whereby peace is maintained,” 4and thisis held to be love. Appeal is 
 made to Col. iii. 14, and to the parallel with év dyaéry. But, in Col. Le., 
 love in fact is expressly named, and designated as civdecuoc tie Tedetoryroc ; 
 while justice is done to the parallel with év aydzy by our interpretation also, 
 
 unity, which the Spirit produces. 
 xvi. 21. 
 
 ? Ambrosiaster, Artselm, Erasmus, Calvin, 
 Piscator, Estius, Wolf, Koppe, and many, 
 including Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
 tlickert, according to whom Paul did not 
 write tov vods, because he derives the unity 
 of the spirit from the Divine Spirit. 
 
 * Nova opp. acad. p. 244. 
 
 °’ What de Wette observes in opposition 
 to this view—that the peacefulness, to 
 which the readers are exlsorted, is to pre- 
 
 serve the unity of the Spirit by the fact that 
 it holds all enveloped with the bond of 
 peace—is not sufficient ; since this peace- 
 fulness, which encircles all with the bond 
 of peace, at any rate presupposes the unity 
 of the Spirit. Where there is dispeace, this 
 unity is already wanting. 
 
 4 Bengel ; so Theophylact, Calovius, and 
 others, including Riickert, Meier, Harless, 
 Winzer. 
 
CHAP? IV.,.4; 5. 439 
 
 and it was at any rate most natural for the reader to understand under the 
 the bond of peace peace itself, conceived of as a bond. Expositors would not 
 have sought for another explanation, had they not taken év as instrumental, 
 in which case the difficulty obtruded itself, that the unity of the Spirit is not 
 preserved by means of peace, but peace by means of the unity of the Spirit. 
 That, moreover, no inference may be drawn from ver. 3 as to divisions pre- 
 vailing in the church, Bengel has already rightly observed : ‘‘etiam ubi 
 nulla fissura est, monitis opus est,” ‘‘even where there is no sundrance, 
 there is need of admonitions.”” And particularly was such exhortation nat- 
 ural for the apostle, even in the absence of special occasion, considering the 
 many saddening experiences which he had met with elsewhere on this point! 
 
 Ver. 4, on to ver. 6. Objective relations of unity, to which the non-compli- 
 ance with what is demanded in ver. 3 would be contradictory,’ and which 
 are consequently meant to incite towards compliance,—but without yap,? 
 which gives greater animation to the discourse. The simpie éor/is to be sup- 
 plied (comp. 1 Cor. x. 17); for the discourse is not hortatory, as it is taken 
 to be by Pelagius, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Calvin, Camerarius, Estius, 
 Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Hofmann,* with which vv. 
 5 and 6 would not be in accord ; for the same reason also the words are not 
 to be attached appositionally to crovdafovrec,* but they are independent and 
 purely assertive : there is one body and one Spirit. On év coua, by which the 
 totality of Christians as corpus (Christi) mysticum, ‘* Christ’s mystical body” 
 is meant, comp. ii. 16 ; Rom. xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 17, xii. 13; on & aveiya, 
 which is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of that corpus mysticum, ‘‘ mystical 
 body,” ii. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 18. The explanation : ‘one body and one soul” 
 (‘‘quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore et anima, non ex parte duntaxat, 
 debere esse unitos,” ‘‘as though he said that we ought to be completely united 
 in body and soul, and not only partially,” Calvin), is excluded, as at vari- 
 ance with the context, by the specifically Christian character of the other 
 elements, and rendered impossible by the correct supplying of éori (not esse 
 debetis, ‘‘ ye ought to be”). — xaboc kat éxAf0. x.7.A.] with which unity (é o. 
 x. vy wv.) the relation also of your calling is in keeping (comp. Col. iii. 15), 
 which took place by the fact that (év instrumental, see on Gal. i. 6) one 
 hope (namely, that of the eternal Messianic bliss) was communicated to you ; 
 for all in fact were called by God to this very Messianic ocwrypia (Phil. ii. 
 14).— rhe KAgjo. juev| genitive, as at i. 18. Bengel, we may add, aptly re- 
 marks : ‘‘Spiritus est arrhabo, atque ideo cum ejus mentione conjungitur 
 spes haereditatis,” ‘‘ The spirit is the seal, and therefore together with His 
 mention, is joined the hope of inheritance.” ® 
 
 Ver, 5. Continuation. There are not several Lords, but One, who is Lord 
 
 1 These set forth—(1) the church itself con- _ this entire unity—one God and Father, etc., 
 stituted on the footing of unity—one body, ver. 6. Observe the threefold tripartite ar- 
 one Spirit, one blessed consummation, ver. rangement. 
 
 4; (2) means, by which the constitution of it as 2 Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Exe. Il. p. 277. 
 an unity is produced and preserved—one 3 Schrifibew. I. 2, p. 128. 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism, ver. 5; (8) 4 Bleek. 
 
 the supreme ruler, disposer, and sustainer of 5 Comp. also Clem. Cov. I. 46. 
 
44.0) THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 of all believers, even Christ ; not several kinds of faith, but one faith, inas- 
 much as all place their confidence upon the atoning death of Christ, on 
 account of which they are justified and obtain salvation (Rom. iii. 23 ff.); 
 not several kinds of baptism, but one baptism, namely, into Christ (Rom, vi. 
 3; Gal. iii. 27; Acts x. 48, xix. 5). —eic xbpioc at the head ; because pia 
 «lotic and the év Bdxtiua accomplished in the case of those who have be- 
 come believers are consequentia, ‘‘ consequences,” of ei¢ xbpioc. — To make of 
 xiortc the doctrine of the faith,’ is at variance with linguistic usage ; comp. 
 on Gal. i. 23; Rom.i. 5. [See Note XXXVIL., p. 484.] The évérie ri7¢ riotews 
 is here represented as present, but in ver. 13as future. Both with justice; in- 
 asmuch as here the Christian faith in the narrower sense is intended, the jides 
 salvifica, ‘‘ saving faith,” which in ail Christians was essentially the same, 
 while at ver. 13 it is the Christian faith in the wider sense, within the com- 
 pass of which there was diversity of convictions (as respects the validity of 
 the law, the resurrection, veneration of angels, asceticism, partaking of 
 flesh offered to idols, and other matters). — Of the Lord’s Supper, the unity 
 of which might likewise appear as a suitable element in the connection (1 
 Cor. x. 17), Paul does not make mention : according to Calovius, because it 
 was comprehended ‘uno baptismatis sacramento ex paritatis ratione,” ‘in 
 the one sacrament of baptism, because of equality; according to Harless, 
 because Paul was mentioning only the fundamental conditions of the Chris- 
 tian fellowship, as they exist from the outset, at the first entrance upon it ; 
 according to Olshausen, because the specific act of the Supper, the partak- 
 ing (rather, the communien, 1 Cor. x. 16) of Christ, is included in éei¢ Kbpzog, 
 pia riorwe ; according to de Wette, because it was less a something condi- 
 tioning the unity, than something representing this unity itself.? But, in 
 opposition to Calovius and Olshausen, it may be urged that, if Paul had 
 adopted the synecdochic point of view in the selection, he would not have 
 needed to mention x/cric, since baptism presupposes faith ; in opposition to 
 Harless, that the fundamental conditions of the Christian communion’ which 
 Paul mentions are such, not specially for the beginning of it, but for its 
 whole duration ; in opposition to de Wette, finally, that the Lord’s Supper 
 is, precisely as a representation of the unity, at the same time a powerful 
 ethical incitement thereto, and hence would have been admirably appropriate 
 in the series of points adduced. The ground of its not being mentioned is 
 rather to be sought in the fact that the adducing of the Lord’s Supper 
 would have disturbed the threefold triad of the elements adduced, and have 
 broken through the whole rhythm of the passage. And the holy meal 
 might the more easily remain unmentioned, because it was at that time not 
 yet an observance subsisting by itself, but was combined with the common 
 meals ; hence, doubtless, in a context, where the Lord’s Supper is spoken of, 
 the cic aptoc (1 Cor. x. 17) is brought forward as a symbol of the unity of 
 Christians, but in another context the thought év deixvov kupiov or pla tTpdrela 
 
 1 Grotius, Zachariae, and others. would not stand in the way of the varied 
 
 2 Most mistakenly of all, Schenkel holds development of arite. In that case, doubt- 
 that Paul did not regard a uniform obser- Jess, Paul would have done well not to 
 vance of the Supper as necessary, and mention baptism either. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 6. 441 
 ruptov—because the Supper was not something subsisting alone like baptism, 
 which as the constituent element of Christian standing could not remain un- 
 mentioned—did not so necessarily suggest itself. [See Note XXXVIIL., 
 p. 484. | 
 
 Ver. 6. Observe the climactic advance in vv. 4-6: the Church, Christ, 
 God ;—and at the same time the climax in the divine Triad : Spirit, Lord, 
 Father. Only the dominion of the Father is the absolute one, that of the 
 Son is the derived, conferred, obtained (Phil. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff., iii. 
 23, al., 1 in which He also disposes of the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18).? — révrwr] 
 2.€., of all believers, as those who have the viofecia (i. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. 
 ili. 26, iv. 5), so that God is their God and Father. Holzhausen erroneously 
 (seeing that the context treats of the Christian évérnc) thinks that all men 
 are intended. Not even the spiritually dead members of the church are in- 
 cluded,* as results from the sequel indicated by dva4 and év, since they have 
 not the Spirit and belong not to Christ (Rom. viii. 9), but are aloof from 
 connection with Him and stand outside of grace (Gal. v. 4 f.; John xv. 2, 
 6), consequently have no share in the body of Christ (i. 23) and in the living 
 temple of God (ii. 22 f.). —6 éxt rdvtov x.t.4.] The relation of the Oed¢ xai 
 matyp tavrwv to the rac in threefold manner. Comp. Rom. xi. 36, where, 
 however, the prepositions define the subject, not, as here, the object. 
 Tavtov, TavTwv, and wacw are equally to be taken as masculine, because the 
 preceding zavrwv was masculine, and because the discourse continues in ver. 7 
 Wrongly, there- 
 fore, many * have taken the first two as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zachariae, 
 Koppe, e al., give the second point alone as neuter, and Matthies, on the 
 other hand, explains all three elements of the relation of God to the world 
 and mankind, consequently as neuter. —ézi tavtwr] éxave ravtwv, ‘above 
 
 with évi dé éxaoTw yudv, Wherein the zavrec are individualized. 
 
 all,” Chrysostom ; rv deororeiav onuaive:, ‘‘ He indicates absolute sway,” 
 Theodoret.* After this relation of transcendence there follows, in dua. . . 
 mao, that of immanence.— dia rdvrwr| cannot, since the ravrec are the 
 Christians and the relation of God to what is Christian is characterized, 
 apply either to the creation,® so that we should have to think of the all- 
 penetrating creative power of God, or to providence;™ but the charismatic 
 presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit, pervading and ruling all Chris- 
 tians,. is meant. See also ver. 7, and comp. 1 Cor. xii. 6. The distinc- 
 tion from the following év raow lies not in the thing itself, since both ele- 
 ments denote the immanent ruling of God by virtue of His Spirit, but 
 in the form of conception, since with év the relation is conceived of as 
 operative indwelling, and with did as operative movement throughout all 
 Christian hearts." According to Harless, the thought expressed in dia ravTwv 
 
 1Comp. Ernesti. Ursprung da. Siinde, I. p. 
 194 ff. 
 
 2See also Gess, von der Person Christi, 
 1st ed., p. 158 ff. 
 
 3 In opposition to Miinchmeyer. 
 
 4Including Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, 
 Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
 5 Comp. Rom. ix. 5. See Wessel, ad Di- 
 
 odor. xiii. 14; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 474 ; 
 Winer, p. 335. 
 
 6 Estius, Wolf, and others. 
 
 7 Chrysostom and his successors ; Beza, 
 Grotius: ‘“‘per omnes diffundit providam 
 suam gubernationem,” ‘‘through all He 
 diffuses his provident governance.” 
 
 ®Deus enim Spiritu sanctificationis 
 
442 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 is, that God as head works through the members. But of the conception of 
 the head and the members there is absolutely nothing in the context 5 
 further, though mention is made of God as Father, it is not the Father, 
 but Christ, that is Head of the members ; lastly, in place of the simple é», 
 which is to be mentally supplied, there would be insensibly introduced a 
 wholly different supplement, namely, évepyov, or a similar verb.* At the 
 foundation of this explanation there lies, indeed, the presupposition, that 
 the relation of the 7vinity is expressed in the three prepositions, as Jerome, 
 Thomas, and many of the older expositors would have it. Against this alto- 
 gether arbitrary supposition, however, Theophylact already rightly declared 
 himself.? Olshausen, too, finds here, as at Rom. xi. 36, the Trinity; holding 
 that God is described in His various relations to the creature [rather to the 
 Christians] as Lord over all things, as instrument by which they are (this 
 being held to apply to the Son), and as the element im which they are. 
 Thus, moreover, the prepositional relation of the last two clauses is exact- 
 ly reversed, inasmuch as not id rdvtTwv x.t.A. is explained, but d¢ ob mdvrec 
 According to Beyschlag,* there is expressed, at least in the form of 
 hint,the threefold mode of existence of God (‘‘self-preservation, self-disclosure, 
 self-communication”). But apart from the fact that such a threefold form 
 of existence is not the expression of the New Testament triad, the self-com- 
 munication, in fact, is implied not only in év zaow, but necessarily already 
 Lastly, Koppe is wrong in an opposite way: ‘‘ Sententia 
 videtur wna, tantum variis formulis synonymis (!) expressa haec: cud vos omnes 
 debetis omnia,” ‘‘ The thought seems one; only this is expressed in various sy- 
 nonymous formulas; viz., ‘‘ to whom you all owe all things.” —Observe, further, 
 that the great fundamental elements of unity, vv. 4-6, are matters of fact, 
 historically given with Christianity itself, and as such are not affected by 
 differences of doctrine ; hence without reason there have been found here 
 traces of the later age, when ‘‘ upon the basis of the Pauline thought a 
 Catholic church was built,” of which the centralization in doctrine and 
 constitution was not derived from the adherents of Paul, but was a Petrine 
 thought.* The Catholic idea in our passage is just the Pauline one (1 Cor. 
 xii.), cherished by Christ Himself (John xvii. 20 f.). 
 
 Ver. 7.° Aé] forms the transition from the summary rdvtwr, ravtwr, Taow, 
 ver. 6, to each individual among the Christians. No single one, however,— 
 in order to adduce this also as motive to the preservation of the évéry¢ Tov 
 rvevmatoc,—was overlooked in the endowing with grace ; on every individ- 
 
 K.T.A. ! 
 
 in o.a rdvTov. 
 
 diffusus est per omnia ecclesiae membra,”’ 
 
 brovght about by means of all; and Reiche : 
 “For by the Spirit of sanctification, God 
 
 “omnibus utitur quasi instrumentis, quibus 
 
 has been diffused through ali the members 
 of the Church,” Calvin. 
 
 17This also in opposition to Winzer: 
 “qui per omnes operatur, quasi unoquo- 
 que utitur ad declarandam suam majesta- 
 tem, ad consilia sua exsequenda,” ‘‘ who 
 works through all, as though He uses each 
 one to declare His majesty and execute His 
 counsels.””> So, in the main, de Wette 
 (comp. Bengel): it applies to the operation 
 
 . res Christiana stabilitur, augetur, con- 
 summatur,” ‘‘ He uses all as instruments 
 whereby Christianity is established, aug- 
 mented, and consummated.” 
 
 2 See also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 201. 
 
 3 Christol. d. N. T. p. 250. 
 
 4 Schwegler. 
 
 5 See on vv. 7-9, Hoelemann, Bibelstudien, 
 Ip. 93 if. 
 
CHAP. IY., 8. 443 
 ual was it conferred, the grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, 
 so that each individual on his part can and ought to contribute to the pres- 
 ervation of that unity. — 7 yaprc] t.e., according to the context, the grace of 
 God at work among the Christians, the communication of which is manifested 
 in the diverse yapicuara ; hence our passage is in harmony with the repre- 
 sentation given, Rom. xii. 6. — éd607] by Christ. — xara 1d wérpov K.7.2.] TiC 
 dwpeac is a subjective genitive (Rom. xii. 3, 6 ; Eph. iv. 13). Hence: in 
 the proportion in which the gift of Christ is meted out, according as Christ 
 apportions to the one a larger, to the other a smaller measure of His gift 
 (i.e., the gift of the divine ydpic). — The duped tov Xpictoi is the gift which 
 Christ gives (2 Cor. ix. 15), not : which Christ has received,’ in opposition to 
 which ver. 8, édwxe déuata tr. avdp., is decisive. 
 
 Ver. 8. If it had just been said that by Christ the endowment of grace 
 was distributed in varied measure to each individual, this is now conjsirmed 
 by a testimony of the Scripture. Nothing is to be treated as a parenthesis, 
 inasmuch as neither course of thought nor construction is interrupted. — dd 
 Aéyer] wherefore, because the case stands, as has been said, ver. 7, He saith. 
 Who says it (comp. v. 14), is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word 
 the Scripture is. See on 1 Cor. vi. 16 ; Gal. iii. 16 ; the supplying 7 ypaeq 
 or To tvevua Must have been suggested by the context (Rom. xv. 10). The 
 manner of citation with the simple Aéyer, obviously meant of God, has as its 
 necessary presupposition, in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theop- 
 neustia of the O. T. The citation that follows is not ‘‘ ex carmine, quod 
 ab Ephesiis cantitari sciret,” ‘‘from a hymn, which he knew was often sung 
 by the Ephesians,” and for which Ps. Ixviii. 18 had partly furnished the 
 words,’—which is quite an arbitrary way of avoiding the difficulty, and at 
 variance with the divine Aéyez,—but is the passage of Scripture Ps. Ixvili. 
 18 itself according to the LXX. with. free alteration. This psalm, in its his- 
 torical sense a song of triumph upon the solemn entry of God into Zion,* is 
 here understood according to its Messianic significance—an understanding, 
 which has its warrant, not indeed in the much too general and vague prop- 
 osition, that one and the same God is the Revealer of the Old and of the 
 
 
 
 1 Oeder, in Wolf ; see in opposition tothis 
 view, already Calvin. 
 
 2 Storr, Opusc. III. p. 309; Flatt. 
 
 $On what particular historic occasion 
 this highly poetic song was composed, is 
 for our passage a matter of indifference. 
 According to the traditional view, it was 
 composed by David on the occasion of the 
 removal of the ark of the covenant from 
 the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (2 
 Sam. vi. 12 ff.; 1 Chron. xy. f.) ; according 
 to Ewald, for the consecration of the new 
 temple after the captivity; according to 
 Hupfeld, upon the return from the captivity 
 and the restoration of the kingdom; ac- 
 cording to Hitzig, in celebration of the vic- 
 tory after the war of Jehoram and Jehosh- 
 aphat against the Moabites (2 Kings iii.).’ 
 
 Others explain it otherwise. See the dif- 
 ferent views and explanations in Reuss, @. 
 acht u. sechzigste Psalm, ein Denkmal exeget. 
 Noth u. Kunst, 1851, who, however, himself 
 very inappropriately (without ‘‘ exegetical 
 exigency and art’’) places the psalm in the 
 late period between Alexander and the 
 Maccabees, when the wish for the reunion 
 of the seattered Israelites in Palestine is 
 supposed to be expressed in it; while Jus- 
 tus Olshausen even interprets it of the vic- 
 tories of the Maccabees under Jonathan or 
 Simon. See Ewald, Jahrb. IV. p. 55 f. 
 Certainly the psalm is neither Davidic nor 
 of the Maccabaean age, but belongs to the 
 restoration of the Theocracy after the cap- 
 tivity. 
 
444 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 New Covenant,! but in the circumstance that the triumphal procession of 
 Jehovah, celebrated in the psalm, represents the victory of the Theoeracy ; 
 and that, as every victory of the Theocracy is of a typical and in so far pro- 
 phetic Messianic character, the return of Christ into heaven appears as the 
 Messianic actual consummation of the divine triumph. The free deviation 
 from the original text and the LX.X. consists partly in the immaterial cir- 
 cumstance that Paul transfers into the third person that which is said in 
 the second, and adds to avéparore the article wanting in the LXX. ; partly 
 in the essential point, that instead of the original sense: ‘‘ Thou receivedst 
 gifts (namely, gifts of homage) among? men,” * he expresses the sense : He 
 gave gifts to men,* while in other respects reproducing the transition of the 
 LXX. Consequently Paul has, as regards the éduxe, given a sense opposite 
 to the original one—a degree of variation such as, with all freedom in the 
 employment of Old Testament passages, is nowhere else met with in the 
 writings of the apostle, on ~ shich account the book Chissuk Emuna accused 
 him of falsifying the wv ids of the psalm, while Whiston looked upon the 
 Hebrew text and the LXX. in Ps. Ixviii. 18 as corrupt. This difference is 
 not to be explained, with Riickert, by lightly asserting : ‘‘ Paul did not 
 even perhaps know exactly how the words ran,” etc.; for in this way he 
 would be chargeable with a shallow caprice, for which there is no warrant; 
 moreover, the agreement, in other respects, of the citation with the original 
 text and the LXX. leads us to infer too exact an acquaintance with the pas- 
 sage adduced, to allow us to assume that Paul adduced the words in the 
 full belief that {1 was read in the Hebrew, and édwxe in the LXX. Rather — 
 must he have in reality wnderstood the passage of the psalm, as to its main 
 substance, just as he gives it. Inasmuch, namely, as he had recognized the 
 words in their bearing upon the antitypical Messianic fulfilment, and that 
 as a confirmation of what had been said of Christ in ver. 7, this latter spe- 
 cial application must have been suggested to him by another reading, which 
 he followed,*° or else—with the freedom of a Messianic interpretation of the 
 words—by an exposition of the Hebrew words, which yielded essentially the 
 sense expressed by him. If the latter is the case (for in favor of the former 
 there is no trace of critical support), he took NP?, etc., in the sense : thow 
 didst take away gifts, to distribute them among men,° and translated this in an 
 
 1 Harless. the closing words of the passage). The 
 
 2 Yet DISI might also denote that men 
 themselves are the gifts. So Ewald takes it, 
 lc. (and comp. his Ausfiihrl. Lehrb. der 
 Hebr. Sprache, § 287 h), referring it specially 
 to the humbler servants of the temple, 
 whom David and Solomon,e.g., gathered 
 from among the subjugated peoples and 
 settled around the temple, whom thus God, 
 as if ina triumphal procession from Sinai 
 to Zion, Himself brought in as captives, 
 and then caused to be devoted by men to 
 Him as offerings, in order that they, who 
 were once so turbulent, might dwell peace- 
 fully in His service (‘‘ even rebellious ones 
 must dwell with Jah God,” as Ewald renders 
 
 sense: ‘‘ through men,” which Hoelemann, 
 on account of ver. 11, finds as a ‘* second- 
 ary” meaning in D823, is not to be thought 
 of, not even according to the apostle, who 
 has expressed his view with such simple 
 definiteness by eSwke tols avOpwr7ots. 
 
 2 DIN DAD AMP), LXX.: rapes 8¢- 
 pata ev avOpi7w, or according to another 
 reading: ev av@pwrrois. 
 
 “DWN? MIND 12 
 
 5 13 instead of nnp». 
 
 ®On the 3, see Ewald, Ausfiihrl. Lehrb. 
 
 der Heb. Spr. § 217 f. 1. 
 
CHAPS Lyn, 0: 445 
 explanatory way: édwxe douata toic avOperore ; in connection with which the 
 transposing into the third person is to be regarded as an unintentional va- 
 riation in citing from memory. np», namely, has often the proleptic sense 
 to fetch [Germ. holen], é.e., to take anything for a person and to give it to 
 him.’ Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ accepit dona, quae statim daret,” ‘‘he received gifts, 
 which he immediately gave.” The utterance, however, as thus understood,’ 
 Paul has reproduced, interpreting it as he has done, in order to place be- 
 yond doubt the sense which he attached to it, for the reader who might 
 have otherwise understood the words of the LXX. The Chaldee Para- 
 phrast likewise understood mp? in such wise, that, while interpreting the 
 passage of Moses, he could expound : SW) 337 yap nin? dedisti dona filiis 
 hominum, ‘‘Thou hast given gifts to the children of men.” It is evident 
 from this, since there is good reason for presupposing in the Targum—the 
 more so, as in our passage the Peshito agrees therewith *—older exegeti- 
 cal traditions, that Paul himself may have followed such a tradition.4 To 
 assume that he actually did so, is in itself, and tie, eference to the previous 
 Rabbinical training of the apostle, free from objection, and has sufficient war- 
 rant in that old and peculiar agreement, even though we should explain the 
 agreement between the same citation in Justin, ¢. Tryph. 39, 87, and the quo- 
 tation of the apostle, by a dependence upon the latter.° On the other hand, 
 it is not to be said, with Beza, Calovius, and most older expositors,® that 
 the explanation given by Paul really corresponds with the historic sense of 
 the passage in the Psalm,’ which, judging by the context, is decidedly in- 
 correct. Even Calvin says: ‘‘nonnihil a genuino sensu hoc testimonium 
 detorsit Paulus,” ‘‘ Paul somewhat distorted this testimony from its gen- 
 uine sense ;” and already Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly remarks : iwaiAdEac 
 6& 70 éAaBe Obata ovtwc Ev TH Wahud kelwevov, EOWKE ObparTa Eire, TH 
 wraddayy Tept THY olKeiavy Yypnoduevocg akoAoviiav’ éxei wev ydp, ‘exchanging the . 
 ‘ He received gifts,’ thus stated in the psalm, he said, ‘ He gave gifts,’ using 
 hypallage for a proper construction ; for there” (in the psalm) rpo¢ rap 
 ixdbeow To EAa Bev Fppuorrer, évtavda dé, ‘‘ he joined, ‘received,’ to the subject, 
 while here” (in our passage) 16 rpoxewévw TO EDWKEV aKdAovBov Ar, * ‘gave?’ 
 was in accordance with what preceded.” The deviation from the historic 
 sense cannot be set aside with fairness and without arbitrary presupposi- 
 tions. This holds not only of the opinions of Jerome and Erasmus (that in the 
 psalm mp is used, because the giving has not yet taken place, but is prom- 
 
 1 See Gen. xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, xlii. 16, xlviii. 
 9; Job xxxviii. 20 (and Hirzel in Joc.); 2 
 Sam. iv. 6, al.; see Gesen. Thes. II. p. 760, 
 and Hoelemann, p. 97 f. 
 
 2 The phrase formerly so often compared, 
 
 109 Tvs mp? (Ex. xxi. 10, xxiv. 16), is 
 notin place here, since np», in that phrase, 
 signifies nothing else than the simple fake. 
 
 3 Which likewise, Ps. xviii. /.c., has dedisti 
 dona filiis hominum, ** Thou hast given gifts 
 
 to the children of men.”’ 
 4 Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cred- 
 
 ner, Bettrdge, Il. p. 121 f. 
 
 5 Credner, Beitr. II. p. 120. 
 
 6 Chrysostom, without, however, enter- 
 ing into any particulars, says merely: the 
 prophet says thow hast received, but Paul: 
 he has given ; and the two are one and the 
 same. Theodoret more precisely explains 
 himself : audorepa dé (the taking and giving) 
 yeyevyvats AapBavwv yap THY mloTLW aTrodidwor 
 Thy xapiv, ‘both occurred; for receiving 
 faith, he gave grace.’’ Comp. Oecumenius. 
 
 7 See especially, Geier, ad Ps. U.c. p. 1181; 
 comp. also Hoelemann, p. 98 f. 
 
446 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 ised as future) and of Calvin,’ but also of the expedients to which Harless 
 and Olshausen have recourse. According to Harless, namely, Paul wishes 
 to express the identity of God, whose deeds at that time the word of Script- 
 ure represents in a form which, as identical with the form of Christ’s action, 
 makes us recognize the word of the O. T. as pointing forward to what was 
 to come, and the Christ of the N. T. as the God who already revealed Him- 
 self under the O. T.; in the words of the psalm the captives themselves are 
 described as sacrificial gifts, which the victor as God takes to Himself among 
 men ; the apostle changes merely the jorm of the words, so far as the con- 
 text makes it necessary, inasmuch as he wishes to make out that those van- 
 guished ones—who have not made themselves what they are, but have been 
 made so of God — are those, of whom he had said that on every one accord- 
 ing to the measure of the gift of Christ the grace had been bestowed which 
 was already pointed to in the psalm. ‘‘ There is no other there,” says the apos- 
 tle, ‘‘than He who had descended to earth, to gain for Himself His own ; 
 not that they would have presented themselves to Him, but He takes them 
 as it pleases Him, and makes them what it pleases Him.” But (1) 
 Paul does not wish to express the identity of God, etc., but to show 
 that what is said ef Christ in ver. 7 was also already prophesied Ps. 
 Ixvili. 18; it was a question of the identity of the thing, as to which 
 it was self-evident that the triumph celebrated in Ps. Ixviii. is in 
 the N. T. fulfilment celebrated by Christ, who had come in the name of the 
 Lord. (2) In the Ps. J.¢., 39 nnp», ‘thou hast received gifts,” applies 
 to the gifts ef homage which the triumphing Jehovah has received among 
 (from) men. Certainly, according to another explanation (see above, 
 Ewald’s view, and comp. also Bleek), the men themselves, namely, the van- 
 quished, may be regarded as the gifts or offerings which God has received ; 
 but who could withal read between the lines in the apostle’s citation what, 
 according to Harless, one ought to read between them, in order in the end 
 to find only the form of the words changed? Olshausen, who, we may men- 
 tion, quite erroneously (see vv. 9, 10) specifies roic avfpéroe as the point of 
 the citation,’ agrees with Harless in so far as he is of opinion that the 
 
 1“Quum de Christi exaltatione pauca 
 yerba Psalmi citasset, de suo adjecit, cum 
 
 itself the universality of the gifts of Christ, 
 consequently the equal title of the Gentiles; 
 
 dedisse dona, ut sit minoris et majoris com- 
 paratio, qua ostendere vult Paulus, quanto 
 praestantior sit ista Dei ascensio in Chris- 
 ti persona, quam fuerit in veteribus eccle- 
 siae triumphis,’” ‘“When he cited a few 
 words of the Psalm concerning Christ’s 
 exaltation, he added by his own authority, 
 that he had given gifts, in order that there 
 might be a comparison of less and greater, 
 whereby Paul wants to show how much 
 more excellent is this ascension of God in 
 the person of Christ, than it was in the an- 
 cient triumphs.” 
 
 2“ Paul does not wish by the quotation 
 primarily to represent Christ as the dispens- 
 er of the gifts, but to prove from the O. T. 
 
 He has by His redemption conferred gifts 
 not merely on this one or that one, not up- 
 on the Jews alone, but upon men as such, 
 upon mankind.” What Olshausen has fur- 
 ther advanced respecting the dative ex- 
 pression with the article (instead of which 
 the Hebrew text has among men, while no 
 article is used in the LXX.)—to wit, that 
 by 6. dou. tots av@pwHmots, which ap- 
 plies to a men, itis not intended to say: 
 all men must be redeemed, and as redeem- 
 ed receive gifts; but: all men may be re- 
 deemed, and as redeemed obtain gifts of 
 grace; and in so far this deviation from 
 the original was altogether immaterial—is 
 pure invention. The difference certainly 
 
CHAP. Iv., 8. 447 
 thought of the psalmist : ‘‘ Thou hast taken to Thyself gifts among men,” 
 affirms nothing else than: ‘‘Thou hast chosen to Thyself the redeemed as 
 offerings ;” but further adds: ‘‘ But the man whom God chooses as an of- 
 fering for Himself, 7.e., as an instrument for His aims, He furnishes with 
 the gifts necessary to the attainment of the same ; and this side (?) the 
 apostle, in accordance with his tendency, here brings into special promi- 
 nence.” Similarly also Hofmann,’ who is of opinion that here, in the N. T. 
 application of the passage from the psalm, it is one and the same thing 
 whether one say : that Christ has, for the accomplishment of the work of 
 His honor, caused to be given to Himself by His vanquished that which 
 they possessed, or: that He has given them gifts to this end ; ‘for He 
 takes that which is theirs into His service, when He gives to them what is 
 His, to make them capable of service.” Essentially so also Delitzsch on 
 the psalm, /.c. Such subtleties, by means of which any quid pro quo at 
 pleasure may easily enough be got out of the alleged light and significance 
 of the “history of the fulfilment,” ? may be conveniently foisted upon the 
 words of the apostle, but with what right ?— avafac cic ioc] Whether we 
 understand the pin my in the original text of the ascending of the vic- 
 torious God into heaven*® or to Zion,* or leave it without more precise defi- 
 nition of place ;° according to the Messianic accomplishment of the divine tri- 
 umphal procession, which takes place through Christ, the words apply to 
 Christ ascended (comp. bywbeic, Acts i. 33) to heaven (Ps. cii. 20, al.; Ecclus. 
 xiii, 8; Lukei. 78), who has brought in as captives enemies that have been 
 vanquished by Him upon this triumphal march. [See Note XXXIX., 
 p. 484 seq. ]—aiyuadwcia, namely, is the abstract collective for aiyudAwro (Ju- 
 dith ii. 9; Ezr. vi. 5; Rev. xiii. 10 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 70), like Fvupayia for 
 Eippayo, etc. See onii. 2. On the connection with the kindred verb (to 
 take captive, to lead, to bring in as such), comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ; 
 1 Mace. ix. 72 ; and see, in general, Winer, p. 201 ; Lobeck, Paral. p. 501. 
 The character of aiyuadwreiw as Greek is even worse than that of ciyuadwrivo.® 
 But what subjects are meant by aiyuatwoia? Not the redeemed, as already 
 Justin, c. Tryph. 36; further, Theodoret (ob yap éAeviépove dvtac uae 
 HXmaAaTevoer, AAM ir6 Tov SiaBoAov yeyevnuévove avTyyuaAerervoe, Kal THY éAevbepiav 
 nuiv édwphoato, ‘* He did not make captive us who were free, but in turn 
 made us captive who were under the devil, and presented us with freedom”) 
 Oecumenius, Thomas, Erasmus,’ and others, including Meier, Harless, Ols- 
 
 does not lie in the fact that DIs3 points 
 
 only to some, and the expression of Paul to 
 aii men, as Olshausen supposes, but solely 
 
 1 Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 484 f. 
 
 2 Delitzsch. 
 
 3 Hengstenberg, Lengerke, Hitzig, Har- 
 less, Hoelemann, and others. 
 
 in the nnp? of the original text and the 
 
 edwke Of Paul. As well DWS83 as rots avOpw- 
 mos designates men according to the cate- 
 gory ; but according to the original text it 
 is men who are the givers, so that the Tri- 
 umphator fakes them; whereas, according 
 to Paul, the menare the recipients, to whom 
 He gives. 
 
 4 Ewald, Bleek. 
 
 5 Hofmann. 
 
 § See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 442. 
 
 7™**Captivorum gregem e peccati dia- 
 bolique tyrannide liberatum,” ‘‘a body of 
 captives delivered from the tyranny of sin 
 and the devil.”’ 
 
 / 
 
448 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 hausen,’ Baumgarten-Crusius,* have interpreted it ; seeing that the captives, 
 both according to the original text and according to our citation, are differ- 
 ent from the av6pdro, ‘‘ men,” who are subsequently mentioned, namely, such 
 vanquished ones as are visited by the victor with the hard penal fate of cap- 
 tives in war. Hence also it cannot be the souls delivered by Christ from 
 Hades* that are spoken of. It is the enemies of Christ and His kingdom, the 
 antichristian powers, including those of hell (but not these alone) ; their 
 power is broken by the completed redeeming work of the Lord. By His 
 resurrection and exaltation they have been rendered powerless, and subject- 
 ed to His victorious might ; consequently they appear, in accordance with 
 the poetical mould of our passage, as those whom He has vanquished and 
 carries with Him on His procession from Hades into heaven (see ver. 9), so 
 that He, having gone up on high, brings them in as prisoners of war. Not as 
 if He has really brought them in captivity to heaven, but under the jigure 
 of the triumphator, as which the ascended Christ appears in accordance with 
 the prophetic view given in Ps. lxvili., the matter thus presents itself, 
 namely, the overcoming of His foes displaying itself through His ascension. 
 This vanquishing, we may add, in its actual execution still continues even 
 after the entering upon the kingly office which took place with the exalta- 
 tion of Christ ; dez yap airév Bacidebew aypic ob 0) Tavtac Tove EXOpode UTS 
 tov¢ médac avtov, ‘‘ for He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under 
 His feet,” 1 Cor. xv. 25. Not the jinal overcoming of the foes of 
 Christ is thus meant, but the actual aiyuadorevery aiyuad. ofttimes recurs un- 
 til the final consummation, until at length écyaroc¢ éyOpoc Katapyeita 6 
 @avatoc, ‘* The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” 1 Cor. xv. 
 26, namely, at the resurrection on the last day. In this case, however, 
 there is the more reason for leaving the matter without more precise 
 definition of the hostile powers vanquished (Satanic and human), as 
 the context suggests nothing more special, and as, speaking generally, the 
 nxwahoT. aiyuad. does not form for the aim and connection of our passage 
 the essential point of the psalmist’s saying, but the latter would have 
 been quite as fully in its place here, even though that 7yyaddr. aiypy. had 
 not been inserted, since the element confirmatory of ver. 7 lies simply 
 
 in the dvaBac eig ioc Edwxe dduata toig avbporoce.* 
 
 1 ““Men upon earth, so far as they are 
 held captive by sin and in the ultimate 
 ground by the prince of this world, and 
 among these, in particular, the Gentile 
 world.”’ 
 
 2“ Those gained for the kingdom of 
 Christ.” 
 
 3 Lyra, Estius, and many Catholic exposi- 
 tors; K6nig, von Christi Hollenfalrt, p. 26; 
 Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 414; and Baur. 
 
 + Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Calo- 
 vius, and many others understood specially 
 the devil and those things connected with 
 him, death, condemnation, and sin. Comp. 
 Luther’s gloss: ‘‘that is sin, death, and 
 
 Yet we have not, with 
 
 conscience, that they may not seize or keep 
 us.”’ Grotius rationalizes : ‘‘ per apostolorum 
 doctrinam, vicit et velut captivam egit 
 idololatriam et vitia alia,” ‘ by the doctrine 
 of the apostles he conquered and led édolatry 
 and other vices captive.” Most compre- 
 hensively, but with an admixture of hetero- 
 geneous elements, Calvin says: ‘* Neque 
 enim Satanam modo et peccatum et mor- 
 tem totosque inferos prostravit, sed ex 
 rebellibus quotidie facit sibi obsequentem 
 populum, quum verbo suo carnis nostrae 
 lasciviam domat; rursus hostes suos, 7.¢., 
 impios omnes quasi ferreis catenis continet 
 constrictos, dum illorum furorem cohibet 
 
CHAP, IVi> 95 449 
 Morus,' to rationalize the conception of the apostle: ‘‘removit omnia, quae 
 religionis suae propagationi et felicitati hominum obstarent impedimenta,” 
 ‘‘He removed all things which, as impediments, obstructed the propagation 
 of his religion and the happiness of men,” by which the sense is altered, and 
 vanquished foes become obstacles taken out of the way. — déuara] according 
 to Paul, gifts in which 20607 7% yapio, ver. 7, thus equivalent to yapiopara. 
 An appropriate commentary on the sense in which Paul has taken the 
 citation, is Acts ii. 38. But to look upon the interpretation of the éaBe 
 déuara of the Ps. l.c., in the sense of gifts of the Spirit as current among 
 the disciples of the apostles,* is the more arbitrary, inasmuch as de Wette him- 
 self finds it probable that some apostle [see Note XL., p. 485,] has alle- 
 gorized the passage of the psalm. 
 
 Ver. 9 is not a (Rabbinical) argument to show that the subject of the pas- 
 sage in the psalm is no other than Christ, in so far as of Him alone could 
 be predicated that descending which, in speaking of ascending, must be 
 presumed to have gone before.* Such an argument would have been aim- 
 less, since the subject of the passage of the psalm in its Messianic fulfilment 
 was self-evident ; it would, moreover, not have even logical correctness, 
 since, in fact, God Himself, as often in the O. T., might be thought of as 
 the xataBac who avé8y. Paul rather brings out in ver. 9 what the ascension 
 of Christ prophetically meant in Ps. \xvili. contains as its presupposition ; and 
 this for the end of showing * how the matter affirmed and supported by the 
 passage of the psalm in ver. 7, namely, Christ’s bestowal of grace on all 
 individuals respectively, stands in necessary connection with His general posi- 
 tion of filling the whole universe ; a function upon which He must have entered 
 by His very descending into the depths of the earth and His ascending above all 
 heavens (ver. 10). — dé] carrying forward the argument : ‘‘ but the avéy, in 
 order now to show you what is therewith said,” etc. — 76 avéBy] not: the 
 word avéBn, for this does not occur in the passage of the psalm, but the predi- 
 cate avéBn, which was contained in avaBac. —ri éorw] not : what ef an extra- 
 ordinary nature,® but simply : what is said therewith, what is implied in it ? 
 Comp. Matt. ix. 13 ; John xvi., 17 f., x. 6, al. —6ru kai xaréBy| that He also 
 (not merely ascended, but also) descended. The having ascended presup- 
 poses the having descended. The correctness of this conclusion rests upon 
 the admitted fact that the risen Christ had His original dwelling not upon 
 earth, as Elijah had, but in the heaven, whither He went up ; consequently 
 
 sua virtute, ne plus valeant, quam illis con- 
 cedit, ‘““For not only did he prostrate 
 Satan, and sin, and death, and all hell, but 
 out of the rebellious he daily makes for 
 Himself an obedient people, when by His 
 word he subdues the wantonness of our 
 flesh ; again His enemies, #.¢., all the god- 
 less He holds bound as though with iron 
 chains, while by his virtue He curbs their 
 fury, so that they have no more power than 
 He concedes them.” 
 
 1 Comp. Flatt. 
 
 2 De Wette. 
 
 29 
 
 3 Michaelis, Koppe; Giider, von der Ers- 
 chein. Christi unter den Todten, p. 83; also 
 my own earlier view. 
 
 4 The view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Erasmus, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others, 
 again taken up by Olshausen (comp. also 
 Hofmann, /.c. 348), that Paul would by the 
 example of Christ exhort to humility, is 
 quite at variance with the context. And 
 Riickert also is wrong in holding that ver. 9 
 contains only an incidental remark, which 
 might equally well have been wanting. 
 
 5 Hoelemann. 
 
450 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 He could not but have descended from this, if He has ascended. Comp. 
 John iii. 13. —The depth, however, into which He descended—whether, 
 namely, merely to the earth, or deeper still into the subterranean world—is 
 not to be inferred from the avé(7 itself, but was fixed with historic certainty 
 in the believing consciousness of the readers ; hence Paul could with good 
 reason write not merely ore kai KavéBy, but 67: Kai kat. Ele Ta KaTOTEpa 
 rhe yie, i.e., into that which is deeper down than the earth, into Hades." He 
 might also have designated Hades by ra katérara rie vie, the lowest 
 depth of the earth (YISD NVANN, LXX. Ps. lxiii. 9 ; Prayer of Azar. 13 ; 
 not Ps, exxxix. 15, where ‘‘in the depths of the earth” is only a sensuous 
 form of the conception ‘‘in secret”) ; but has purposely chosen that compara- 
 tive expression—in which the genitive is that of comparison, not the parti- 
 tive genitive—in order to impart as strong a coloring as possible to the depth 
 of Hades, in contradiction to that heaven from which Christ descended ; He 
 descended deeper than the earth is (the earth being conceived of as a plane), 
 in that He descended even into the swbterranean region beyond, into Hades. 
 The goal of the humiliation Paul here designates locally, whereas at Phil. ii. 8 
 he specifies it as respects the degree, namely, by péype Gavarov «.7.2., which, 
 however, is as to substance in agreement with our passage, since the death 
 of Christ had as its immediate consequence His descent into Hades (Luke 
 xxiii. 43 ; Matt. xii. 40 ; Acts ii.27; 1 Pet. iii. 19), as, indeed, also at Phil. 
 ii. 10 (xarayAoviov) this descent is presupposed as having taken place in 
 death. The explanation of the so-called descent into hell? is therefore the 
 right one,*? because the object was to present Christ as the One who fills the 
 whole universe, so that, with a view to His entering upon this His all-filling 
 activity, He has previously with His victorious presence passed through the 
 whole world, having descended from heaven into the utmost depth, and 
 ascended from this depth to the utmost height—a view, which of necessity 
 had to extend not merely to the earth, but even into the nether world, just 
 because Christ, as was historically certain for every believer, had been in the 
 nether world, and consequently, by virtue of His exaltation to the right 
 hand of God, really had the two wtmost limits of the universe, from below 
 upwards, as the terminos a quo and ad quem of His triumphal progress. 
 Further, had Paul intended only the descent to earth,* it would not be easy 
 to see why he should not have written merely xaré3y, or at any rate simply 
 
 1 katéBynv Souov "Aidos ciow, ““T descended 
 within the abode of Hades,’’? Hom. Qd. 
 XXili. 252; “AiSao Souovs vd KevOeor yains 
 éepxeat, ‘““ You come to the abode of 
 Hades, beneath the depths of the earth,” 
 il.-xxii. 482; comp. Od. xxiv. 204; Soph. 
 Ant. 816, Trach. 1088. 
 
 2 Trenaeus in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, I. 
 p. 7; Tertullian, Jerome, Pelagius, Ambro- 
 siaster, Erasmus, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, 
 and many others, including Rickert, Ols- 
 hausen, Delitzsch, Lechler, Ewald, Hoele- 
 mann, Bleek; Baur scenting Gnosticism 
 [Braune, Gess, Ewald, H, Miiller]. 
 
 3 Thomasius, IT. p. 262, is stilldoubtful on 
 the question ; Kahnis, I. p. 508, regards it 
 as preponderantly probable. Calvin called 
 it inepta, “ silly,” and Reiche faisa, ‘‘ false.” 
 
 4 Thomas, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Ham- 
 mond, Michaelis, Fischer, de vitits Lex. 
 N. T.,and many, including Winer, p. 470; 
 Holzhausen, Meier, Matthies, Harless, 
 Ribiger, p. 68 ff., Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette, Hofmann, p. 345, Bisping, Schenkel, 
 Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 291, Reiche, Comm. 
 crit. p. 1174 f., Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. 
 228 [Weiss’ Bibl. Theol., R. Schmidt, Hilgen- 
 feld, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Engelhardt]. 
 
CHAP. Tvs, 10, 451 
 
 KatéBn eico THY yHv OY KatéBy eico THY yFv Kato (Acts li. 19), instead of 
 employing the circumstantial and affected, but yet only feebly paraphrasing 
 expression : into the lower regions, which are the earth (for so we should have to 
 explain ei¢ Ta katarepa tiH¢ yc, understood only of the earth ; see Winer, /.c.). 
 This expression is only accounted for, sharp and telling, when it points the 
 reader to a region lower than the earth, to that Hades, whither every reader 
 knew that Christ had descended. Doubtless the apostle might have writ- 
 ten simply cic ddov (Acts il. 27) or éo¢ adov (Matt. xi. 23), or also cic rv 
 aBvocov (Rom. x. 7) or eic tHv Kapdiav tHe yao (Matt. xii. 40) ; but the whole 
 pathos of the passage, with its contrast of the extremes of depth and height, 
 very naturally suggested the purposely chosen designation ei¢ ra Katérena 
 tie yye. The ordinary objection, that, in fact, Christ did not ascend from 
 Hades, but from earth to heaven, is of no effect, because He has in reality 
 returned, arisen and ascended from Hades, consequently Hades was the 
 deepest terminus a quo of His ascension, as it had previously been the deep- 
 est terminus ad quem of His descent, and on this deepest turning-point all 
 here depended, even apart from the fact that the long interval of forty days 
 between resurrection and ascension is historically very problematic (see 
 Remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51). Nearest to our view come Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Bullinger, Drusius, Zachariae, and others, 
 who, however, refer the passage only to the death and the burial ; } whereas 
 Calomesius, Witsius, Calixtus, and others (already Beza, by way of sugges- 
 tion), appealing to Ps. cxxxix. 15, strangely enough interpret it of the 
 descent into the womb. [See Note XLI., p. 485.] 
 
 Ver. 10. Result from ver. 9, without oiv, but thereby coming in the more 
 vividly and with a certain triumph ; ‘‘alio gravi dicto antecedentia com- 
 plectitur aut absolvit,” ‘‘ By another weighty expression he sums up or com- 
 pletes what precedes.” *— The prefixed 6 xaraBac has the emphasis, which is 
 further augmented by airéc :* The one who descended, just He, He precisely 
 (identity of the person), is also the one who ascended on high above all heavens. 
 — 6 avaBic drepdvo ravrwv Tov oipav.] points back to that dvaBd¢ cic ioe, 
 ver. 8, more precisely defining this cic toc as the region highest of all. 
 The expression ‘‘ above all heavens’ has its basis in the conception of seven 
 heavens, which number is not to be diminished to three. See on 2 Cor. xii. 
 2. The drepdvo (in the N. T. only here and i. 21; Heb. ix. 5) describes the 
 exaltation of Christ—clearly to be maintained as local—as the highest of all 
 (comp. trepiypoce, Phil. ii. 9), in such wise that He, having ascended through 
 all heavens (dieAnAvfdra rove ovpavoic, Heb. iv. 14), has seated Himself above 
 in the highest heaven, as the civépovoc of the Father, at the right hand of 
 God. Comp. Heb. vii. 26 : imadrepoc tov obpavév yevsuevoc. The spiritual- 
 istic impoverishing of this concrete conception to a mere denial of all ‘‘en- 
 closure within the world” ® is nothing but a rationalistic invention. Comp. 
 
 1 Comp. also Hriang. Zeitschr. 1856, p. 284. 4 Harless : anp, aidyp, tpitos ovpavds ; comp. 
 
 2 Dissen, ad Pind. Fxe. I. p. 278. Grotius, Meier [Delitzsch in Luth. Zeit- 
 
 3 ov yap aGhAos KareAjAvbe Kai GAXos avedy- _ schrift for 1873, pp. 609-13], and others. 
 AvGev, *‘ For he who came down is no other 5 Hofmann, II. 1, p. 535. 
 
 than he who went up,” Theodoret. 
 
452 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Acts vii. 56, iii. 21, i. 9-11. —iva rAnpdoy ta révra] points back to the be- 
 stowal of grace expressed in ver. 7, and prophetically confirmed in ver, 8, 
 and that as expressing the universal relation into which Christ has entered 
 towards the whole world by His exaltation from the lowest depth to the lofti- 
 est height ; in which universal relation is also of necessity contained, as a 
 special point, that bestowal of grace on all individuals. As intended aim, 
 however (iva), this rAnpotv ra ravra stands related to the previous ascension” 
 of Christ from the uttermost depth, into which He had descended, to the 
 uttermost height of heaven ; because He had first, like a triumphing con- 
 queror (see ver. 8), to take possession of His whole domain, i.e., the whole 
 world from Hades to the highest heaven, in order now to wield His kingly 
 sway over this domain, by virtue of which He was to jill the universe with His 
 activity of sustaining and governing, and especially of providing all bestowal of 
 grace. [See Note XLIIL., p. 485.] This was to be the all-embracing task of 
 His kingly office, until the consummation indicated at 1 Cor. xv. 28. It 
 is according to this view, and from i. 23, self-evident that we have to 
 explain zAyp. ta ravra, neither with Koppe,' de vaticiniorum complemento, 
 ‘‘ of the fulfilment of prophecies,” nor with Rickert and Matthies, of the 
 completion of the redeeming work ; nor yet possibly to limit ra ravra to the 
 whole Christian community.? Comp, rather on i. 23, and observe that in 
 our passage that évi dé éxdorw yudv 26607 x... of ver. 7 stands to this iva rAy- 
 poon ta ravra in the same relation of the species to the genus, as in i. 23 76 
 The ubiquity of 
 the body of Christ* is not here, any more than at 1. 23 or elsewhere, spoken 
 of ;4 although, with Philippi, Hoelemann has still found it here, holding 
 the conception of the purely dynamic rAnpotv ta ravra as unrealizable, 
 because Christ is in a glorified body. If this reason were valid, an absolute 
 bodily omnipresence would result : it proves too much, and leads to a con- 
 tradictio in adjecto, which could only receive a Docetic solution. [See Note 
 XIV. on chap. i. 20 ; and Note III. on chap. i. 3.] 
 
 Ver. 11.° And he has, etc. From the general rAnpotv ra révra, ver. 10, 
 there is now brought into prominence in reference to the church, with a ret- 
 rospective glance at ver. 7, the special point with which the apostle was here 
 concerned, in order to give the clinching argument to his exhortation as to 
 the keeping of the unity of the Spirit. Christ, who has ascended from the 
 lowest depth to the loftiest height, in order to fill all things, precisely He, 
 has—such is His autonomy in His church—given the different teachers and 
 leaders of the church, until we all shall have attained to the unity of the 
 
 TAnpwopa (Xptotov) does to tov ra Tavta év TaoL TANpov[EVoOD. 
 
 
 
 1 Following Anselm and others. 
 
 2 Beza, Grotius, Morus, Flatt, Schenkel, 
 and others. 
 
 3 Faber Stapulensis, Hunnius, and others ; 
 specially contended for by Calovius. 
 
 4 Wrongly are Oecumenius and Theophy- 
 lact adduced as favoring this explanation. 
 They, forsooth, very correctly refer the 
 filling to the dominion and operation of 
 Christ (comp. also Chrysostom), and ob- 
 serve with equal justice that Christ, after 
 
 He had already before His incarnation 
 filled all things by His purely divine nature, 
 now, after having, as the Incarnate One, 
 descended and ascended, does the filling of 
 the universe pera oapxds, ‘ with his flesh” 
 (Oecumenius), 7.¢e., so that in doing so He is 
 in a different state than before, namely, 
 clothed with a body, consequently as God- 
 man. 
 
 5 See Schott, Progr. quo locus Pauli Ephes. 
 iy. 11 seg., breviter explic., Jen. 1830. 
 
CHAP: Ty., 11. 453 
 faith, etc. — We are not to treat as a parenthesis either vv. 8-10’ or vv. 9, 10,? 
 since the continuation of the discourse with «ai aité¢ emphatically attaches 
 itself to the preceding airéc. — édwxe| is not, any more than at i. 22, equiva- 
 lent to éero,* seeing that, in fact, the giving in the proper sense, to which 
 Paul here looks back, has preceded, and Christ has in reality given the apos- 
 tles, etc., to the church,* namely, through the specific charismatic endow- 
 ment and, respectively also, by His own immediate calling (aroordéiove) of the 
 persons in question. Calvin rightly remarks on édwxe : ‘‘ quia nisi excitet, 
 nulli erunt,” ‘‘ for unless He call forth there will be none.” This raising up 
 and granting of the appropriate persons for the perfecting of the church as 
 His body, not the institution of a spiritual office in itself, which as such has 
 exclusively to administer His means of grace, is here ascribed to Christ.® 
 The appointing to the service of the individual congregations (as mowévac 
 kai didackx.) of such persons given by Christ lay in the choice of the congre- 
 gations themselves, which choice, conducted by apostles or apostolic men, 
 Acts xiv. 23, took place under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Acts xx. 28. 
 Thus Christ gave the persons, and the community gave to them the service. 
 As regards the time of the éduxe, it is to be observed that this was indeed a 
 potior? the time after the ascension (among the apostles in the narrower sense, 
 also as respects Matthias and Paul), but that, as was obvious for the readers, 
 the earlier appointment of the original apostles was not thereby excluded. 
 The latter, namely, are not alone meant by azoordAove, but (comp. on 1 Cor. 
 xv. 7) also men like Barnabas and James the Lord’s brother must be reck- 
 oned among them. — The order in which they are brought up is such, that 
 those not assigned to a single church precede (azoor., rpog., evayy.), and 
 these are arranged in the order of rank. Hence the zovuévec, because belong- 
 ing to particular churches, had to follow, and it is without reason that a 
 Montanistic depreciation of the bishops ° is found here. — rove vév aroordAove| 
 some as apostles. ‘Their characteristics are their immediate calling by Christ, 
 and their destination for all nations. Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 28. — rpogfrac] 
 As to these speakers, who, on the receipt of revelation and through the 
 Holy Spirit, wrought with highly beneficial effect, yet without ecstasy, who 
 likewise in iii. 5 are mentioned after the apostles, see on 1 Cor. xii. 10; 
 Acts xi, 27.— ebayyedvorac] who repiidvrec éxyputrov, ‘‘ going about, preached,” 
 Theodoret ;7 missionary assistants to the apostles. See on Acts xxi. 8. Oecu- 
 
 1 Griesbach and others. 
 
 2 Koppe. 
 
 3 Theophylact and many, including Meier, 
 Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
 4 Observe the importance, for the con- 
 tinued appointment of the ministers in the 
 church, of the conception of the matter 
 implied in edwxe, Christ gives the ministers 
 of the church; the church fakes those 
 given, and places them in the service of the 
 ehurch. Thus the church (or whoever has 
 to represent the rights and duties of the 
 ehurch) has not in any way arbitrarily to 
 choose the subjects, but to discern those 
 
 endowed by Christ as those thereby given 
 to it by Him, to acknowledge and to induct 
 them into the ministry ; hence the highest 
 idea of the ecclesiastical scrutiny is, to test 
 whether the persons in question have been 
 given by Christ, without prejudice, we may 
 add, to the other existing requirements of 
 ecclesiastical law. 
 
 5 Comp. (in opposition to Miinchmeyer) 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 283 ff. ; 
 Miiller in the Deutsche Zeitschr. 1852, No. 21. 
 
 6 Baur. 
 
 7 See Nosselt, ad Theodoret. p. 424. 
 
454 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 menius would, at variance with the context (for Paul is speaking only of 
 the exercise of teaching in the church), and probably also at variance with 
 history (at least as regards our canonical gospels), understand the authors of 
 the Gospels, which is adduced as possible also by Chrysostom. — rob¢ 68 ror- 
 névac kai didack. | denotes not the presbyters and deacons,' nor the presbyters 
 and evorcists,? nor yet the presbyters and teachers as two separate offices,* _ 
 the latter in the sense of 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; but, as the non-repetition of rove dé 
 shows, the presbyters and teachers as the same persons, so that the presbyters 
 are designated by rovyévac in stated figurative appellation (1 Pet. v. 2 5 
 Acts xx. 28; John xxi. 15 ff.) with reference to their function of guiding 
 oversight over doctrine, life, and order in the church, consequently as émio- 
 coro. 3} and by dudacKkddove, with reference to their function of teaching. 
 We may add, that the diddécxador were not, as such, at the same time presby- 
 ters, for the d:day4 was imparted by a special yapeoua, which even ordinary 
 members of the church might possess (1 Cor. xiv. 26) ; but every presbyter 
 was at the same time diddcoxatoc, and had to be endowed with this ydpioua ; 
 hence Paul here puts together roiuévac kai didackadove, and, 1 Tim. iii. 2, it is 
 laid down as the requirement of an éxicxoro¢ that he should be d:daxrixé¢. — 
 Comp. Tit. i. 9. See also Augustine, Hp. lix. Comp. Jerome: ‘Nemo 
 . . . pastoris sibi nomen assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit,” 
 “No one ought to assume for himself the name of pastor, unless he can 
 teach whom he feeds.” 1 Tim. v. 17 is not opposed to this (see Huther in 
 loc.). 
 
 Ver. 12. Behoof, for which Christ has given, etc. ‘‘ Non potuit honori- 
 ficentius verbi ministerium commendare, quam dum hunc illi effectum tri- 
 buit,” ‘‘ He could not commend the ministry of the word with greater 
 honor, than by ascribing to it this effect,” Calvin. — The three clauses are not 
 co-ordinate.* Against the co-ordination may be decisively urged not the 
 varying of the prepositions, for Paul is fond of interchanging them (comp. 
 Rom. iii. 30, v. 10, xv. 2 ; 2Cor. iii. 11), but the circumstance that ei¢ épyov 
 daxoviag in its position between the first and third points would be unsuit- 
 able.® Rather are cic épy. dvaxov. and ei¢ oikod. Tov cbu. Tov Xp. two defini- 
 tions to édwxe, not parallel to xpic tov Katapt. Tév dyiov, but parallel to each 
 other; so that we have thus, with Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf, Bleek, to 
 delete the comma after dyiwv. mpoic¢ Tov Katapt. Tov dyiwv Contains, namely, 
 the aim for which Christ has given those designated in ver. 11 ei¢ épyov dtako- 
 He has, on behalf of the full furnishing of 
 the saints, given those teachers for the work of the ministry, for the edification of 
 the body of Christ. The objection that the oixod. tov cou. is a yet higher aim 
 than that of the catapr. trav dyiwv’ is incorrect ; since, on the contrary, the 
 
 p yee s Ais — 
 viac, €l¢ olKOdO/AV TOV C@MLaTOC TOV Xp. 
 
 1 Theophylact. 
 
 2 Ambrosiaster. 
 
 3 Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Grotius, Calix- 
 tus, and others, including de Wette. 
 
 6 Tf the three elements were parallel, Paul 
 must logically have thus arranged them : 
 (1) eis Epyov dtaxovias, (2) mpos TOY KaTapTLopOV 
 Tov aylwov, (3) els oikoSonnv Tod owpaTos TOO 
 
 4 See on Acts xx. 28, and Ch. F. Fritzsche, 
 in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 42 ff. 
 
 5 Chrysostom, Wolf, Bengel, 
 Holzhausen, and others. 
 
 Semler, 
 
 Xpicrov,—advancing from the less definite 
 to the more definite. 
 7 De Wette. 
 
©HAP. Iy., 12. 455 
 karapr. 7. ay. is the higher point, which is to be attained by the edification 
 of the body of Christ, and consequently might be conceived of as aimed at 
 therein.! Observe, withal, the expression of perfection : xatapr., and the ex- 
 pression of development : oixodou4. Many others, including de Wette, have 
 made the two clauses with ei¢ dependent on xarapricudr, so that the sense 
 would be : ‘for the qualifying of believers that they may in each and every 
 way themselves labor for the advancement and edification of the church.” * 
 But (q@) dvaxovia, where the context is speaking of those engaged in the 
 service of the church, always denotes the official service (Rom. xi. 13 ; 
 2 Oor. iv. 1, vi. 3; comp. Acts vi. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff., ix. 12, a/.), and hence 
 may not here be transmuted into the general notion of rendering service to, 
 furthering (see especially 1 Pet. iv. 10). Andif we should in that connection 
 retain the official notion of dvaxovia,* the training of the ayo to be teachers 
 would be the thought resulting ; which would be inappropriate, because 
 Paul regarded the Parousia as so near, and conceived of the yapicuara as 
 continuing till then (see 1 Cor. xiii. 8), and therefore the thought that teachers 
 had to be trained was remote from his mind. (}) But if he had merely 
 meant to say : ‘‘to make the individual Christians jointly and severally 
 meet for co-operating to the furtherance of the church,”* then tavrov 
 would have been to rév dyiwv an essential element, which could not have been 
 left out. Olshausen regards the two clauses introduced by eic as a partition 
 of the katapticuic tov dyiwv : ‘‘ for the perfecting of the saints, and that, on 
 the one hand, of those furnished with gifts of teaching for the fulfil- 
 ment of the teacher’s office ; on the other hand, as regards the hearers, for 
 the edifying of the church.” 
 of the teaching labors mentioned in ver. 11 and consequently cannot in- 
 clude the teachers themselves, and seeing, moreover, that the oixodouy rod 
 oo. Tov Xp. Most appropriately describes the working of the teacher, so that 
 no reader could, especially after eic épy. diax., conjecture that ei¢ oixod. K.7.A. 
 was to apply to the hearers, inasmuch as no one could read the ‘‘on the one 
 hand” and the ‘‘on the other” between the lines. Lastly, in quite an arbi- 
 trary and erroneous way, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe have even assumed 
 
 Incorrectly, seeing that oi ayso. are the objects 
 
 a trajection for cic épy. diak. mpd¢ Tov KaTapT. Tov ay. ei¢ OlK. TOV Ga". TOV Xp., 
 in connection with which there have been very various explanations. ° — carap- 
 riou6c, not elsewhere found in the N. T. (in Galen used of the adjustment of a 
 dislocated limb), means, like xatdpriovc, 2 Cor. xill. 9, the putting of a person 
 or thing into its perfect state, so that it is as it should be (aprvoc). Vulgate : 
 
 1 Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 
 2, p. 128. 
 
 2 Meier; comp. Flatt, Schott, Rickert, 
 Schenkel, and others, as already Erasmus. 
 3 Flatt, Schott ; comp. also Zachariae. 
 
 4 Riickert. 
 
 ®Grotius: ‘ut sanctis ministrent eos 
 perficiendo magis et magis .. . ut ad eum 
 modum illi quoque sancti apti fiant aedifi- 
 candae eeclesiae, 7.¢., docendis aliis,”’ ‘‘ to 
 minister to the saints by perfecting them 
 
 more and more ...sothat in this way the 
 saints also might become fit for edifying the 
 church, #.é., by teaching others.’’ Michaelis : 
 “that they should be able ministers of His 
 church, in order that the saints might be- 
 come more perfect, and His church, which is 
 His body. might attain its due magnitude.” 
 Koppe: ‘‘ éSwxe eis Epyov Staxovias (eis TO dua- 
 Kovety Tots aycots, ‘to minister to the saints’), 
 mpos To Kataptigew avTovs,’” — and eis oikod, 
 k.T.A., is supposed to belong again to céwkxe, 
 
456 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 ad consummationem.' — Epyov diaxoviac] does not stand for the simple dcaxovia,? 
 but means the work of the d.axovia, i.e., the labor which is performed in the 
 ministerial office of the church. —eicpoixodouiv tov cdu. tov Xp.| for the up- 
 building (= eic 70 oikodoueiv Td cu. Tov Xp., comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12 ; Hph. iv. 
 29) of the body of Christ. This is that gpyov ; and so an appositional more 
 precise definition of that which precedes. But on that account to take épyov 
 as a building*® is an undue anticipation. The expression oixodou7 tov caparo¢ 
 is a blending of two figures, both of which were, from what precedes, pres- 
 ent in the conception of the apostle (i. 28, ii. 20 ff., iii. 6),—the church as 
 the body of Christ and as an edifice. Comp. ver. 16. 
 
 Ver. 13. Goal, up to the contemplated attainment of which Christ has bestow- 
 ed the different teachers, ver. 11, for the purpose specified in ver. 12.  wéype 
 is put without av (comp. Mark xiii. 30) because the thought of conditioning 
 circumstances is remote from the apostle’s mind. * — xaravrjowpuer] shall have 
 attained to unity, 7.e., shall have reached it as the goal. Comp. Acts xxvi. 
 7% + Phil. iii. 11 ; 2 Macc. vi. 14; Polyb. iv. 34; Diod. Sic. 1. 79, al. Some 
 have found therein the coming together from different places,® or from differ- 
 ent paths of error ;° but this is purely imported. — oi ravrec| the whole, in our 
 totality, i.e., the collective body of Christians, not all men,’ Jews and Gentiles,® 
 which is at variance with the use of the first person and with the preceding 
 context (mpo¢ tov Katapticuov Tov dyiwv).—eic THY EvétnTa THO TioT. Kal THC 
 éxtyv. Tov viov Tov Ocov] does not stand for éy rH évdryti x.7.A., ‘in the unity,” ® 
 but is that which is to be attained with the catavr. The article is put with 
 évér., because not any kind of unity is meant, but the definite unity, the future 
 realization of which was the task of the teachers’ activity, the definite ideal 
 which was to be realized by it. —rov viod tov Oecd is the object—accordant 
 with their specific confession —not only of the éziyvworc, but also of the 
 mioric (see on Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. 16). The goal then in question, to 
 which the whole body of believers are to attain, is, that the riorve in the Son 
 of God and the full knowledge ™ of the Son of God may be in all one and 
 the same ; no longer—as before the attainment of this goal—varying in the 
 individuals in proportion to the influences of different teaching (ver. 14). 
 kal tHe éxcyv., however, is not to be taken as epexegesis of t#¢ miot.,” 
 which is precluded not by «ai (see on Gal, iv, 16), but by the circumstance 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Morus, and see kcaraptig¢w, Luke 
 vi. 40; 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Heb. xiii. 
 21; 1 Pet. v.10. Translations like ad coag- 
 mentationem, *‘ for union”’ (Beza), and ad in- 
 staurationem, ‘‘ for renewal” (Erasmus), 
 would need to be suggested by the context. 
 With strange inappropriateness, Pelagius 
 and Vatablus have referred the kataptiapos 
 to the number of the Christians: “ad com- 
 plendum numerum electorum,” “for com- 
 pleting the number of the elect.” 
 
 2 Koppe; see, on the other hand, Winer, 
 p. 541 f.; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 117. 
 
 3 Schellhorn in Wolf, Holzhausen. 
 
 4 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 14 ff.; Hartung, 
 
 Partikellehre, I. p. 291 ff. 
 
 5 Vatablus, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and 
 others. 
 
 6 Michaelis. 
 
 7 Jerome, Morus, and others. 
 
 * Hammond, 
 
 ® Grotius. 
 
 10 The sum of the confession, in which all 
 are to become one in faich and knowledge, 
 —not merely, as Bleek turns it, are to fee? 
 themselves one in the communion of faith 
 and of the knowledge of Christ. 
 
 11 More ‘than yvoots ; see Valekenaer 27 
 Luc. p. 14 f., and comp. on i. 17. 
 
 12 Calvin, Calovius, and others. 
 
~ 
 
 CHAP ATVs, Loe 457 
 
 that there is no ground at all for the epexegetic view, and that riorie and 
 éxiyvwoic are different notions, although the two are mutually related, the 
 former as the necessary condition of the latter (Phil. iii. 9, 10 ; 1 John iv. 
 16). Peculiar, but erroneous, is the view of Olshausen,! that the unity be- 
 tween faith and knowledge is to be understood, and that the development, 
 of which Paul speaks, consists in faith and knowledge becoming one, i.e., in 
 the faith, with which the Christian life begins, becoming truly raised to 
 knowledge. At variance with the context, since the connection speaks of 
 the unity which is to combine the different individuals (ver. 8 ff.); and also 
 opposed to the whole tenor of the apostle’s teaching elsewhere, inasmuch as 
 faith itself after the Parousia is not to cease as such (be merged in knowl- 
 edge), but is to abide (1 Cor. xiii. 13). [See Note XLIIL., p. 486.] —ei¢ dvdpa 
 réAewov| concrete figurative apposition to what precedes : unto a full-grown 
 man, sc., Shall have attained, ¢.e., shall have at length grown up, become ulti- 
 mately developed into such an one.’ The state of the unity of the faith, 
 etc., is thought of as the full maturity of manhood ; to which the more im- 
 perfect state, wherein the évdryc is not yet attained (ver. 14), is opposed as 
 a yet immature age of childhood. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. Paul does not 
 say el¢ dvdpac TeAeiovc, because he looks upon the zdvzec¢ as one ethical person; 
 comp. ii. 15 f. On réAecoc, of the maturity of manhood, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 
 xiv. 20 ; Heb. v. 14.°— ei¢ pérpov «.r.2.] second apposition, for the more pre- 
 cise definition of the former. The measure of the age of the fulness of Christ 
 is the measure, which one has attained with the entrance upon that age to 
 which the reception of the fulness of Christ is attached (sce the further ex- 
 planation below), or, without a figure: the degree of the progressive Chris- 
 tian development which conditions the reception of that fulness. The #Ackia 
 in question, namely, is conceived of as the section of a dimension in space, 
 beginning at a definite place, so that the #Acka is attained only after one 
 has traversed the measured extent, whose terminal point is the entrance into 
 the #ackia.* 7 AcKia, however, is not statwra (Luke xix. 3), as is supposed 
 by Erasmus, Beza, Homberg, Grotius, Calixtus, Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, 
 Bengel, Zachariae, Riickert, and others, which would be suitable only if the 
 aviyp TéAevoc always had a definite measure of bodily size ; but it is equivalent 
 to aetas, ‘‘age” (Matt. vi. 27), and that not, as it might in itself imply,® spe- 
 cially aetas virilis, ‘‘ the age of manhood,” ® since, on the contrary, the more 
 
 1 Whom Bisping has followed. 
 
 2 The most involved way, in which the 
 whole following passage can be taken, is to 
 be found in Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, 
 p. 129 ff. He begins, in spite of the absence 
 of a particle (ody or S€), with eis avdpa téAcrov 
 anew sentence, of which the verb is avéjow- 
 ev, ver. 15; the latter is a self-encourage- 
 ment to growth; but tva pnkeére x.7.A. is de- 
 pendent on avéjowuer. In this way, in 
 place of the simple evolution of the dis- 
 course, such asis so specially characteris- 
 tic of this Epistle, there is forced upon it an 
 artificially-involved period, and there is in- 
 
 troduced an exhortation as yet entirely 
 foreign to the connection (only with ver. 17 
 does Paul return to the hortatory address). 
 
 3 And Bleek thereon; Plato, Legg. xi. 
 p. 929 C, i. p. 643 D; Ken. Cy7. i. 2.4; Polyb. 
 iv. 8. 1, v. 29. 2. Comp. also, for the figura- 
 tive sense, Philo, de agric. I., p. 301, Leg. ad 
 Caium, init. 
 
 4 Comp. Hom. J/. xi. 225: émi p’ nBys épixv- 
 S€0s, txeTo petpov, Od. xi. 317: ei nBys péTpov 
 txoTo, XVili. 217. 
 
 5 Dem. 17. 11; 1852. 11; Xen. Mem. iv. 2.3. 
 
 6 So Morus, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, 
 Holzhausen, Harless, and others. 
 
458 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 precise definition of the aetas, ‘‘age,” in itself indefinite, is only given by rob 
 
 mAnp. tT. Xp., Which belongs to it (Winer, p. 172); so that qAcKia rod wAnp. tT. 
 
 Xp. taken together characterizes the adult age of the Christians. [See Note 
 
 XLIV., p. 486.]— Tod mAnypouatog tr. Xp.] defines the age which is meant, as 
 
 that to which the fulness of Christ is peculiar, i.e., in which one receives the ful- 
 
 ness of Christ. Before the attainment thereof, 7.e., before one has attained to 
 
 this degree of Christian perfection, one has received, indeed, individual and 
 partial charismatic endowment from Christ, but not yet the fulness, the 
 
 whole largas copias, ‘‘ large supplies,” of gifts of grace, which Christ commu- 
 
 nicates. A#pwoua is here, just as at iii. 19, not the church of Christ,’ which 
 in i. 23 is doubtless so characterized, but not so named. This also in oppo- 
 
 sition to Baur, p. 438, according to whom 70 wAgp. r. Xp. means : ‘‘ Christ’s 
 being filled, or the contents with which Christ fills Himself, thus the 
 church.” All explanations, moreover, which resolve zA#poyva into an ad- 
 jectival notion (xAypwfeic) are arbitrary changes of the meaning of the word 
 and of its expressive representation, whether this adjectival notion be con- 
 nected with #Auciac? or with tov Xpicrov.? Grotius, doubtless, leaves rAgp. 
 
 as a substantive ; but, at variance with linguistic usage, makes of it the be- 
 ing full, and of +. Xp.,* the knowledge of Christ (‘‘ad eum staturae modum, 
 
 qui est plenus Christi, é.e., cognitionis de Christo,” ‘‘to the measure of 
 the stature that is full of Christ, z.e., of knowledge concerning Christ’’). 
 
 Riickert takes rAfjpwya as perfection, and tov Xpiorov as genitive of the posses- 
 sor. The meaning of the word he takes to be: ‘‘ We are to become just as 
 perfect a man as Christ is.” Christ stands before us as the ideal of manly 
 greatness and beauty, the church not yet grown to maturity, but destined to 
 be like Him, as perfect as He is,—which is a figure of spiritual perfection 
 and completion. But A#poua nowhere signifies perfection (reAecéryc), and 
 nowhere is Christ set forth, even in a merely figurative way, as an ideal of 
 manly greatness and beauty. He stands there as Head of His body (vv. 12, 
 
 15, 16). As little, finally, as at ili. 19, does rAjpwoua tov Xp. here signify the 
 Full gracious presence of Christ.» So also Matthies : ‘‘the fulness of the Di- 
 vinity manifest in Christ: and through Him also embodied in the church.” 
 
 Where the rAjpoua tov Xp. is communicated, there the full gracious presence 
 
 
 
 1 Storr, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius. 
 
 other hand: “Christus... in exemplum 
 proponitur corpori suo mystico, ... ut, 
 
 2So Luther: ‘Sof the perfect age of 
 Christ.”», Comp. Castalio, Calvin (‘‘ plena 
 actas,”’ ‘full age’’), Estius, Michaelis, and 
 others; in which case tod Xpiotov has by 
 some been taken sens mystico, ‘‘in a mys- 
 tic sense,”’ of the church, by others (see 
 Morus and Rosenmiiller) a@ quam Chr. nos 
 ducit, “to which Christ leads us,’’ or the 
 like, has been inserted. 
 
 3 So most expositors, who take 7Arkia as 
 stature. Itis explained: stature of the full- 
 grown Christ, as to which Beza says, 
 “Dicitur . .. Christus non in sese, sed in 
 nobis adolescere,” ‘‘ Christ is said to grow, 
 not in Himself, but in us;’’? Wolf, on the 
 
 quemadmodum ipse qua homo se ostendit 
 sapientia crescentem, prout annis et statura 
 auctus fuit, ita fideles qaoque sensim incre- 
 menta capiant in fide et cognitione, tandem- 
 que junctim perfectum yirum Christo... 
 similem sistunt,” ‘‘ Christ is set forth as an 
 example to His mystical body . . . so that 
 as He as man shows Himself growing in wis- 
 dom as He grew in years and stature, so 
 believers also might gradually receive ad- 
 ditions in faith and knowledge, and at 
 length jointly present the perfect man in 
 Christ.” Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 
 4 So already Oecumenius. 
 
 5 Harless ; comp. Holzhausen. 
 
CHAP, IV., 13: 459 
 of Christ is in man’s heart (Rom. viii. 10; Gal. iii. 20), but 7d rAgjp. rod Xp. 
 does not mean this. 
 
 Remark 1.—The question whether the goal to be attained,indicated by Paulin 
 ver. 13, is thought of by him as occurring in the temporal life, or only in the aidv 
 néddov, ‘world to come,’’ is answered in the former sense by Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Thomas, Luther, Cameron, 
 Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Flatt (who thinks of 
 the last times of the church on earth), Riickert, Meier, de Wette, Schenkel ; in 
 the latter sense,’ by Theodoret (rij¢ dé tehevéryTO¢ Ev TO péAAOVTE Bim TevéoueOa), 
 Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and others, including Holzhausen ; while Harless 
 judges that Paul sets forth the goal as the goal of the life of Christian fellow- 
 ship here upon earth, but says nothing on the question as to whether it is to 
 be attained here or in the life to come ; as also Olshausen is of opinion that 
 Paul had not even thought of the contrast between here below and there. But 
 vy. 14, 15 show most distinctly that Paul thought of the goal in ver. 13 as set- 
 ting in even before the Parousia ; and to this points also the comparison of iil. 
 19, where, in substance, the same thing as is said at our passage by eic¢ pétpov 
 HAuKkiag K.T.A., is expressed by iva rAnpwobyTe ei¢ av TO TAHPwuA TOV Oeov. ‘The 
 development of the whole Christian community to the goal here described, Paul 
 has thus thought of as near at hand, beyond doubt setting in (ver, 14) after the 
 working of the antichristian principle preceding the Parousia,? as a conse- 
 quence of this purifying process, and then the Parousia itself. We have conse- 
 quently here a pointing to the state of unity of faith and knowledge,*® which 
 sets in after the last storms tov éveorOro¢ ai@vog Tovnpov (Gal. i. 4), and then is 
 at once followed by the consummation of the kingdom of Christ by the Pa- 
 rousia.+ With this view 1 Cor. xiii. 11 is not at variance, where the time after 
 is compared with the age of manhood; the same figure is rather employed 
 by Paul to describe different future conditions, according as the course of the 
 discussion demanded. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, iii. 1. On the other hand, the 
 reason adduced for the reference to an earthly goal,> namely, that after the 
 Parousia there is not faith, but sight, is invalid ; for see on 1 Cor. xiii. 13. 
 
 Remark 2.—Mé yp: xararvtijowpev «.7.2. is not to be interpreted to the effect, 
 that with the setting in of the unity, etc., the functions thought of in ver. 11 
 would cease,—which rather will be the case only at the Parousia (1 Cor. xiii. 
 8-10, iii. 13 ff.),—but the time of the unity, etc., is itself included in the (last) 
 period of the duration of those churchly ministrations, so that only the Pa- 
 
 1J™n fact, Fathers of the church (Augus- 
 tine, de Civ. ii. 15; and see also Jerome, 
 pit. P. 12) and scholastic writers (Anselm, 
 Thomas) have referred our passage to the 
 resurrection of the dead, of whom it is held 
 to be here said, that they would all be rais- 
 edin full manly age like Christ. Several 
 (already Origen, as is asserted by Jerome, 
 ad Pammach. Ep. 61, and afterwards Scotus) 
 have even inferred that all women (with 
 the exception of Mary) would arise of the 
 male sex ! 
 
 2 See on vi. 11; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 348 f. 
 
 3 This émlyvwors is consequently not yet 
 
 the perfect one, which occurs after the Pa- 
 rousia, as it is described 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
 
 4 According to Schwegler, /.c. p. 381, our 
 passage betrays the later author, who, tak- 
 ing aretrospective view from the Montanis- 
 tic standpoint, could conceive the thought 
 of such a division into epochs. As though 
 Paul himself, looking forward from jis 
 view, as he expresses it, ¢.g., 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff., 
 could not also have hoped for a speedy de- 
 velopment unto unity of the faith, etc. ! 
 The hypothesis of a ‘‘ certain time-interest” 
 (Baur) was not needed for this purpose, 
 
 > Calovius and Estius. 
 
460 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 rousia is their terminus. The distinction made by Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 f., 
 between d&yp: and yéypi—which in fact receive merely from the connection the 
 determination of the point, whether the ‘‘until’’ is to be taken imelusively or 
 exclusively—is invented.! The distinction of the two words lies not in the 
 signification, but in the original sensuous mode of conception which was 
 associated with the until: ‘‘quum altera particula spatium illud, quoad 
 aliquid pertinere diceretur, metiretur ex altitudine, altera vero ex longitudine,” 
 ‘since one particle would measure the space, as to which anything would be 
 said to pertain, from its height, but the other from its length,” Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 225. 
 
 Ver. 14. “Iva] cannot, at all events, introduce the design of the attained 
 goal in ver. 13, in opposition to which abgjowyev, ver. 15, clearly testifies ; 
 since, in the case of him who has already become the avijp réAewoc, the avgavery no 
 longer has place. But it is also arbitrary to refer the affirmation of aim to 
 vv. 11, 12,*as Harless would do,* who holds ver. 13 and ver. 14 ff. as co-ordi- 
 nate, so that ver. 13 describes the final goal up to which the arrangement 
 endures, and ver. 14 ff. the design of this same. That ver. 14 stands in a 
 subordinate relation to ver. 13, is shown by the retaining of the same figure, 
 as by iva itself, which is not preceded by another iva, or something similar, 
 to which it would be parallel. If Paul had referred iva to vv. 11, 12, it 
 would have been logically the most natural course to arrange the verses 
 thus: vv. 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 16. The relation of our sentence expressive 
 of aim to the preceding is rather as follows : while in ver. 13 there was ex- 
 pressed the terminus ad quem, whichis appointed to the labor-task, contained 
 in ver. 12, of the teachers given according to ver. 11 by Christ, there is now 
 adduced that which is aimed at in the case with a view to the ultimate attain- 
 ment of that terminus ad quem, namely, the change, which meanwhile, in 
 accordance with that final aim, is to take place in the—till then still current 
 —condition of the church. This change, divinely aimed at, is characterized 
 ver. 14 in its negative nature (uyKéte x.7.A.), and ver. 15 in its positive nature 
 (aAnGebtovtes dé K.7.A.). — pnxéte] no longer, as this is still at present the case. 
 It points to the influence, which had at that time not yet ceased, of false 
 teachers in the Christian church at large (see ver. 13). Of false teachers in 
 Ephesus itself there is in our Epistle still no trace, although in Acts xx. 29 f. 
 Paul had already expressed their future emergence. — vj] for, in order 
 to attain to full maturity, one must first emerge out of the state of child- 
 hood. What Paul here represents as vyridryc, namely, the dependence on 
 false teachers, in connection with which the évéry¢ described in ver. 13 can- 
 not set in, he himself expresses by cAvdwvilduevor, becoming tossed by 
 waves (Isa. lvii. 20) and driven to and fro (as a ship abandoned to the break- 
 ers), on which figurative representation of restless passive subjection to in- 
 fluences, comp. Heb. xiii. 9 ; Jas. i. 6 ; Jude 12 f.; Josephus, Amdt. ix. 11. 
 3; Aristaenet. i. 27 ; Dio Chrys. Orat. 32. —ravti dvéuw tie didacKar.|] TH 
 tpory O& éupévav Kai avémove Exddece Tag dLaddpove SidacKadiac, ‘‘ continuing the 
 
 
 
 1 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 308 f. Zanchius. 
 2 Koppe, Flatt; comp. Michaelis and 3 Comp. Bleek. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 14. 461 
 trope, he called differences of doctrine, winds,” Theophylact. Comp. Plut. 
 de aud. poet. p. 28 D: py xavti Adyw rAdyiov, Gorep Tvebpatt, Tapad.odc EavTov, 
 ‘lest presenting himself obliquely to every word, as to a breeze.” The 
 use of the article with didackaA. denotes the doctrine in abstracto, ‘‘ the 
 abstract.” In the fact that now this, now that, is taught according to varying 
 tendencies, there blows now this, now that, wind of doctrine. That Paul has 
 JSalse teachers before his mind, is evident from the context. — év ry KuBeia 
 sav avdpor.| instrumental: becoming tossed and driven to and fro by every 
 wind of doctrine in virtue of the deceit of men. After didack. no comma is 
 to be placed.’ «kveia, from ioc (eubus), a die, means properly dice-play ,; * 
 then in a derived signification fraudulentia, ‘‘ deceit.” * Comp. the German 
 Spiel. In this signification the word has also passed over to the language 
 of the Rabbins §33p.* Others have explained it as: levitas, temeritas, 
 ‘“inconstancy, heedlessness,” >—which notion (like the German auf’s Spiel 
 setzen: to put at stake) xvBebew really expresses in Plat. Prot. p. 314 A; 
 Meleag. 73,°—but this is opposed to the context, which represents the false 
 teachers as deceivers, — rav avOporov| Instead of being under the gracious 
 influence of Christ (ver. 18), and thereby becoming strong and firm (comp. 
 ili. 16 ff.), one is given up to the deceptive play of men !— év ravoupyia mpoc¢ 
 THY peGodeiav tHe TAavyc| More precisely defining parallel to the preceding : 
 by means of cunning, which is effectual for the machination of error. On 
 mavoupyia, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Plat. Mener: p. 247 A. 
 peodeia is preserved only here and vi. 11, but from the use of péfodoc? and 
 peGodebw,* is not doubtful as to its signification. xAdvy means error, also at 
 Matt. xxvii. 64 ; Rom. i. 27; 2 Pet. iii. 17, 11.18 ; Jas. v.20. Whether this 
 has been brought about through the fault of lying and immorality ° must be 
 decided by the context, as this must in reality be assumed to be the thought 
 of the apostle in the present case, both from the connection and from the 
 view which Paul had formed on the basis of experience (not, as Riickert 
 pronounces, from a certain dogmatical defiance, which had remained with 
 him as his weak side ; comp. on the other hand, on 2 Cor. xi. 12) with 
 regard to the false teachers of his time (2 Cor. ii. 17, xi. 13 f.; Gal. ii. 4, 
 vi. 12 ; Phil. ii. 21), although it is not involved in the word in itself. To 
 take rAdavy as seduction” is not to be justified by linguistic usage, since it al- 
 ways (also 2 Thess. ii. 11) means error, delusion, going astray ; as with the 
 Greek writers also it never has that active meaning.—rAdvyc is genitivus sub- 
 jecti, ‘‘a subjective genitive ;” the rAdvy, which peOodeies, is personified, in 
 which case, however, it would be quite arbitrary to say, with Bengel: erroris, 
 t.e., Satanae, ‘‘ of error, i.e., of Satan.” Compare rather the frequent personifi- 
 
 1 Comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf. 
 
 2 Plato, Phaedr. p. 274D; Xen. Mem. i. 3. 
 2; Athen. x. p. 445 A. 
 
 3 Arrian. pict. ii. 19, iii. 21, and see Oecu- 
 menius. 
 
 4See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 775; Buxtorf, 
 Lex. Talm. p. 1984. 
 
 5 Beza, Salmasius, 
 others, 
 
 Morus, Flatt, and 
 
 6 See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 89. 
 
 72 Mace. xiii. 18; Esth. xvi. 13; Plut. Mor. 
 p. 176 A; Artem. iii. 25; Aristaen. i. 17. 
 
 82 Sam. xix. 27; Aquila, Ex. xxi. 13; Diod. 
 Sic. vii. 16; Charit. vii. 6. 
 
 ® Harless. 
 
 10 Luther, Beza, and others, including 
 Riickert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette. 
 
462 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 cations of dyapria, dixavoctvn (Rom. vi. 16 ff., a/.), and the like. The article 
 is not necessary before zpd¢ t. peOod.,* since tavovpy. has no article ; hence 
 no reason whatever exists for attaching pic 7. wefod. «.7.2., with Rickert, to 
 the participle (‘‘driven about... according to the several arts of seduc- 
 tion”), by which év ravovpy. is singularly isolated. —We may add that, 
 when it is said that the fluctuation between different doctrinal opinions, 
 here presupposed as a matter of fact, is not suitable to the apostolic age,” 
 too much is asserted. Paul had experienced enough of this sort of waver- 
 ing : all his Epistles testify of it. 
 
 Ver. 15. Still connected with iva, ver. 14. — dé] after the negative prota- 
 sis: on the other hand, yet doubtless.* In order that we... on the other 
 hand, confessing the truth, may grow in love, etc. adhere means nothing 
 else than in Gal. iv. 6, verwm dicere, ‘‘to speak the truth,” opposite of 
 wetdecbat,* which here, as contrast to the repidépecbar ravti avéuw tHe didaoc- 
 kadiac, is the confession of the evangelic adjfera. év ayary belongs to aigsqo.,° 
 the ethical element of which it denotes ; for love (to the brethren) is the 
 sphere, apart from which the growth of the mystic body, whose members are 
 held together by love,® does not take place, iii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff., comp. 
 xiii. 1. With how great weight is this element here placed at the begin- 
 ning and ver. 16 at the end ; and how definitely is the hint already thereby 
 given to take év ayary together with aigjo., in keeping with its connection 
 in ver. 16 ! Others, nevertheless, connect it with adyfebovrec, in doing which 
 some explain, yet not without diversities in specifying the sense,’ veritatem 
 sectantes cum caritate, ‘‘ striving after truth with love ;”* others : sincere dili- 
 gentes, ‘‘ sincerely loving.” ® But neither of these interpretations is to be 
 linguistically justified, since aAmGetey never means to strive after truth, or to 
 hold fast the truth, to possess the truth, or the like, but always to speak the 
 truth (comp. also Prov. xxi. 38; Ecclus. xxxi. 4), to which, likewise, the 
 sense of to verify, to prove as true, found e.g. in Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 25, Isa. 
 xliv. 26, may be traced back. Against the second of these interpretations” 
 there is also in particular the context, seeing that sincere love would bea quite 
 unsuitable contrast to the spiritual immaturity given up to the false teachers, 
 which is described ver. 14. If, however, we should seek to connect aAnfei- 
 ew in the correct sense of verwm dicere, ‘‘to speak the truth,” with év ayary 
 (confessing the truth in love), then only the love not towards others in gen- 
 
 1 Tn opposition to Riickert. 
 
 2 Baur, p. 448. 
 
 3 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171 f.; Klotz, 
 ad Devar. p. 360 f. 
 
 4 Comp. Xen. Andb. i. 7. 18, iv. 4.15; Mem. 
 i. 15; Plat. Demod. p. 383 C ; Phil. Leg. Alleg. 
 II. p. 84 A; de resip. Noé, p. 280 E. 
 
 5 Comp. already Lucifer: ‘‘ crescamus in 
 caritate,” “let us grow in love.” 
 
 6 Comp. Chrysostom. 
 
 7 Calvin and most expositors: “ veritatis 
 studio adjungere etiam mutuae communi- 
 cationis studium, ut placide simul profi- 
 ciant,” ‘‘to the pursuit of truth to add also 
 
 the pursuit of mutual communication, that 
 they may advance together calmly.’ Cas- 
 talio, Bullinger, Riickert: ‘“‘to hold fast to 
 the truth received and investigated ... so 
 that . . . our firmness may be tempered by 
 a friendly consideration for the weaker.” 
 
 8 Valla, Erasmus, Calvin, Bullinger, Calo- 
 vius, Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, 
 Stolz, Flatt, Riickert, Bleek, de Wette? e¢ 
 al. 
 
 ® Luther, Bucer, Grotius, Loesner, Morus, 
 et al.; comp. also Beza and Matthies. 
 
 10 Luther, ete. 
 
CHAP. IV:, 15. 463 
 eral,’ but towards those of another confession, could be meant ; and this too, 
 would here, where the latter are described as deceptive teachers of error, 
 be at variance with the context. MHarless, it is true, rightly connects év 
 ayaryn with avéfo., but explains aAyfetovrec : being true in evangelical disposi- 
 tion, and then brings év ayary eic airév together. Against this may be urged, 
 not indeed the hyperbaton,® but the fact that a276. is not taken in accord- 
 ance with correct linguistic usage, and that the definition ‘“‘in evangelical 
 disposition,” is imported at variance with the context (since we have here a 
 contrast not to the ravovpyia of the false teachers, but to the childish zepidé- 
 pecdar ravti avéu k.T.A.) ; as also that the corresponding év aydry of ver. 16 
 shows that év aydry in ver. 15 does not mean love to Christ. Wrongly also 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, although connecting with aié., renders : possessing the 
 truth. — avEjowpev| dependent on iva, ver. 14, is not to be taken, according 
 to classic usage, transitively (1 Cor. ili. 6 f. ; 2 Cor. ix. 10), as Valla, Mol- 
 denhauer, and others held, but intransitively (comp. ii. 21, and see Wet- 
 stein, I. p. 335), to grow ; for, in keeping with the figure iva pnkéte Guev 
 vriot, it represents the progressive development of the Christian life. Comp. 
 ver. 16. Bengel aptly observes : ‘‘haec aiEyoie . . . media est inter in- 
 Jfantes et virum,” ‘‘this increase is between childhood and manhood.” 
 —eic aitév] in reference to Him. Christ is indeed the Head of the body, 
 the growth of the members of which thus stands in constant relation 
 to Christ, can never take place apart from relation to Him as determining 
 and regulating it, to whom the course of the development must harmo- 
 niously correspond. The commentary to ecic airév is furnished by the fol- 
 lowing é¢ ob wav 76 cOma x.7.2. ; the relation of the growth tothe head, which 
 is expressed in an ascending direction by eic¢ airéy, is expressed ina descend- 
 ing direction by é ov.° The sense: into the resemblance of Christ,* is op- 
 posed to the context (since Christ is thought of as head) ; as also the expla- 
 nation of Koppe and Holzhausen :5 ‘‘ to grow up in Him,” is inappropriate, 
 since the body as little grows up to the head, or reaches forth to the head,® 
 as it grows into the head.” Others have taken cic for év,* but this was a 
 mistaken make-shift, whether it was explained with Cornelius a Lapide : 
 ‘* Christi capitis virtute et influau,” ‘by the virtue and influence of Christ 
 as Head,” or even with Grotius : ‘‘ ipsius cognitione,” ‘‘by his knowledge.” 
 — 7a ravra] is rightly explained : in all points, in every respect (comp. 1 Cor. 
 ix. 25, x. 33, xi. 2, and see on Acts xx. 35), in which case, however, the ar- 
 ticle has not generally been attended to.* Harless refers it to the previously 
 
 1 This in opposition to Hofmann. 
 2 Bernhardy, p. 460; Kiihner, II. p. 627 f. 
 3 This treating of eis avréy and (ver. 16) é& 
 
 junction of év (6:4) and eis, Col. i. 16 f. 
 4 Zanchius and others. 
 5 Comp. de Wette and Bleek. 
 
 ov as parallel is not “ paradoxical’’ (de 6 Hofmann. 
 Wette), but represents the relation as it is. 7 In opposition to Matthies : ‘‘ 70 grow *n- 
 —Christ the goal and source of the develop- to Him, i.e... . ever more deeply to be- 
 
 ment of life in the church, 7.é., to Christ 
 withal is directed the whole aim which de- 
 termines this development, and from Christ 
 proceeds all endowment, by which it is ren- 
 dered possible and takes place. Analogous, 
 and just as little paradoxical, is the con- 
 
 come absorbed into His infinitely true and 
 holy nature. 
 
 8 Luther, in the original editions, has not : 
 ‘an dem das Haupt ist,” but ‘‘an den, der 
 das Haupt ist.” 
 
 ® So still Meier and Matthies. 
 
464 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 mentioned évérye in its contrast to the wavering of unsettled knowledge. 
 But since the évdzy¢ of ver. 12 appears as the goal to be attained by the 
 growth, and since, moreover, not several things (a plurality) are thereby 
 denoted, to which the plural ra xdvra might relate, this view cannot appear 
 in keeping with the context. The explanation which most naturally sug- 
 gests itself is : in all the points of our growth, wherein the emphasis re- 
 mains upon eic aizév. Our growth shall, in all points in which we grow, 
 proceed in relation to Him, who is the Head, etc. Koppe, Wahl, and Holz- 
 hausen regard ra ravra as nominative, explaining it of all the members. But 
 in that case oi ravtec must have been written. Comp. ver. 13. —6¢ éorw 7 
 Kegaay Xpiotéc] significant more precise definition and very emphatic nam- 
 ing of the subject intended by éi¢ airév, although this subject was self-evi- 
 dent. Paul did not write roy Xpiorév (as apposition to aizév), but in accord- 
 ance with the usual Greek construction he drew the apposition into the ac- 
 cessory clause.1. According to de Wette, 6 Xp. is merely to serve for facili- 
 tating the construction with the following é& oi, and thus to have merely a 
 formal significance. But of such a facilitating there was no need whatever. 
 
 Ver. 16. Harmony of what is said, ver. 15, for all individuals, with the 
 objective relation of Christ to the whole as the organism growing by way 
 of unity out of Christ. Comp. Col. ii. 19. — From whom the whole body, be- 
 coming jitly framed together and compacted (becomes compacted and), by means 
 of each sensation of the supply (of Christ), according to an operation propor- 
 tionate to the measure of each several part, bringeth about the growth of the 
 body, to the edifying of itself in love. —é£ ov] is equivalent neither to eic¢ év,? 
 nor to per quem, ‘‘ through whom,” ? but denotes the ceusal going forth, as 
 Col. Uc. ; 1 Cor. vili. 6; 2 Cor. v. 1, xiii. 4; and frequently.4— may ro 
 coua] wav has the emphasis: the whole body, thus no member being ex- 
 cepted ; it glances back to oi rdvtec, ver. 13. — cuvappor. x. ovuBiBat.] Pres- 
 ent participle, expressing what was continuously in actu, ‘‘in act.” As to 
 cuvapuoaA., comp. On li. 21 ; cvueBato is employed by classical writers of 
 men or of single parts of things, which one brings together into an alliance, 
 to reconciliation, to a unity,* and might be employed here the more aptly, 
 inasmuch as the single parts of which the collective mass designated by 
 nav TO cua Consists, are the different Christian individuals. <A distinction 
 in the notion of the two words, such as is asserted by Bengel (cvvappod. de- 
 notes the jitting together, and ovufi3. the fastening together) and Grotius 
 (the latter denotes a closer union than the former), is arbitrarily assumed. 
 The distinction consists only in this, that cvvapuoA. corresponds to the figure, 
 and ovuB.8. to the thing figuratively represented. With regard to the for- 
 mer, observe that dpyovia also, with the Greeks often denotes the harmonious 
 relation of unity between the body and its parts.°— The verb to é£ ob wav 76 
 
 1See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 41 A: 2 Koppe. 
 eUpyicer TOUS WS GANSas SiKacTds, olmEp Kai dé- 3 Morus, Flatt, Holzhausen. 
 yovTar exec Stkagery Mivws te kai “Paddjsavidtos 4 See Bernhardy, p. 225. 
 kat Aiakos. Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 771. Comp. 5 Herod i. 74; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Plato, Rep. 
 
 2Cor. x. 18; Winer, p. 469; Ellendt, Zez. p. 504 A; comp. Col. ii. 2. 
 Soph. I. p. 868. ® See Jacobs, Delect. epigr. vii. 89. 
 
4G5 
 
 oO 
 
 CHAP. Iv:, 16: 
 
 coua ovvapp. Kk. cvufi3. is rAv abEgow Tod cb. rovetrat, in Which the repetition 
 of tov cémaroc is neither negligence ' nor a Hebraism,* but is introduced for 
 the sake of perspicuity on account of the intervening definitions, as is often 
 the case with classical writers. * — dca raone adje tie éexcyopyny.| belongs not to 
 ovubiBat. (so ordinarily), to which connection the erroneous interpretation 
 of dof as band (see below) led, but to -jv absjow roceizat.* It is not the union 
 that is brought about by the agai rie éxeyopny., but the growth, inasmuch as 
 Christ, from whom as Head the union proceeds, bestows the ércyopyyia for 
 the growth. dof is usually explained junctura, “joining,” * commissura, 
 means of connection, joint, and the like. But without any support from lin- 
 guistic usage. It may signify ® contact, also holding fast, adhesion, and the 
 like,’ but it never means vincwlum, ‘‘ bond” (cvvae7). Rightly Chrysostom 
 and Theodoret have already explained it by aiofyouc, feeling, perception.® 
 Hofmann ® prefers the signification : contact, and understands the connection 
 of the several parts of the body, whereby the one supplies to the other that 
 which is necessary to growth, which supply in the case of the recipient 
 takes place by means of contact with it. In this way raca ay rig éxeyopry. 
 would be every contact which serves for supplying, and the éxiyeonyia would 
 be the communication of the requisites for growth by one part of the body to 
 the other. But the former Paul would have very indistinctly expressed by 
 the mere genitive (instead of ric éxvyop. he might have written rice mpoc tiv 
 éxcyopyyaiv), and the latter is imported, since the reader after é& od could 
 only understand the éxcyopyyia proceeding from Christ. If we were to take 
 dof in the sense of contact, the above explanation of Oecumenius would 
 be the simplest (every contact, which the body experiences through the 
 éxiyopnyia of Christ) ; but there may be urged against it, that the expres- 
 sion instead of the mere did rdone éxeyopyyiac would be only diffuse and 
 circumstantial without special reason, while the expression : 
 the éxcyopnyia,” very appropriately points to the growth through the influ- 
 ence of Christ from within outward. [See Note XLY., p. 486.]— ric 
 éxtyopny.| Genit. objecti, ‘‘ objective genitive :” every feeling in which the 
 supply is perceived, experienced. What supply is meant by the éxcyopyyia 
 with the article becomes certain from the context, namely, that which is 
 afforded by Christ (through the Holy Spirit), ¢.e., the influence of Christ, by 
 
 ‘¢ sensation of 
 
 1 Riickert. um auxilium, ‘handle for mutual aid.”” An 
 
 2 Grotius. 
 
 3 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. XXXv.3 
 Kriiger, Anad. p. 27; Ellendt, ad Arrian, 
 Eap. Al. i. 55. 
 
 4 Zanchius, Bengel, and others. 
 
 5 Vulgate. 
 
 6 As in Lucian, de luctu 9,and often in 
 Plutarch. 
 
 7 Tn virtue of this signification there was 
 denoted by a7 also the fine sand with 
 which the oiled athletes sprinkled each oth- 
 er, in order to be able to take a firm grasp 
 (see Steph. Thesaur. s.v.). Thence Bengel 
 derives the interpretation: ansae ad mutu- 
 
 30 
 
 arbitrary abstraction from a conception en- 
 tirely foreign to the context. Comp. Au- 
 gustine, de civ. Dei, xxii. 18: “‘tactum sub- 
 ministrationis,” “contact for supply,” and 
 see Oecumenius : 7 avd TOU XpioTov katiovca 
 mvevpaticy Suvanis EvOS EKATTOV MEAODUS 
 avrtov anxtopnpeéevyn, ‘the spiritual power 
 coming from Christ, laying hold of each one 
 of His members.” 
 
 8 See Plato, Locr. p. 100 D, E; Pol. vii. 
 p. 523 E; and the passages in Wetstein. So 
 also Col. ii. 19. 
 
 » Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 182. 
 
466 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 which He supplies to His body the powers of life and development necessary 
 to a growth in keeping with its destiny (ér-yopyyel, 2 Cor. ix. 10 5eG@ak 
 iii. 5, evhibet, ‘presents ;” the substantive occurs only further at Phil, tang: 
 not in Greek writers). Those who understand a@7 as bond, take rig ém- 
 yopyy., partly correctly in this same sense,‘ save that they explain the geni- 
 tive as a genitive of apposition, partly ° of the reciprocal service-rendering of 
 the members,—an explanation which,* originating in the erroneous interpre- . 
 tation of df, introduces into the context something heterogeneous. Beza 
 transmutes rjc éxvyopny. into an unmeaning participle : ‘per omnes suppedi- 
 tatas commissuras,” ‘‘ through all supplied joints.” — kar’ évépy. év pétpy évdg 
 
 
 
 éx. pép.| belongs neither to rig émeyopry.,* in which case, it is true, the non- 
 repetition of the article might be justified on the ground of a blending of 7 
 émeyopyyla Kar’ évépyerav x.7.2. into one conception, but on the other hand may 
 be urged the fact that év wérpp x.7.2., as a specification of measure, points of 
 itself to the growth, not to the éxcyopyyia ; nor to ovu3:Bat.,° to which even 
 what precedes did not belong, but : after Paul has stated whereby the body 
 grows (dia wdc. doge THe éxxopny.), he now also adds the relation in which it 
 brings about its growth, namely, according to an efficacy in keeping with the 
 measure of each several part, i.e., so that the growing body in its growth fol- 
 lows an activity of development in keeping with the measure peculiar to each 
 several part of the body,—consequently no disproportioned monstrous growth 
 results, but one which is pursuant to proportion, adapted to the varied meas- 
 ure of the several parts (so that, e.g., the hand does not grow disproportion- 
 ately larger than the foot, etc.). Without figure: From Christ the church 
 accomplishes its progressive development according to an efficacy, which is 
 not equal in all individuals, but appropriate to the degree of development 
 appointed for each several individual. Riickert and Bretschneider take xa7’ 
 évépyerav adverbially : after a powerful manner. But évépyeca in itself does 
 not denote powerful working, but efficacy, activity in general, so that it 
 would need a more precise definition for the sense supposed (i. 19, iii. 7 ; 
 Phil. iii. 21 ; Col. i. 20, ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11). — év pétpw] according to 
 measure, pro mensura; see Bernhardy, p. 211 ; Winer, p. 345. —pépove] is 
 held by Harless to denote the several parts, which again in their turn ap- 
 pear as having the control of the other members (pastors, etc., ver. 11). Against 
 this is évdc éxdorov. It denotes, according to the context, in contradistinc- 
 tion to the zhole of the body each part of the body, whether this part may be 
 a whole member or in turn only a portion of a member (comp. Luke xi. 36), 
 and is hence of wider meaning than pédovc. —aifqjow] In the N. T. only 
 further at Col. it. 19, often with Greek writers,® also 2 Mace. v. 16. — 
 ro.eitar| produces for itself (sibi), hence the middle; comp. subsequently eic 
 
 
 
 1 Riickert, Harless, Olshausen. 
 
 2So Luther and most expositors, includ- 
 ing Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 de Wette. 
 
 3JIn which case the genitive tis émy. 
 would have to be taken, with Grotius, de 
 Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, as 
 
 genitive of definition (on behalf of). But see 
 above, in opposition to Hofmann. 
 
 4 Koppe, Meier, de Wette, and many. 
 
 5 Harless [and Engelhardt]. 
 
 6 More classic, however, is avé. See 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. vi. p. 509 B. 
 
CHAP, Iv.; 17 467 
 oixodou. éavtov. —The sense: for the perfecting of itself (aim of ryv absyo. 
 moveitat), is expressed, as at ver. 12, in another, dissimilar, but likewise very 
 familiar figure, by eic¢ oixod. éavtov. — év ayary]| Love of all one to another is 
 the ethical sphere, within which the aiénow roveicbar ei¢ oixod. éavtov on the 
 part of the whole body proceeds—outside of which this cannot take place. 
 Comp. ver. 15. On account of ver. 15, the connection with ry abfjow 
 Toleitae cic oikod. éavrov is More in keeping with the context than the usual 
 one with the mere eic¢ olxod. éavtov. — We may add, that the mode of regard- 
 ing the church in our passage is not ‘‘ genuinely Gnostic,” as Baur pro- 
 nounces, but genuinely Pauline. Comp. especially 1 Cor. xii. 14-27. 
 
 Ver. 17. That oiv, like the Latin ergo, here resumes ver. 1,' is rightly as- 
 sumed ; since the exhortation begun vv. 1-3 is really interrupted by the 
 digression, vv. 4-16, and the duty now following pyxéte reperareiv x.7.4., 18 
 but the negative side of the afiw¢e repitatgjoa x.t.A. of ver. 1. Theodoret 
 aptly observes : mddw avédaBe ti¢ maparvécewe 76 Tpootpwov, ‘‘ again he recurred 
 to the beginning of the exhortation.” —roiro] to be referred forwards: 
 What follows then (now to return to my exhortations) I say and asseverate, etc. 
 —papripoua does not signify obsecro, ‘‘ I beseech,” but I testify, i.e., I assever- 
 ate, aver. See on Gal. v. 3. 
 and in 2éyw the notion of exhortation and precept, there is no need of supply- 
 ing deiv to the following infinitive.? — év xvpiw] not per Dominum, ‘‘ by the 
 Lord,” * which would be zpéc¢ xvpiov (comp. on Rom. ix. 1), and with vapripopac 
 would have to be denoted by rév xipiov ;* but rather, as at Rom. ix. 1, 
 1 Thess. iv. 1 : in the Lord, so that Paul expresses that not in respect of his 
 own individuality does he speak and aver, but that Christ withal is the ele- 
 ment, in which his thinking and willing moves,—through which, therefore, 
 
 Since, however, there lies in this expression 
 
 the Aéyw and waprip. has its distinctively Christian character. — pjxéte] after 
 that ye, from being Gentiles, have become Christians. — Kaféc Kai 7a Avira 
 éOvy x.7.A.| The xai has its reference in the former walk of the readers. 
 These are no longer to have such a walk, as was, like their previous walk, 
 that also of the other, i.e., the still unconverted (comp. ii. 3 ; 1 Thess. iv. 
 13) Gentiles. —ra Aovxa] for the readers, although Christians, belonged 
 nationally to the category of Gentiles. — év paraiétyte Tob vod¢g avtév] (not 
 avrév) is the subjective sphere, in which the walk of the other Gentiles takes 
 place, namely, in nothingness (truthlessness) of their thinking and willing 
 (votc), which, however, neither denotes, after the Hebrew Pant idol-worship,* 
 nor is it to be referred, with Grotius, especially to the philosophers (comp. 
 1 Cor. iii. 20), but is to be understood of the whole intellectual and moral char- 
 acter (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18) of heathenism, in which the rational and moral 
 
 principle (the vovc) is theoretically 
 
 1 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 22 f.: Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 718. 
 
 2 See Kiihner, 7@ Xen. Mem. ii. 2.1; Butt- 
 mann, newt. Gr. p. 235 [E. T. 273]; also 
 Heind. ad Plat. Prot. p. 346 B. 
 
 3 Theodoret : 075 paprupe yap dnote TS Kupip 
 tavta Aéyw, *‘He says, ‘I say this with the 
 Lord as witness ;’’ so already Chrysostom 
 
 and practically estranged from the 
 
 and most expositors, including Koppe, 
 Flatt, Olshausen. 
 
 4T call the Lord to witness, Plat. Phil. 
 p. 12 B; Eur. Phoen. 629; Soph. Qed. Col. 
 817. 
 
 5 See, in opposition to this, Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. i. 21. 
 
465 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 truth (ver. 18), and subject to error and the service of sin (ver. 19). We 
 may add, that the waraéry¢ is not an inborn one," but (Rom. vii. 7 ff.) one 
 that has come to pass, although it has come to pass ¢ice: (11. 3). Comp. Rom, 
 Dod wale Alp. 
 Ver. 18 exhibits the ground of the fact, that the Gentiles walk év pataséryre 
 tov vooc avt@v, Which ground is twofold according to the twofold power 
 belonging to the voic, the intelligent and the practical. To the former éoxotapé- 
 vot relates (see the critical remarks), to the latter andi. r. Come Tr. Oeod 3 since 
 they are darkened* in respect of their exercise of thinking and willing (d.avoia, 
 comp. Luke i. 51; Col. i. 21; 1 Pet. i. 18; 1 John v. 20) ; estranged from 
 the life of God. —éoxor. ... dvte¢ is to be taken together,* since, if dvrec 
 arnadorp. are joined,* the logical and formal parallelism is disturbed, inas- 
 much as then éoxor. t7 deavoia would be merely predicate and éyte¢ amnAAorp. 
 specifying the reason (subordinate to the former), and the emphatic prefix- 
 ing of the two perfect participles, as brought into prominence by our punc- 
 tuation, would go fornothing. And that the second clause does not specify 
 the reason, why the darkening has come over the minds of the Gentiles,® is 
 clear from the following da ty dyvoiav x.7.A., Wherein, conversely, the 
 ignorance is indicated as the cause of the estrangement from God. Riickert, 
 moreover, thinks that, according to our punctuation, évree would stand 
 before rh Siavoia ; but this is groundless, since éoxor. rj diavoia is conceived 
 of together.° —aznhiorp.] See on ii. 12, and, concerning the constructio Kara 
 civeowvy, Buttmann, newt. Gram. pp. 114, 242 [E. T. 281]. — rie Came rod Ccow| 
 Srom the life of God, does not admit of any explanation, according to which 
 Com would be life-walk, which it never means in the N. T., not even in 
 2 Pet. i. 3.7. Hence not : the life pleasing to God,* but, as Luther aptly ren- 
 “the life, which is from God.” The genitive is the genitive originis, 
 “of origin” (comp. dcxaocivy Oecd, Rom. i. 17, and see Winer, p. 167 f.), 
 and (wf is the counterpart of @dvaroc, so that it is to be understood as : 
 ‘“tota vita spiritualis, quae in hoe seculo per fidem et justitiam inchoatur 
 et in futura beatitudine perficitur, quae tota peculiariter vita Dei est, qua- 
 tenus a Deo per gratiam datur,” ‘‘the entire spiritual life, which is begun 
 in this world through faith and righteousness, and perfected in future 
 blessedness, which entire life is peculiarly God’s, as it is given by God 
 through grace,” Estius.° It is at allevents the life of Christian regeneration, 
 which is wrought by God in believers through the Spirit (Rom. viii. 2) ;”° 
 while the Gentiles are by their heathen nature alien to this divine life. 
 
 ders : 
 
 1 Zanchius, Calovius, and others ; comp. 
 Calvin. 
 
 2 Comp. Joseph. Anti. ix. 4.3; the oppo- 
 site : dwrigew thy Scavoray, Vili, 5. 3. 
 
 3Clem. Al. Protrep. ix. p. 69, Potter’; 
 Theodoret, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, 
 Harless, de Wette. 
 
 4Beza and many, including Riickert, 
 Meier, Matthies, Scholz. 
 
 ° In opposition to Rickert. 
 
 ®§ Comp. Herod. i. 35: ov cadapds xeipas eur, 
 Xen. Ages. xi. 10: mpastatos didos dv, 
 
 7 Especially instructive for the distinction 
 of the notion gw from that of life-valk, is 
 Gal. v. 25. 
 
 ® Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, 
 and others; comp. Theodore, Theophy- 
 lact, Grotius, and Flatt. 
 
 ®Comp. Calvin and Cajetanus. 
 
 10 This divine making alive does not coin- 
 cide with justification, but the latter is the 
 actus judicialis, ‘‘ judicial act,” of God that 
 precedes the former. Comp. especially 
 Rom. viii. 10: ¢wy dca Scxaroovyynr. 
 
OHAP IVs, 10: 469 
 
 This in opposition to Harless, who understands it as the estrangement from 
 the life and light of the dédyog in the world (John i. 3). Paul in fact is speak- 
 ing of the Gentiles of that time (not of those who have lived in the time 
 before Christ), in their contrast to the Christians (ver. 17) as persons who 
 were partakers of divine life through the wafcyyevecia (comp. ii. 5 ; Rom. vi. 
 4). Various elements are mixed up by Beza : ‘‘ vitam illam, qua Deus vivit 
 in suis quamque praecipit et approbat,” ‘‘the life whereby God lives in His 
 own people, and which He commands and approves ;” and Olshausen : 
 “‘the life, which God Himself is and has, and which pertains to the creature 
 so long as it remains in fellowship with God.” — dia tiv ayvorav . . . Kapdiag 
 abrav] on account of, etc. ; the cause of this estrangement of the Gentiles 
 from the divine life is the ignorance which is in them through hardening 
 of heart, consequently due to their own fault. dvd tr. rap. 7. x. attaches itself 
 to rv obcav év airoic, and is consequently subordinated to the preceding é:a 
 T. dyvovav t. ovo. tv ait. Usually dua... dud are regarded as co-ordinate ele- 
 ments ; and indeed, according to Harless and Olshausen, who are followed 
 by de Wette, this twofold specification of reason has reference not merely to 
 aryaAdorp. t. 6. 7. O., but also to éoxor. 7H diavoia dvtec, in which case Olshau- 
 sen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Schenkel! assume that did tiv ayvorav 
 k.T.A. corresponds to éoxor. x.7.A., and then dra r7v Topwow k.T.A. to arnAnorp. 
 r.¢.7.0. The dyvora, however, cannot be the cause, but only the consequence 
 of écKxor. TH diavoia, since ayvora (used by Paul only here, but ayvoeivy occurs 
 frequently) is not dulness of the higher faculty of cognition,” but nothing else 
 than ignorance (Acts iii. 17, xvii. 30 ; 1 Pet. i. 14). The Gentiles were not 
 darkened on account of their ignorance, seeing that in fact ignorance is not 
 inaccessible to the light, as the example of all converted Gentiles shows ; but 
 their being estranged from the life of God was occasioned by their ignorance, 
 and, indeed, by their ignorance for which they were to blame on account of 
 hardening of heart. Accordingly, the commas after Ocov and airoic are to be 
 deleted. Meier is quite wrong in holding that the ignorant are the Gen- 
 tiles, and the hardened the Jews. Paul speaks only of the Gentiles. 
 [See Note XLVI., p. 486.] —7r7v oicay év airtoic] not: quae vis innata est, 
 ‘‘ which is innate to them,” nor yet said in contrast to external occasions, * 
 which is not at all implied in the context, but : because Paul wished to 
 annex the cause of the dyvora, he has not put da ry ayvorav abt Ov, but, in 
 order to procure the means of annexation, has employed the participial 
 expression paraphrasing the airy : ty obcav év abroic. This expression con- 
 firms the view that the second did is subordinate to the first. 
 
 Ver. 19. The estrangement of the Gentiles from the divine life, indicated 
 in ver. 18, is now more precisely proved in conformity with experience : 
 oirwec, quippe qui, etc.: being such as, void of feeling, have given themselves over 
 to lasciviousness. — arnaynrérec| avaicbytor yevduevor, ‘‘ being senseless,” Hesy- 
 chius. The ‘“ verbum significantissimum,” ‘‘a most significant word,” 4 from 
 diyeiv and a7zé, is equivalent to dedolere, to cease to feel pain, then to be 
 
 1Comp. Grotius and Bengel. 3 Harless. 
 2 Rickert. 4 Bengel. 
 
470 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 void of feeling, whether there be meant by it the apathy of intelligence, or the 
 
 state of despair, or, as here, the moral indolence, in which one has ceased to 
 
 feel reproaches of conscience,’ consequently the securitas carnalis, *‘ carnal 
 
 security ;” see Wetstein, and also Matthiae, ed. min. én loc. The explana- 
 
 tion having despaired* imports a special definition of the meaning without 
 warrant from the context, but is found already in Syr. Arm. Vulg. | 
 It. Ambrosiaster, and from it has arisen the reading azyAriéteg (D EF G 
 have ddyArcx.), which probably already those vss. followed. — éavroic] 
 
 with deterrent emphasis. To bring into prominence what was done on 
 the part of their own freedom, was here in accordance with the paraenetie 
 aim. It is otherwise put at Rom. i. 24: wapéduxev aitoig 6 Osdc. The 
 two modes of regarding the matter are not contrary to one another, 
 
 but go side by side (see on Rom. i. 24) ; and according to the respective 
 aims and connection of the discourse, both have their warrant and their 
 full truth. —7 dcedyeia] personified. It is to be understood of sensual 
 lasciviousness (comp. on Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Cor xii. 21; Gal. v. 19), as, 
 
 subsequently, dxafapciac of sensual filthiness (comp. Rom. i. 24 ; 2 Cor. 
 
 xii. 21; Gal. v. 19), not of ethical wantonness and impurity generally,* 
 since the rieovetia connected with it is likewise a special vice, as indeed, on 
 the other hand (Rom. i. 24 ; comp. ver. 29 and Col. iii. 5), unchastity ap- 
 
 pears as the first and chief vice of the Gentiles. — cic épyaciay axafapaiac raanc | 
 
 aim of this self-surrender to the acéAyera (comp. Rom. vi. 19) : for the prose- 
 
 cution of every uneleanness, in order to practise every sort of uncleanness. * 
 
 Koppe takes it as trade (Acts. xvi. 16, xix. 19, xxiv. 29). But could the 
 
 trade of prostitution ® be thus generally predicated with truth of the Gen- 
 
 tiles? This at the same time tells in opposition to the explanation followed 
 
 by Grotius, Bengel, Stolz, Koppe, Flatt, and Meier, of the év rieovetia that 
 
 follows as quaestus ex impudicitia, ‘‘ profit from lewdness” (on the thing 
 
 itself, see Aristaen. i. 14). In fact, év rieoveéia adds to the vice of sensuality 
 
 the other chief vice of the heathen, and signifies: with covetousness. The 
 
 explanations : with unsatiableness,® or certatim, ‘‘ emulously,”” or with haugh- 
 
 tiness,® or in gluttony,*® are all of them at variance with linguistic usage, 
 
 1“ Homines a Deo relictisopita conscien- 
 tia, extincto divini judicii timore, amisso 
 denique sensu tanquam attoniti, belluino 
 impetu se ad omnem turpitudinem proji- 
 ciunt,” ‘“‘men abandoned of God, with 
 conscience stupefied, with the fear of 
 divine judgment extinguished, and finally 
 with sensibility lost, as though struck by 
 lightning, with bestial impulse cast them- 
 selves headlong into every form of dis- 
 grace,” Calvin. 
 
 2 Comp. Polyb. ix. 40. 4: amadyotvtes tais 
 éAtrion, 
 
 3 Harless, Matthies, Meier, and others. 
 
 4On épyacia, comp. LXX. Ex. xxvi.1; 2 
 Chron. xv. 7; Isa. i. 31, al., Plat. Prot. 
 p. 853 D: ris ndovns épyaciav, ‘prosecution 
 of pleasure,” Hryx. p. 403 E: épyacias mpay- 
 
 patwv poxdnpav, “prosecution of evil 
 deeds.”’ 
 
 5 Dem. 270. 15, Reiske, and thereon Dis- 
 sen, de Cor. p. 301. 
 
 6 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, and others, includ- 
 ing Matthies. 
 
 7“ Quasi agatur de lucro, ita alius alium 
 superare contendat,” “‘as though he treats 
 of gain, whereby one vies to excel another,” 
 Beza. 
 
 8 Holzhausen, 
 
 ® Harless. He is followed by Olshausen, 
 who explains zAcoveéia of repletion with 
 meat and drink, and terms this physical 
 greed! According to classical usage, 7Aco- 
 veEia might mean superabundance, but not 
 gluttony. 
 
CHAP: SVs, 205 eli: AVL 
 
 partly in general, partly of the N. T. in particular, in which ricovetia never 
 means anything else than covetousness. Sensuality and covetousness are the 
 two cardinal vices of the heathen, which are to be avoided by the Christians. 
 See v. 3; 1 Cor. v. 10f. ; Col. iii. 5. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2, iii. 14. 
 
 Ver. 20. ‘Yeic dé] opposed to the unconverted Gentiles. — ody obtwc éuafere 
 tov Xpiorév|] but ye have not in such manner (so that this instruction would 
 have directed you to that Gentile conduct of life, ver. 17 ff.) learned Christ. 
 Observe the litotes in oby obtw¢ (quite otherwise, comp. Deut. xviii. 14). The 
 proposal of Beza : ‘‘ Quid si post oirwe distinctionem adscribas ?” ‘‘ suppose 
 you put a punctation mark after oirw> ?” [so Hofmann and Braune], is, 
 although adopted by Gataker and Colomesius, quite mistaken, since ver. 21 
 contains the confirmation not of the mere fact éuaWere tov Xprordv, but of the 
 mode in which the readers have learned Christ, hence ot y oitwce must neces- 
 sarily belong to éuad_ere tov Xpiotdv. — 6 Xpiordc does not mean the doctrine 
 of Christ or concerning Christ,’ nor does wavdavery tivd mean to learn to know 
 any one, as it has usually in recent times been explained,’ wherefore Raphel 
 wrongly appeals to Xen. Hellen. 11. 1. 1 (wa aAAHAove padoev drdco einoar, 
 comp. Herod. vii. 208, where it means fo perceive) ; but Christ is the great 
 collective object of the instruction which the readers have received (Gal. i. 16 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. i. 19; Phil. i. 15, al.), so that they have learned Christ. 
 This special notion is required by the following eiye . . . éddayd. 
 
 Ver. 21. Hiye] tum certe si, ‘‘then assuredly if,” as to which, however, 
 there is no doubt (for Paul himself had preached to them Christ, and in- 
 structed them in Christ), introduces, as in iii. 2, in a delicate way the con- 
 firmation of the ody obtwe éuavete Tov Xpiordév : assuming, at least, that ye have 
 heard him and have received instruction in him, as it is truth in Jesus, that ye 
 lay aside, etc., thatis : if, namely, the preaching, in which ye became aware of 
 Christ, and the instruction, which was imparted to you as Christians, have been 
 in accordance with the fact that true fellowship with Christ consists in your lay- 
 iny aside, etc. — avrov jxovoate| to be explained after the analogy of the 
 éuadvete Tov Xprordv, ver. 20 ; but airdv, like év air subsequently, is prefixed 
 with emphasis. — éy airé] is neither ab eo, ‘by him,”* nor de eo, ‘‘ from 
 him,” + nor ‘‘per eum,” ‘through him,” ® nor ‘*illius nomine, quod ad illum 
 attinet,” ‘‘in his name, as to what concerns him” (Bengel) ; but it is to be 
 explained from the conception éy Xprorg eivac : in Him, in the fellowship of 
 Christ, that is, as Christians. Observe the progress of the discourse, which 
 passes over from the first proclamation of the gospel (airév 7xobcare) to the 
 further instruction which they have thereupon received as already converted 
 to Christ (év ato ididayt.)—two elements, which were previously compre- 
 hended in iudfere tov Xpiot6v. — xadac| in the manner how, introduces the mode 
 of the having heard and having been instructed, so that this jxotoare cad 
 édidaxdyre kadoc k.T.A. corresponds to the previous ov y ob rw¢ Eudvere Tov Xpiorov, 
 affirmatively stating what oy otrw¢ had indicated negatively. — éarw adgdera 
 
 1 So most expositors before Riickert ; but 3 Castalio, Gataker, Flatt. 
 see Bengel and Flatt. 4 Piscator. 
 * By Riickert, Holzhausen, Meier, Mat- 5 Beza. 
 
 thies, Harless. 
 
4G2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 év to "Iyoov] Truth it is in Jesus, that ye lay aside, etc., in so far as without 
 this laying aside of your old man there would be no true but only an appar- 
 ent fellowship with Jesus. [See Note XLVIL., p. 486.]— év 16 ’Ijoov] Paul 
 passes from the official name Xproréc to the personal name ’Ijooic, because he, 
 after having previously recalled the preaching made to the Ephesians and 
 instruction concerning the Messiah, now brings into prominence the moral 
 character of this preaching and instruction, and the moral life of true Chris- 
 tianity is contained in believing fellowship with the historical person of the 
 Messiah, with Jesws,! whose death has procured for believers their justifica- 
 tion, and by virtue of their fellowship with Him the new life (Rom. vi. 2, 
 3), so that to be év r@ "Ijoov with a retention of the old man, would be a con- 
 tradictio in adjecto—would be untruth, and not aAjfea év TO "Iyoov. We 
 may add that this transition, unforced also at i. 15, from Xpvordc to "Ijoore 
 was not necessary ; for, had Paul again written év +6 Xpor@, there would 
 therewith, as before, have been presented to the moral consciousness just 
 the historical Christ Jesus. Comp. Gal. v. 24 ; Col. iii. 10f. The accusa- 
 tive with the infinitive arodéoda ivac depends on éoriv aagdera év TH Iqood, 
 so that it appears as subject of the sentence.* Usually arodéotar ipac is 
 made to depend on édiddydyre, in which case cadoc éotw adgdera év TO "Tyoow 
 is very differently explained. Hither it is regarded as a parenthesis,® as by 
 Riickert, who takes xadéc augmentatively, so that the sense is: ‘If ye are 
 rightly instructed concerning Christ, ye have not so learned Him, for that 
 would be false ; with Him (there where Christ is, ives and rules) there is, 
 in fact, only truth (moral, religious truth) to be met with.” Or xadé¢ éorw 
 x.7.A. is attached to édiddyGyre, and then arodéoda tua is taken as epexege- 
 sis of ka0éc éorw «.t.A., in which case aafdeva in turn is differently explain- 
 ed.* Or the connection is so conceived of, that a obrwc is supplied before 
 axodfoda, in which case Jesus appears as model.? So also Harless,® who, 
 taking dA/eca as moral truth (holiness), justifies jac from the comparison of 
 Jesus with the readers (‘‘ as truth is in Jesws, so to lay aside on your part”), 
 in which case ’Ijcov, not Xpioro, is held to be used, because the man Jesus 
 
 1Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10-ff.: for ‘* Christi 
 ideam perfectissime et fulgidissime exple- 
 vit Jesus,” ‘Jesus has fulfilled most per- 
 
 Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Morus, and others. 
 5 Jerome led the way with this explana- 
 tion: ‘‘quomodo est veritas in Jesu, sic 
 
 fectly and most illustriously the ideal of 
 Christ,’ Bengel. 
 
 2 Kiibner, II. p. 347 f. 
 
 3 Beza, Er. Schmid, Michaelis. 
 
 4Camerarius, Raphel, Wolf: ‘‘ edocti es- 
 tis . . . quae sit vera disciplina Christi, ni- 
 mirum ut deponatis,” ‘‘ye have learned 
 whatis Christ’s true discipline, viz., that ye 
 lay aside.” Comp. Piscator: ‘‘ quaenam 
 sit vera ratio vivendi in Jesu tanquam in 
 capite ...nempe deponere,” ‘what is 
 the true mode of living in Christ as a Head 
 ... viz., to lay aside.” Grotius: ‘si ita 
 edocti estis evangelium, quomodo illud re- 
 vera se habet,”’ “‘if ye have learned the 
 Gospel as it truly is;” so also Calixtus, 
 
 erit et in vobis qui didicistis Christum,”’ 
 “as the truth is in Jesus, so also will it be 
 in you who have learned Christ.”’ Subse- 
 quently it was followed by Erasmus, Esti- 
 us (“sicut in Christo, Jesu nulla est igno- 
 rantia, nullus error, nihil injustum, sed 
 pura veritas et justitia, sic et vos,” ‘‘as in 
 Christ Jesus, there is no ignorance, no 
 error, nothing unjust, but pure truth and 
 righteousness, so also ye,” ete.), and others, 
 including Storr, Flatt (“as He Himself is 
 holy ’’), Holzhausen, Meier (aA7j dea is Chris- 
 tian virtue, ‘that ye, as trath in Jesus is, 
 should lay aside’’). 
 ® Followed by Olshausen. 
 
CHAP. IV., 22. 473 
 is set forth as pattern. Matthies likewise makes arodéoa: depend on dv- 
 daydyre, but annexes cadac x.7.2. as more precise definition to év aito : ‘in 
 Him, as or in as far as the truth is in Jesus, as He is the truth.” So Castalio 
 appears already to have taken it. But all these explanations break down 
 in presence of the juac, which, if arodécdar buac belonged to édiWayyre, 
 would be quite inappropriate. In particular, it may be further urged (@) in 
 opposition to Riickert, that according to his explanation the parenthesis 
 Kadac éorw adntea év TH Inoov must logically have had its place already after 
 tov Xpiorév ; (b) inopposition to Harless, that the alleged comparison of 
 Jesus with the readers is at variance with the order of the words, since Paul 
 must have written : Kad év r6 "Inocd aAndea éotw, buag arodéoar 3 (c) in 
 opposition to Matthies, that cato¢ «.7.2. does not stand beside év airé, and 
 that aA7Seva must have had the article. De Wette explains it to this effect : 
 In Jesus there is (as inherent quality, comp. John viii. 44) truth (especially 
 in a practical respect), consequently there is implied in the instructions con- 
 But even 
 thus we may expect, instead of azo. iuac, merely the simple arovécda. 
 Others have attached azo¥éc3a: tude to ver. 17, as continuation of the 
 
 cerning Him the principle and the necessity of moral change. 
 
 pnkéte tac meperateiv x.t.4.,! in which case cada¢ gore adapt. év TO "Inood 
 is likewise differently understood.* But after the new commencement of 
 the discourse jueic dé ovy obtwc, ver. 21, this is simply arbitrary and forced. 
 Credner takes a peculiar view :* ‘‘ Ye have not thus learned to know the 
 Messiah, provided that ye (as I am warranted in presupposing, for it is only 
 to such that I write) have heard Him and have been instructed in Him, as 
 He as truth (truly, really) is in Jesus.” Thus Paul is held to distinguish his 
 readers from such Gentiles as, won over to faith in the near advent of the 
 world’s Redeemer, had reckoned themselves as Christians, but without be- 
 lieving in Jesus as that Redeemer. But of such Gentiles there is not found 
 any trace in the N. T. (the disciples of John, Acts xix. 1 ff., are as such to 
 be reckoned among the Jews) ; besides, there would lack any attachment 
 for the following arovéoda: iuac, andin using aAgdeca (instead of év aay. or 
 dAyoc) Paul would have expressed himself as enigmatically as possible. 
 Lastly, Hofmann,* without reason, wishes to attach év 76 ’Iyoov not to cadoc 
 éorwv aAyt., but to what follows ; the in itself quite general xaOd¢ éotw adj- 
 @eca stood in need of being characterized definitely as Christian, not the 
 anoflécba: k.7.2., aS to which it was already implied in the nature of the case 
 and was self-evident. 
 
 Ver. 22. ’ArobécOar imac] dependent on kafoc tori aAfbeva év TE "Inood. 
 See on ver. 21. What is truth in Jesus, Paul states, not in general (to lay 
 aside, etc.), but individualizingly in relution to the readers ; that ye lay aside.° 
 
 1 Cornelius 4 Lapide Bengel, Zachariae ; truth.’’ Zachariae: “For in what Jesus 
 
 not Weitstein, who at ver. 22 merely says 
 “ respicit comma 17,” ‘‘ he recurs to vy. 17.” 
 
 2 Bengel: “ita uti veritas (vera agnitio 
 Dei veri) reapse est in Jesu; qui credunt in 
 Jesum, verant,” “as the truth (the true 
 knowledge of God) is really in Jesus, let 
 those who believe in Jesus speak the 
 
 teaches to us is alone to be found the truth 
 by the heathen . . . despised.’’ Both thus 
 explain it, as if aAjd. had the article. 
 
 8 Hinl. Il. p. 398 f. 
 
 4 Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 291. 
 
 5 Not: that ye have laid aside, as Hofmann 
 wishes to take it, who explains as if Paul 
 
ATA THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Michaclis and Flatt give the strangely erroneous rendering : to lay aside 
 yourselves! Inthat case there would be wanting the main matter, the re- 
 flexive éavrotce ; and how alien to the N. T. such a form of conceiving self- 
 denial ! Luther and others are also incorrect in rendering : lay aside. It 
 is not till ver. 25 that the direct summons comes in, and that in the usual 
 form of the imperative, instead of which the infinitive,’ and with the accusa- 
 tive tua in addition,? would be inappropriate. The figurative expression 
 of laying aside is borrowed from the putting off clothing (comp. évdicacbat, 
 ver. 24), and in current use, as with Paul (Rom. xiii. 12, 14 ; Col. iii. 8 ff. ; 
 Gal. iii. 27), so also with Greek writers ;* hence there was the less reason 
 for forcing on the context any more special reference, such as to the custom 
 (at any rate, certainly later) of changing clothes at baptism.* — kara ry 
 xpotépav avactpogiv]| is not to be explained, as if the words stood : rév wad. 
 avip. Tov Kata THY Kpotépav avactp.,° but : that ye lay aside in respect of your 
 Sormer life-walk the old man, so that it expresses, in what respect, in reference 
 to what the laying aside of the old man is spoken of. ‘‘ Declarat vim verbi 
 relationem habentis deponere,” ‘‘According to, shows the force of the word re- 
 lating to it : ‘ Put off,’” Bengel. The Pauline rai. dv6p., ideally conceived 
 of, is not injuriously affected, as de Wette thinks, in its internal truth by 
 this recalling of the pre-Christian walk (as if the author had conceived of it 
 empirically). The xporépa avaorp., in fact, concerns the whole moral nature 
 of man before his conversion, and the droGécOa tov a2. avbp. affirms that 
 the converted man is to retain nothing of his pre-Christian moral personality, 
 but, as concerns the pre-Christian conduct of life, is utterly to do away 
 with the old ethical individuality and to become the new man. Such a 
 contrast, however, as Cornelius 2 Lapide (comp. Anselm) found : ‘‘non 
 quoad naturam et substantiam,” ‘‘not as to nature and substance,” would 
 be in itself singular and foreign to the context. — As to dvaorpodf, see on 
 Gal. i. 18. —rdv raAaiv ivbp.] The pre-Christian moral frame ° is represented 
 as aperson, See on Rom. vi. 6. [See Note XLVUL., p. 486 seq. ] —rov o8e- 
 pouevov k.7.A.] an attribute of the old man serving as a motive for that arobéobat 
 K.T.A.: Which is being destroyed according to the lusts of deception.  deupduevov 
 is not to be explained of putrefaction,’ seeing that 6 radadc arp. is not 
 equivalent to 7d capa, nor yet of inward moral corruption,’ or self-corruption,® 
 seeing that the moral corruption of the old man is obvious of itself and is 
 
 had written: amodenévous dyas . . 
 ovotar TH TvevpaTL, . 
 
 . avave- 5 Jerome, Oecumenius, Vorstius, Grotius, 
 
 . evdvoapevous K.T.A, Raphel, Estius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmiil- 
 
 Starting from the aorist infinitive thus 
 taken at variance with linguistic usage 
 (comp. on Rom. xy. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 1), Hof- 
 mann has incorrectly understood the whole 
 passage. According to his interpretation, 
 the perfect infinitive must have been used. 
 The Vulgate already has correctly not 
 deposuisse, but deponere. 
 
 1 Winer, p. 282 f. 
 
 2 Matthiae, p. 1267. 
 
 3 See Wetstein, zn Joc. 
 
 4 So Grotius. 
 
 ler, and others. 
 
 6 Not original sin (as Calovius and others 
 would have it), which, in fact, cannot be 
 laid aside, but the moral habitus, such as it 
 is in the unregenerate man under the do- 
 minion of the sin-principle. Comp. Rom. 
 Wile (tie) Dp eelianl ties 
 
 7 Michaelis. 
 
 ® Koppe, Flatt, Olshausen, Meier, Harless, 
 and older expositors. 
 
 ® Schenkel. 
 
CHAP. IV., 23. 4%5 
 
 already present, not merely coming into existence (present participle, which 
 is not to be taken, with Bengel, as imperfect), but of eternal destruction (Gal. 
 vi. 8), in which case the present participle : which goes to ruin (comp. on 
 1 Cor. i. 18), is to be taken either of the certain future realized as present, or 
 of the destruction in the course of development.’ The latter appears more 
 appropriate to the contrast of rdv kara Oedv Kriobévta, ver. 24. — Karta Td¢ éri- 
 Auuiag tHE ardtyc| TH¢ aTdTH¢ 1S Subjective genitive, and 7 ardry is personified.” 
 Hence : in accordance with the lusts of deception, with which it has had de- 
 signs on the corruption of the old man.” What arary is meant, cannot be 
 doubtful according to the context, and according to the doctrine of the 
 apostle as to the principle of sin in man, namely, the power of sin deceiving 
 man (Rom. vii. 11). Comp. Heb. iii. 13, also 2 Cor. xi. 3. The adjectival 
 resolution into cupiditates seducentes, ‘‘seducing desires,” * followed by many, 
 is in itself arbitrary and not in keeping with the contrast in ver. 24 (ric 
 aAnteiac). 
 
 Ver. 23. Positive side of that which is truth in Jesus : that ye, on the other 
 hand, become renewed in the spirit of your reason. — avaveoiaba:| passive, not 
 middle,* since the middle has an active sense (1 Macc. xii. 1 ; Thue. v. 18, 
 43 ; Polyb. vii. 3. 1, and often). The renewal is God’s work through the 
 Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 1 f.; Tit. iii. 5), and without it one is no true Chris- 
 tian (Rom. villi. 9; Gal. v. 15), consequently there can be no mention of 
 aAnfera év 7H Incov. Respecting the distinction between avavedw (only here 
 in the N. T.) and dvaxavda, recentare and renovare, as also respecting ava, 
 which does not refer to the restitution of human nature, as it was before 
 the fall, but denotes the recentare, ‘‘to renew,” in reference to the previous 
 (corrupt) state, see on Col. iii. 10. — 7é¢ rvetpate Tod vodc budv| The genitive 
 is at any rate that of the subject ; for instead of simply saying 76 rvebuare 
 tuov,° Paul makes use of the more precise designation in the text. But the 
 7@ Tvetwats May be either instrumental or dative of reference. In the former 
 case, however, we should ® have to understand the Holy Spirit, who has His’ 
 seat in the voic of the man on whom He is bestowed, and through whom (da- 
 tive), the avaxaivworc Tov vodc, ‘‘ renewal of the mind,” Rom. xii. 2, is effected, 
 so that now the old waraorne, ‘* vanity,” of the voic, ‘‘ mind” (iv. 17) no longer 
 occurs, and the kawvéryc, ‘* newness,” which, on the other hand, has set in 
 (Rom. vi. 4), is a xarvéty¢ Tov mveiparoc, ‘‘ newness of spirit.” Comp. Tit. 
 lili. 5. But, in opposition to this view, we may urge, first, that the Holy 
 Spirit bestowed on man is never in the N. T. designated in such a way that 
 man appears as the subject of the Spirit (thus never: 7d rveiua buoy and 
 the like, or as here : 76 rvevua Tov vodc iudv) ; and secondly, that it was the 
 object of the apostle to put forward the aspect of the moral self-activity of 
 
 1So Grotius: “qui tendit ad exitium,” 
 ““ which tends to destruction.” 
 
 2 Comp. Hesiod. Theog. 224. 
 
 3 Grotius. 
 
 4 Renew yourselves, Luther. 
 
 5 He might have written, asin Rom. xii. 
 2, merely 76 vot vuay; but his conception 
 
 here penetrates deeper, namely, to the 
 fountainhead of the vital activity of the 
 vovs, to the inner agent and mover in that 
 activity. 
 
 6 With Oecumenius, Castalio, and others, 
 including Ch. F. Fritzsche in his Vov. Opuse. 
 p. 244 f., and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 28. 
 
4°76 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the Christian life, and hence he had no occasion expressly to introduce the 
 point, which, moreover, was obvious of itself: through the Holy Spirit. 
 Accordingly, there remains as the right explanation only the wswal one (da- 
 tive of reference), according to which the rveiua is the hwman spirit, in dis- 
 tinction from the divine (Rom. viii. 16). Consequently : in respect of the 
 spirit of your vovc, that is, of the spirit by which your vov¢ is governed. The 
 xvevua, namely, is the higher life-principle in man, the moral power akin to 
 God in him, the seat of moral self-consciousness and of moral self-determi- 
 nation. This rvevua, which forms the moral personality of man, the Ego of 
 his higher (#7 turned towards God, has as the organ of its vital exercise— 
 as the faculty of its moral operation—the voic, that is, the reason in its eth- 
 ical quality and activity (comp. on Rom. vii. 28), and puts the voic * at the 
 service of the divine will (Rom. vii. 25), in an assent to the moral practice 
 of this divine will revealed in the law and a hatred of the contrary (Rom. 
 vii. 14 ff.). But, since this Ego of the higher life, the substratum of the 
 inward man—the rvetva, in which the vot¢ has its support and its deter- 
 mining agent—is under the preponderant strength of the power of sin in 
 the flesh non-free, bound, and weak, so that man under the fleshly-psychical 
 influence of the natural character drawing bim to sin becomes liable to the 
 slavery of immoral habit, the zvevja tov vodc needed renewal unto moral 
 freedom and might, which consecration of power it receives in regeneration 
 by means of the Holy Spirit, in which case, however, even the regenerate 
 has always to contend against the cdpé still remaining in him, but contends 
 victoriously under the guidance of the divine rvetua (Gal. v. 16-18). 
 
 Ver. 24. Observe the change of tenses. The laying aside of the old man is 
 the negative commencement of the change, and hence is represented as a 
 momentary act ; the becoming renewed is an enduring process, the jinishing 
 act of which is the putting on of the new man, correlative to the arobéchat. 
 Hence aroécba, aorist ; avavecioba, present ; évdicacba, aorist. —rdv karvov 
 ‘avOpwrov| As previously the old immoral state is objectivized, and objectivized 
 indeed as a person, so is it also here with the new Christian moral state. Thus 
 this new habitus appears as the new man, which God has created (xricfévra), but 
 man appropriates for himself (évdicacAaz), so that thus moral freedom is not an- 
 nulled by God’s ethical creative action. — xriofévra] not present, but the new 
 moral habitus of the Christian is set forth as the person created by God, 
 which in the individual cases és not first constituted by growth, but is received, 
 and then exhibits itself experimentally in the case of those who, according 
 to the figurative expression of the passage, have put it on. — xara Oedv] Comp. 
 Col. iii. 10 ; not merely divinely, and that in contrast to human propaga- 
 tion,’ but : according to God, i.e., ad exremplum Dei, ‘according to the mod- 
 el of God” (Gal. iv. 28). Thereby the creation of the new man is placed 
 upon a parallel with that of our first parents (Gen. i. 27), who were created 
 
 1 Bengel excellently puts it: “ Spiritu in thinking that expositors have here neg- 
 
 mens, ‘In the spirit of the mind;’ 1 Cor. lected to seek instruction from 1 Cor. xiy. 
 xiv. 14, Spiritus est intimum mentis, ‘The 14. 
 spirit is the inmost shrine of the mind’ ” 2 Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 289. 
 
 Delitzsch consequently errs (Psychol. p. 184) 
 
CHAP. 1V., 20. ; 47? 
 
 after God’s image (kar eixdva tov xricavroc, Col. iii. 10); they, too, until 
 through Adam sin came into existence, were as sinless év dcxacocivy Kad 
 dovdtyte THE aAnfeiac.'— év dixatcoobvy x.t.2.| belongs to rov Kata Oedv Kriobévra, 
 expressing the constitution of the new man created after God ; furnished, 
 provided with rectitude and holiness of the truth.? The truth is the opposite 
 of the darary, ver. 22, and like this personified. As in the old man the 
 ’Ardty pursues its work, so in the new man the ’AA/Oea, Z.e., the Truth xa7’ 
 éfoyqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the divine evangelical truth, bears sway, and the 
 moral effects of the truth, righteousness and holiness, appear here, where the 
 truth is personified, as its attributes, which now show themselves in the new 
 man who has been created. The resolving it into an adjective: true, not 
 merely apparent, righteousness and holiness,* is arbitrary and tame. And 
 to take év instrumentally 4 is erroneous, for the reason that righteousness and 
 holiness form the ethical result of the creation of the new man ; hence Beza, 
 Koppe, and others thought that éy must be taken for cic.  dixcaoobvy and 
 davdryc (comp. Luke i. 75 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10 ; Tit. i. 8) are distinguished so, that 
 the latter places rectitude in itself (dcxasootyy), in relation to God (sanetitas, 
 “‘holiness”) ; rd wév totic Geoi¢ mpoapiAcc borov, ‘‘ what is pleasing to the gods is 
 holy,” Plat. Huth. p. 6 E.° With special frequency the two notions are as- 
 sociated in Plato. 
 
 Ver. 25. On the ground of what was previously said (dé), as application 
 of got aAnGera év TS “Inood arofécba buac x.T.A. on to ver. 24, there now fol- 
 low various special (not systematically arranged) exhortations as far as ver. 
 32. — That the encouragement to lay aside lying and to speak the truth stands 
 at the head, appears to be occasioned simply by the last uttered ric aAndeiac; 
 and the figurative form of the precept (a7o6éuevor) is an echo from what pre- 
 cedes. It is possible also, however, that the prohibitions of lying, wrath, 
 stealing, as they are here given, had their concrete occasion with which we 
 are not acquainted. The reasons which Zanchius, e.g., has discovered, are 
 arbitrary. And Grotius says incorrectly : ‘* Hoc adversus eos dicit, qui, 
 ut gratias capatarent aut Judaeorum aut gentium, alia dicebant, quam sen- 
 tirent,” ‘‘ This he says against those who, to obtain the favor of either Jews 
 or Gentiles, said other things than they thought.” The subsequent 6rz éopév 
 arAgr. wédn Shows, in fact, that Paul has thought merely of the relation of 
 fellowship of Christians one with another, and has meant peta tov TAnoiov airovd 
 of the fellow- Christian, not of the fellow-man generally.® — Aadeire . . . avtow 
 is a reminiscence from Zech. viii. 16. —6re éopév x.t.A.] Motive (reminding 
 them of vv. 12-16). Members one of another, and fo lie one to another, how 
 contradictory ! Reciprocal membership is, in fact, a connection so inti- 
 mate and vital, subsisting in constant mutual furtherance and rendering 
 
 2 Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung der Stinde, IT. Calvin, Grotius, and most expositors. 
 p. 135 ff., in opposition to Julius Miiller, IT. 4 Morus, Flatt. 
 p. 487, who calls in question the identity of 5 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 25, and the pas- 
 contents between the cata teov and the sages in Wetstein. 
 original divine image. 6 Jerome, Estius, Grotius, Michaelis, and 
 2 On ev, see Matthiae, p. 1340. others, 
 
 3 Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 , 
 
 478 
 
 of service ! ‘‘est enim monstrum, si membra inter se non consentiant, imo si 
 fraudulenter inter se agant,” ‘‘ for there is a monster if the members do not 
 harmonize with one another, but act towards each other deceitfully,” Calvin. 
 Chrysostom shows at great length how the several members of the real body 
 do not deceive one another, and Michaelis repeats it ; but Paul says nothing 
 of this. — aa272. wéAn] members of each other, mutually the one of the other. 
 The same conception is met with Rom, xii. 5, and is not inaceurate,’ since, 
 indeed, in the body of Christ, even as in the physical body, no member ex- 
 ists for itself, but each belonging to each, in mutual union with the other 
 members, 1 Cor. xii. 15 ff. 
 
 Vv. 26, 27. See Zyro in the Stud. w. Krit. 1841, p. 681 ff. — opyifeobe kat wy 
 duaptavere] a precept expressed literally after the LXX. Ps. iv. 5, as to 
 which it must be left undetermined whether Paul understood the original 
 text? as the LXX. did, or chose this form only in recollection of the LXX., 
 without attending to the original text. To the right understanding of the 
 sense (which Paul would have expressed by opy:Géuevor 7) duaptdvete, or some- 
 thing similar, if that definite form of expression in the LXX. had not present- 
 ed itself to him) the observation of Bengel guides us : ‘‘Saepe vis modi cadit 
 super partem duntaxat sermonis, ‘Often the force of the mode falls on only 
 a part of the remark,’ Jer. x. 24.”% Here, namely, the vis modi, ‘‘ force of the 
 mode,” lies upon the second imperative (comp. passages like John. i. 47, 
 vii. 52): be angry and sin not, i.e., in anger do not fall into transgression ; so 
 that Paul forbids the combination of the dn apr avery with the 6 pyifecbar. 
 Comp. Matthies : ‘‘ In the being angry let it not come to sin ;” Harless : ‘* Be 
 angry in the right way, without your sinning.” * Paul, therefore, does not for- 
 bid the dpyi{ecAa: in itself, and could not forbid it, because there is® a holy 
 anger,® whichis ‘‘calcar virtutis,” ‘‘a spur to virtue,” as there is also a 
 divine anger; the dpyifecfa kat duaptavecv, however, is not to take place, 
 but, on the contrary, the dpyifecda is to be without sin, consequently an 
 opyilecbar kai wy duapravecv, Asregards the substantial sense, the same 
 result is brought out with the wswal explanation, but it is usually believed ® 
 that the imperative may be resolved conditionaliter, ‘‘ conditionally,” in 
 accordance with Hebrew usage : if ye are angry, do not sin (Isa. vill. 9 f. ; 
 Amos v. 4, 6, al.).° But the combination of the two imperatives connected 
 
 1 Riickert. of anger, but under that of placability,” he 
 
 overlooks the fact that in anger one may 
 commit sin otherwise than by implacabil- 
 ity; and that the following 6 Atos «.7.A. 
 
 3717, mean: tremble, and err not (Ewald), 
 
 with which David calls upon his enemies to 
 tremble on account of their iniquities tow- 
 ards him, the favorite of God, and not 
 further to sin. Comp. also Hupfeld in loc. 
 Yet other recent scholars, including Hitzig, 
 have translated, in harmony with the LXX.: 
 Be angry, but offend not. 
 
 3 Comp. also Isa. xii. 1; Matt. xi. 25; and 
 see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 249 f. [E. T. 290]. 
 
 * When, however, Harless would assign to 
 our passage a place ‘‘not under the head 
 
 brings into prominence only a single precept 
 Salling under the »y auapr. 
 
 5 See Wuttke, Sittenl. IT. § 243. 
 
 ® That this, however, is not meant in ver. 
 21, see on that verse. 
 
 7 Seneca, de ira, iii. 3. 
 
 § And already in the Constitutt. Apost. ii. 
 53, 2, the passage of the Psalm is so taken. 
 
 ® So also Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Holzhau- 
 sen, Meier, Olshausen, Zyro, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Bleek. 
 
CHAP. IV., 26, 27. 479 
 by and, like: do this, and live, Gen. xii. 18, comp. Isa. viii. 9, and similar 
 passages, —a combination, moreover, which is not a Hebraism, but a general 
 idiom of language (comp. divide et impera),—is not at all in point here, 
 because it would lead to the in this case absurd analysis: ‘‘if ye are angry, 
 ye shall not sin.” Winer, p. 279, allows the taking of the first imperative in 
 a permissive sense.‘ In this way we should obtain as result : ‘‘be angry (I 
 cannot hinder it), but only do not sin.” So also de Wette. No doubt a per- 
 mission of anger, because subsequently xa? yu duapt. follows, would not be in 
 conflict with ver. 31, where manifestly all hostile anger is forbidden ; but the 
 mere «ai is only logically correct when both imperatives are thought of in the 
 same sense, not the former as permitting and the latter as enjoining, in which 
 case the combination becomes ezceptive (‘‘ only, however”’), which would be 
 expressed by addad, mAgv, or pdvov.? Beza, Piscator, Grotius, and others 
 take opyil. interrogatively: ‘‘irascimini, et ne peccate,” ‘‘ Are you angry ? 
 do not sin.” Against this we cannot urge—the objection usually taken 
 since the time of Wolf—the «ai, which often in rapid emotion strikes in 
 with some summons ;* but we may urge the fact that Paul reproduces 
 a passage of the LX_X.* in which oryif. is imperative, and that such an abrupt 
 and impassioned question and answer would not be in keeping with 
 the whole calm and sober tone of the discourse. — yy auaprdvere] forbids 
 every kind of sinning, to which anger may lead. Zyro, after Neander, 
 would limit it to the hostile relation towards others, which, however, 
 is purely a supplied thought (ci¢ tov xAyciov, or the like). —6 jAue . 
 
 diaB6Am] not included as belonging to the words of the Psalm, states 
 in what way the given precept is to be carried out; namely, (1) the 
 irritation must be laid aside on the same day, and (2) no scope may there- 
 in be given to the devil. — 6 7Av0¢ uy Exidvéto x.7.2.] Comp. Deut. xxiv. 138, 
 15 ; Jer. xv. 9; Philo, de Legg. Spec. II. p. 324. The émidvérw is to be 
 taken : go down over your irritation.° That the night is here conceived of 
 as the nurse of wrath,’ or that the eventide of prayer is thought of,® is 
 arbitrarily assumed. Jerome and Augustine interpreted it even of Christ, 
 the Sun of Righteousness, and Lombard of the sun of reason! The mean- 
 ing of these words, to be taken quite literally,* is no other than : before 
 evening let your irritation be over, by which the very speedy, undelayed aban- 
 
 1 Comp. Kriger, § 54, 4. 2. 
 
 2 Thisis no “ philological theorizing,” but 
 is based on logical necessity. No instance 
 can be adduced in which, of two impera- 
 tives coupled by «ai, the former is to be 
 taken as concessive and the second as pre- 
 ceptive, in contrast to the former. To re- 
 fer to Jer. x. 24 as a parallel, as Winer does, 
 is erroneous, for the very reason that in 
 that passage—which, however, in general 
 is very different from ours—7Ajv, not Kat, 
 is used. 
 
 3 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 148. 
 
 4 Which, it is true, is quite arbitrarily 
 denied by Beza and Koppe. 
 
 5 On the citation of these words in Polye. 
 
 Phil. 12, see Introd. § 3. 
 
 6° Comp. also Hom. JZ. ii. 413, and Faesi, 
 in loc. (Nigelsbach in loc. takes another 
 view). 
 
 7 Fathers in Suicer, I. p. 1823; Bengel, and 
 others. 
 
 ® Baumgarten. 
 
 ® Comp. the custom of the Pythagoreans: 
 eimoTe Tpoaxdetev Els AoLdoplas Um’ Opyns, Tply 
 HR TOV HALtov Svvat Tas Seétas E4BaddoVTES 
 aAAnjAots Kal dveAvovto, “If 
 they were ever led by wrath to abuse, 
 taking each other’s hands and embracing, 
 they were reconciled before the sun went 
 down,”’ Plut. de am. frat. p. 488 B. 
 
 aCTATA/LEVOL 
 
480 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 doning of anger is concretely represented. — rapopyiopde is the arousing of 
 wrath, exacerbatio, from which épy/, asa lasting mood, is different. Comp. 
 pee Kings xv. 30, al. In the Greek writers the word does not occur. 
 We may add that Zanchius and Holzhausen are mistaken in holding the 
 xapé in the word to indicate unrighteous irritation. See, on the other hand, 
 e.g., Rom. x. 19; Ezek. xxxii.9. It denotes the excitement brought upon us: 
 [See Note XLIX., p. 487. ]— dé] nor yet, for the annexation of a new clause_ 
 falling to be added.’ The Recepta ujre would so place the two prohibitions 
 side by side, that they ought properly to be connected by neither... nor 
 (ure... uAte), but that Paul had not yet thought of this in the first clause, 
 but had written the simple “4, and had only at the second clause changed 
 the conception into such a form as if he had previously written p7re (comp. 
 our: not... nor). This usage is met with (in opposition to Elmsley) also 
 in classical writers, although more rarely,? but not elsewhere in Paul, and 
 hence is not probable here. — didore rérov] 7.€., give scope, opportunity for be- 
 ing active. See on Rom, xii. 19.—76 diaBdrAw] to the devil ; for he is de- 
 noted by daoAoc in all passages of the N. T., where it is not an adjective 
 (1 Tim, iti. 11, 12 ; 2 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 3), even in 1 Tim: a1, 6 ome 
 70. Hence Erasmus,’ Luther, Erasmus Schmid, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, 
 Stolz, Flatt, and others * are in error in holding that d:éBodoc is here equiva- 
 lent to calumniator ; in which view Erasmus thought of the heathen slander- 
 ing the Christians, to whom they were to furnish no material ; and most 
 expositors thought of the tale-bearers nursing disputes, to whom they were 
 not to lend an ear. In an irritated frame of mind passion easily gains the 
 ascendency over sobriety and watchfulness, and that physical condition is 
 favorable to the devil for his work of seducing into everything that is op- 
 posed to God. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; Eph. vi. 11 ff. Harless 
 refers the danger on the part of the devil to the corruption of the church- 
 life,’ the fellowship of which, in the absence of placability, is rent by the 
 devil. But this, as not implied in the context, must have been said by an 
 addition (év rH éxxAnoia, or the like, after térov).— The name d:aBor0¢ does 
 not occur elsewhere in the undoubtedly genuine Epistles of the apostle ; but 
 this, considering the equally general currency of the two names devil and 
 Satan, may be accidental. Comp. also Acts xiii. 10. We may add that the 
 citation of the Clementines (Hom. xix. 2) : yi déte rpdeacw 76 rovnpe, ‘* Give 
 no pretext to the evil one,” has nothing to do with our passage.® 
 
 Ver. 28. The stealer isno more to steal. The present participle does not 
 stand pro praeterito, ‘for the past,”" but : he who occupies himself with steal- 
 ing. The right view is already taken by Zanchius ; see also Winer, p. 316. 
 As there were in the apostolic church fornicators (1 Cor. v. 1), so there were 
 also stealers,* and the attempts to tone down the notion are just as arbitrary 
 
 1 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 210. 5 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 2 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709; Bornemann, ®In opposition to Schwegler, J.¢.» 
 ad Xen. Anad. iv. 8. 3, p. 808, Lips. ; Maetzn. p. 393 f. 
 ad Antiph. p. 195 £. 7 Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, and most of 
 3 Not in the Paraphr. the older expositors, following the Vulgate. 
 
 4 Koppe is undecided. § In connection with which the appeal to 
 
CHAP. IV., 29. 481 
 as they are superfluous.’ The question why Paul does not mention restitu- 
 tion (Luke xix. 8; Ex. xxii.; Lev. vi.; Isa. lviii. 6; Ezek. xxxiii. 15; Plato, 
 Legg. ix. p. 864 D f.) is not, with Estius, to be answered to the effect, that it is 
 contained in pyxéte KAerrétw 3° but to the effect, that Paul’s design was not to 
 give any complete instruction on the point of stealing, but only to inculcate 
 the prohibition of the same and the obligation of the opposite (which, more- 
 over, has restitution for its self-evident moral presupposition). The whole 
 exhortation in this form has, indeed, been regarded as inappropriate, because 
 not in keeping with the apostolic strictness ;> but we have to observe, on the 
 other hand, that Paul elsewhere too contents himself with simple prohibitions 
 and commands (see e.g. Rom, xiii. 183 f.), and that the apostolic strictness fol- 
 lows in the sequel (v. 5). —paAdov dé] rather on the other hand, imo vero, en- 
 hancing in a corrective sense the merely negative pmére KAext. See on Gal. 
 iv. 9. — koriatw x.t.A.| let him labor, in that he works with his hands that which 
 is good ; in that, by the activity of his hands (instead of his thievish prac- 
 tices), he brings about that which belongs to the category of the morally 
 good. Bengel well says : ‘‘ rd aya¥év antitheton ad furtum prius manu pi- 
 ceata male commissum,” ‘‘is the contrast to the theft first committed with 
 thievish hand.” — iva éy1, «.7.a.] The view of Schoettgen, that this applies 
 to the Jewish opinion of tl:e allowableness of theft serving for the support of 
 the poor,‘ is indeed repeated by Koppe (comp. Stolz) and Holzhausen, but 
 is—considering the general nature of the 6 KAémr. pyxéte kAenr., addressed, 
 moreover, to readers mostly Gentile-Christian—not expressed in the 
 words, which rather quite simply oppose to the forbidden taking the giving 
 according to duty. —r6 ypelav éyovr:] to the one having need, namely, that 
 there may be imparted to him. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 24; Markii. 25 ; 1 John 
 in. 17; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C, xii. p. 965 B. 
 
 Ver. 29. After the three definite exhortations, vv. 25, 26, 28, now follow 
 more general and comprehensive ones. —Ilac Adyoc . . . uy Exxop.| The ne- 
 gation is not to be separated from the verb. With regard to every evil dis- 
 course, it is enjoined that it shall not go forth, etc.°— carpéc] corrupt ; in 
 the ethical sense : worthless (6 uy tiv wWiav ypeiav rAnpoi, ‘‘ which docs not 
 satisfy its appropriate use,” Chrysostom), pravus, ‘‘ distorted ;” opposite : 
 ayalldc mpdc oikodouyy THE XpEiac.° — GAN ei Tic ayaboc mpoc otk. tT. xp. | but if there 
 
 the permission of stealing among various 
 heathen nations, as among the Egyptians 
 and Lacedaemonians (see Wolf, Cur. ; Miil- 
 ler, Dorier, II. p. 310 f.), is entirely unsuita- 
 ble in an apostolic epistle with its high 
 moral earnestness. Against such a preju- 
 dice Paul would have written otherwise. 
 
 1 See, e.g., Jerome: “furtum nominans 
 omne, quod alterius damno quaeritur,” 
 naming as theft everything sought with in- 
 jury to another.’’? He approves, moreover 
 the interpreting it of the furtwm spirituale, 
 ‘spiritual theft,’ of the false prophets. 
 Estius: ‘‘generaliter positum videtur pro, 
 fraudare, sublrahere, etc.,‘‘It seems to be put 
 
 31 
 
 generally for ‘to defraud, withdraw,’ etc.” 
 Comp. Calvin and many, as also still Holz- 
 hausen. 
 
 2°* Nam qui non restituit cum possit, is ad- 
 hue in furto .. . perseverat,” “for he who 
 does not restore when he can, is still perse- 
 vering in theft.’’ This is in itself true, but 
 no reader could light upon such a pregnant 
 meaning of the pycete KAETTETH. 
 
 3 See de Wette. 
 
 4 Jalk. Rubeni, f. 110,4; Vajikra rabdba, f. 
 147, 1. 
 
 5 See Fritzsche, Diss. lI. in 2 Cor. p. 24 ff. 
 
 6 See, in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 377 
 f. ; Kypke, IT. p. 297 f. 
 
482 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 is any (discourse) good for the edification of the need, sc., let it proceed from 
 your mouth. On dyaféc with eic, xpéc,' or infinitive, denoting aptitude or 
 serviceableness for anything, see Kypke, II. p. 298. — mpo¢ oikodounv rie 
 ypetac does not stand by hypallage for eic¢ ypeiay ric oixodouye, ? but tHe ypeiac 
 is an objective genitive; it is the need just present, upon which the edi- 
 fying (Christianly helpful) influence of the discourse is to act. Riickert 
 and Olshausen take 7 ypeta for oi ypeiav éyovrec. Arbitrarily and to the dis- 
 turbance of the sense, since in fact every one has need of edification, conse- 
 quently rc ypetac would convey nothing at all characteristic, no modal defi- 
 nition of dyafdc mpod¢ olxodou. — iva 6 yaprv Toic axobovor| aim of the éxrop. éx 
 7. or. by., previously conceived as supplied : in order that it (this discourse) 
 may bestow grace, i.e., benefit, on the hearers, may bring blessing for them. 
 Opposite of such discourses : 2 Tim. ii. 14. Theodoret (iva gavq dexroe toi¢ 
 ax.,‘‘ that it may appear acceptable to the hearers, etc.”), Luther, Calovius, 
 Raphel, Kypke, Zachariae, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others, in- 
 cluding Riickert, Meier, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius : in order that it 
 may afford pleasure, be agreeable, to the hearers. Comp. also Chrysostom, who 
 compares the discourse to a fragrant ointment. But, apart from the fact 
 that discourses, which are good poe oixodopjy ri ypeiac, cannot always be 
 agreeable (1 Cor. vii. 8 ff.), this interpretation is opposed to linguistic 
 usage, according to which ydpev didwue always signifies gratificari, to 
 confer a kindness, to show a service of love, or the like (Jas. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 
 5; Ex. ili. 21; Ps. Ixxxiv. 12 [11]; Tob. 1. 13; Soph Ajgeaaemee tae 
 Legg. iii. p. 702 C ; also in the passages adduced by Wetstein and Kypke). 
 
 Ver. 30. Connected by xai with what precedes ; hence not, with Lach- 
 mann and Tischendorf, to be separated by a full stop from ver. 29, by which 
 there would result an exhortation too indefinite in the connection. — And 
 grieve not (which would take place by means of Aéyou carpoi) the Holy Spirit 
 of God. Evil discourses are so opposed to the holy nature and aim of the 
 Divine Spirit, who dwells in the Christians, that He cannot fail to be 
 grieved thereat.* An anthropopathic conception of the consciousness, with 
 which the Spirit of God is holily affected, of the incongruity of human ac- 
 tion with His holiness ; but how truly and touchingly in keeping with the 
 idea of the love of God, which bears sway in His Spirit (Rom. v. 5)! The 
 man becomes conscious of this grieving of the divine zveiuza, when he, who 
 has become through the atonement and sanctification the dwelling-place of 
 the Spirit, no longer receives from this Spirit the testimony that he is the 
 child of God (Rom. viii. 16). The chosen expression, ‘‘ the Holy Spirit of 
 God,” renders the enormity of such action most palpable. An allusion, we 
 may add, to Isa. Ixiii. 10 is not to be assumed, since in that passage the 
 mapofive [exasperating] of the Spirit is characteristic. —év © éogpay. si¢ 
 quépav aroaurp.| furnishes motive for the exhortation : for if ye have received 
 
 1 Plat. Rep. vii. p. 522 A, and Stallbaum pyrote évtevéntat T@ @c@ Kal amooTH amo GOV, 
 in loc. ‘Distress not the Holy Spirit that dwell- 
 2 Beza. eth in you, lest he entreat God, and he de- 
 3 Comp. Hermas, ii. 10.3, as also ii. 3: hh part from you,” 
 OAtBe TO myEDMAa GyLoy TO év Gol KaTOLKOUY, 
 
NOTES. 483 
 
 so great a benefit through the Holy Spirit, how wrong (ungrateful) is it 
 when you grieve Him! Harless, following older expositors, finds the possi- 
 bility of losing the seal here hinted at. But to this 7 Avzreite points less nat- 
 urally than 7 rapocivere (Isa. xii. 10) would point to it. —éogpay.] quite 
 as at i. 18. — cic juép. arodutp.| for the day of redemption ; when at the Pa- 
 rousia the certainty of the deliverance unto salvation, indicated by écdpay., 
 becomes reality. As to aroAitpworc, comp. on i. 14; Luke xxi. 28; also 
 Rom. viii. 23. 
 
 Vv. 31, 32. UWxpia] Bitterness, z.e., fretting spitefulness, Acts vili. 23 ; Jas. 
 iii. 14.1— As to the distinction between Guuédc (ebullition of anger) and épyf, 
 see on Rom. ii. 8; Gal. v. 20. The context shows, we may add, that here 
 loveless and hostile anger is meant: hence there is no inconsistency with 
 ver. 26. — xpavyi] clamor, in which hostile passion breaks out, Acts xxiii. 9.? 
 — Bdacdnuia| not : ‘‘ verba, quae Det honorem . . . laedunt,” ‘‘ words that 
 injure God’s honor,” Grotius ; but, in accordance with the context, evil- 
 speaking against the brethren, comp. Col. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4; Matt. xii. 
 31, xv. 19. —xaxia] is here not badness in general, vitiositas,* but, in harmony 
 with the connection, the special spite, malice, Rom. i. 29; Col. iii.8. This 
 is the leaven of the rixpia x.7.A. — yiveche] not be, but become, in keeping with 
 the ap67rw ay’ buav. — ypnoroi] kind, Col. iii. 12.4 The conjecture that the 
 word contains an allusion to the name Christians,’ is an arbitrary fancy. — 
 evorAayxvor| compassionate. Comp. Manass. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 8, and the pas- 
 sages from the Test. XII. Patr. in Kypke. — yapiféuevor] forgiving, 2 Cor. 
 lil. 7, 10, xii. 18. The explanation donantes [donating] (Vulgate), largientes 
 [giving bountifully] (Erasmus), is not in keeping with the context. — éavroic] 
 equivalent to aAAydAoc. See on Col. iii. 12. —xaddc cai 6 Ocdc x.7.A.] Motive 
 to the yapit. éavr., from their own experience of the archetypal conduct of 
 God. Matt. vi. 14, xviii. 21 ff. — év Xpiore] in Christ, in whose self-surren- 
 der to the death of atonement the act of the divine forgiveness was accom- 
 plished, i. 6 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 19. 
 
 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XXXVI. Ver. 2. peta done tarewodpootvne k.T.A. 
 
 « The very work for which Christ’s gospel came into the world was no other 
 than to cast down the mighty from their seat, and to exalt the humble and 
 meek ; it was then only in accordance with this its task and mission that it 
 should dethrone the heathen virtue weyadovyia, and set up the despised 
 Tarevoppootvn in its room... Indeed, the very word tarewvodpooivy is, I 
 believe, itself a birth of the gospel; I am not aware of any Greek writer 
 who employed it before the Christian era, or apart from the influence of 
 ' Christian writings after . .. The use which heathen writers make of 
 
 1See Wetstein, ad Rom. iii. 14 ; Loesner, anger. 
 
 Obss. p. 344 f.; Wyttenbach, ad Plut. Mor. 3 Cic. Tusc. iv. 15. 34. 
 
 VI. p. 1033. 4 See Tittmann, Synon. pp. 140, 195. 
 * Chrysostom calls the cpavy7 the steed of ® Olshausen. 
 
484 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 rarewéc, tamewérync, and other words of this family, shows plainly in what 
 sense they would have employed rarevvogpoovvy, had they thought it good 
 to allow the word. For indeed the instances in which rarecvé¢ is used in » 
 any other than an evil sense, and to signify aught else than that which 
 is low, slavish and mean-spirited, are few and altogether exceptional,” 
 (Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., First Series, p. 201). As to its relation to 
 mpaotnc: ‘The gospel of Christ did not to so great an extent rehabilitate 
 rpabrnc . . . Ipadryc did not require to be turned from a bad sense to a good, 
 but only to be lifted up from a lower good to a higher.’’ Aristotle ‘‘ finds the 
 mpaérn¢ worthy of praise, more because by it a man retains his own equanimity 
 and composure, than from any nobler reason.” But ‘‘the scriptural xpadr¢ 
 is not in man’s outward behavior only ; nor yet in his relations to his fellow- 
 men ; as little in his mere outward disposition. Rather it is an unwrought 
 grace of the soul, and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God 
 (Matt. xi. 29 ; James i. 21). It expresses that temper of spirit in which we 
 accept His dealings with us without disputing and resisting ; and it is closely 
 linked with the rarevvodpootvy, and follows close upon it (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 
 12), because it is only the humble heart which is also the meek ; and which as 
 such does not fight against God, and more or less struggle and contend with 
 Him.”’ 
 XXXVII. Ver. 5. pia wioruc. 
 
 Meyer's position is confirmed by Harless, who denies absolutely the applica- 
 tion of fides quae creditur to xiorv¢ in'Scripture. Nevertheless, the qualification 
 of Ellicott should not be overlooked: ‘‘That this, however, must not be 
 unduly limited to the feeling of the individual, e.g., to faith in its utterly sub- 
 jective aspect, seems clear from the use of wia and the general context. As 
 there is one Lord, so the pia riotic is not only a subjective recognition of this 
 eternal truth, but also necessarily involves a common objective profession. 
 
 XXXVIII. Ver. 5. Omission of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, Braune agree in the explanation as given by the last : 
 ‘©The Lord’s Supper is rather an act of the preserved unity than a motive for 
 its preservation. It is celebrated by those who have been reconciled with God 
 and hold each other to be brethren ; it does not so much give an impulse to 
 peaceableness, as it is a result of the same, as acommon celebration of those 
 who have been united together, as an attestation of the church which has 
 become one in the Lord.’’ Alford adds: ‘‘In 1 Cor. x. 17, where an act was 
 in question which was a clear breach of union, it forms the rallying-point.”’ 
 
 XXXIX. Ver. 8. &dwxe douara. 
 
 The idea of édwxe cannot be justified from the letter of Ps. Ixviii. 18. The 
 form of the quotation would be unallowable in an uninspired writer. But by 
 illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostle discerns the true idea involved in 
 Christ’s reception of gifts, and employs a word which will the more fully and 
 clearly express the mind of the Spirit in the Psalm. <‘‘ We cannot argue 
 from the meaning of the word, but we may from the scope of the passage. 
 The truth is, that the apostle sees in the literal O. T. a higher spiritual signifi- 
 cance... The apostle sees that when a king takes, he takes to give, and 
 
NOTES. 485 
 
 therefore substitutes the one word for the other, without at all putting the 
 one word as the translation of the other.” (Perowne on Ps. ]xvili. 19). ‘* We 
 admit then frankly and freely the verbal difference, but remembering that the 
 apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we recognize here neither 
 imperfect memory, precipitation (Riick.), arbitrary change (Calv.), accommoda- 
 tion (Morus), nor Rabbinical interpretation (Meyer), but simply the fact that 
 the psalm, and especially ver. 18, had a Messianic reference, and bore within it 
 a further, fuller and deeper meaning. This meaning the inspired apostle, by a 
 slight change of language and the substitution of ‘ gave’’ for the more dubious 
 ‘« received,’’ succinctly, suggestively and authoritatively unfolds’’ (Ellicott). 
 
 XL. Ver. 8. pypyardrevoev aiywadwoiar K.7.A. 
 
 The toic avIpairorc in the succeeding clause must not be pressed too far on 
 either side in the interpretation of the aiyuadwoiav. The former might readily 
 be included under the latter, the reference being to the same object only with 
 a changed relation, as Harless, Olshausen and Braune evidently regard it. On 
 the other hand, the aiywaAwoiav probably includes everything arrayed against 
 Christ’s power, ‘‘sin, death and conscience,” Luther, Er. ed. 64: 240; or 
 «Satan and the gates of hell,” Calovius, or, with the great body of interpreters, 
 «Satan, sin and death,” which, against their will, are converted into means for 
 advancing the salvation of men. Thus a continual repetition of what is stated 
 in Heb. ii. 14 is occurring. Yet what occurs thus with these forces of the evil 
 world is also fulfilled in another manner with converted men. They become 
 “« oifts” to their fellow-men in the church by first having been led willing cap- 
 tives by the great conqueror. This is the history of all the “apostles,” 
 ‘“‘ prophets,” ‘‘evangelists,” etc., enumerated in ver. 11, as the church's 
  oifts. 
 
 XLI. Ver. 9. ei¢ Ta Karétepa pépn. 
 
 «The greater the descent, the greater the ascent ; and if the aiyyuadwoia con- 
 sisted of Satan and his powers, the warfare in which they were taken captive 
 would most naturally be contemplated in all its extent, as reaching to their 
 habitation itself : ‘This ascent, what does it imply but a descent, and that even 
 to the lower parts of the earth, from which the spoils of victory were fetched. 
 This meaning seems to be upheld by the ra ravta which follows, as well as by 
 the contrast’’’ (Alford). So among English writers, Ellicott and Barry. Dr. 
 Riddle suggests that this view may have been maintained from the desire to 
 sustain the article of the Creed: ‘‘He descended into hell,” while ‘ the other 
 may have been quite as much influenced by the fear of favoring the Romish 
 appendages.’’ Eadie has an analysis of the various views, and a long defence 
 of the expression as referring to the earth. Braune correctly rejects with 
 Meyer Chrysostom’s interpretation, which applies it to Christ’s burial, Phil- 
 ippi (Kirch. Glaubens. iv. 1, 171) refers it to the Incarnation. 
 
 XLIT. Ver. 10. iva rAnpadoy ta ravra. 
 
 Luther : ‘‘That in all things he might work all, and without Him nothing be 
 done, thought, or spoken’’ (Randglossen, Er]. ed. Ixiv. 241). 
 
486 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 XLII. Ver. 13. rij¢ extyvdoeuc. 
 
 “Qlear and exact knowledge” (Cremer). See Note XIII., chap. te, eT 
 ‘«‘ Christians 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 . . . 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” 
 (Eadie). 
 
 XLIV. Ver. 13. ei¢ wérpov x.T.A. 
 
 facxia has rarely in classical Greek the meaning of ‘‘stature,’’ but often used 
 of ‘the flower or prime of life, i.e., from 17 to 45,’ and of women, ‘‘ marriage- 
 able age” (Liddell and Scott). 
 
 XLV. Ver. 16. dia mdone adje TH¢ Extyopnyiac. 
 Pny 
 
 The use of d¢7¢ for joint is found in Aristotle, whose terminology is decisive 
 as to the propricty of the application. Col. ii. 19 seems to clearly settle the 
 fact that it must have such meaning here. So Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, Riddle. 
 
 XLVI. Ver. 18. Sua 7Av dyvovav k.T.A. 
 
 Neither Tischendorf nor Westcott and Hort approve of the deletion of the 
 commas, which Meyer finds necessary for his interpretation. There is nothing 
 difficult in tracing their habitual ignorance to repeated acts whereby the light 
 of the truth was excluded. An effort to be ignorant results in a state of com- 
 plete darkening of understanding. Neither is this in any way inconsistent 
 with the doctrine of original sin. The earlier condition of the heathen was 
 one in which they were more susceptible to the movements of divine grace. 
 ‘For this two-fold condition’’ (i.e., of darkening and alienation), ‘the apostle 
 gives a two-fold ground, whose members mutually condition each other, because 
 they are attached to one and the same subject. . . . The condition of their 
 darkening and alienation from the life that is of God depends upon their in- 
 ner ignorance and hardness of heart. That this inner ignorance is not a mere 
 limitation of the understanding, is expressed by the combination with the 
 tapwotco’ (Harless). 
 
 XLVII. Ver. 21. xa9d¢ éorw adnbera. 
 
 There is an antithesis here to the év pataidéryte of ver. 17. As opposed to 
 this vanity, the quality of their teaching is here described as truth, while ‘‘ the 
 next verse contains its substance ’’ (Eadie) or contents. 
 
 XLVII. Ver. 22. tov radatov dv§pwrov. 
 
 ‘©A bold and vivid personification of the old nature we inherit from Adam, 
 the source and seat of original and actual transgression’’ (Eadie). ‘Our 
 former unconverted self ; personification of our whole sinful condition before 
 regeneration (Rom. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 9), and opposed to the kasvo¢ or véog dvOpwro¢ 
 
NOTES. 487 
 
 (ver. 24 ; Col. iii. 10)” (Ellicott). ‘*The natural man in the corruption of his 
 sin” (Braune). Meyer’s exception to the reference of this by Calovius to orig- 
 inal sin is at once answered by the fact that, with Calovius, original sin is the 
 sinful habit, which begins to be laid aside in regeneration. The examination 
 of the controversy with Rome on this topic in Apology of Augsburg Confession, 
 Art il., pp. 75-83, will give much light here. 
 
 XLIX. Ver. 26. ézi rapopyiouw budv. 
 
 «The capopytoudc of Eph. iv. 26 is not dpy7, however we may translate it 
 ‘wrath.’ This it cannot be ; for the zapop) copuoc there is absolutely forbidden ; 
 the sun shal] not go down upon it ; whereas under certain conditions dpy7 is a 
 righteous passion to entertain. The Scripture has nothing incommon with the 
 stoic’s absolute condemnation of anger ; it takes no such loveless view of other 
 men’s sins as his who said: ‘Disturb not thyself ; if any one sins, he sins to 
 himself’ (Mare. Ant. iv. 46). It inculcates no apathy, but only a restraint over 
 passion . . . The Scripture permits, and not only permits, but when the right 
 occasion for it has arrived, demands it. . . . There is a ‘wrath of God,’ a 
 wrath also of the merciful Son of Man (Mark iii. 5), and a wrath which right- 
 eous men not only may, but, as they are righteous, must feel ; nor can there 
 be a surer and sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition than the 
 not being able to be angry with sin—and sinners.” .. . Yet ‘‘there is that 
 which may cleave even to a righteous anger, the rapopyouéc, the irritation, the 
 exasperation, which must be dismissed at once’ (Trench, Synonyms, First 
 Series, 180, 181). 
 
 ” 
 
488 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER Ve 
 
 Ver. 2. yuac... nuov)] Tisch. [Treg. and West. and Hort]: tude... 
 tudv. But the witnesses for this are of unequal value and not strong enough, 
 specially as the pronoun of the second person naturally presented itself from 
 the context. — Ver. 4. kai aicyp. cai] A D* E* F G, min. Sahid. Vulg. It. and 
 Fathers of some importance: 7 aicyp. 7. Approved by Griesb., adopted by 
 Lachm. and Riick., and rightly so ; the Recepla appears to be an old alteration 
 in accordance with ver. 3, where also it is only at the third vice that 7 comes 
 in. S* has kai aicyp. #, as also Syr. p.—7ra oi« dvijxovta] AB ®, 31, 67, 73, 
 Clem. Antioch. Ephr, Cyr. : é ov« avjxev. So Lachm. and [Tisch. Treg. West. 
 and Hort] Rick. ; commended also by Griesb. An interpretation, probably 
 oceasioned by the fact that the following aAAa waAdAov evyap. was regarded as 
 the contrast to ra od« avyxovra. — Ver. 5. tore] Elz.: éoré, in opposition to far 
 preponderant evidence. Defended, itx: true, by Matth. (‘‘ pluribus Graecis in 
 mentem venire poterat jore,” ‘‘ icre could occur to most Greeks,” but evidently a 
 mechanical miswriting or alteration ; rejected also by Reiche, Hofmann and 
 Ewald.—- 6¢ éorev eidwAodatpyc| [Lachm. West. and Hort], following only B &, 
 67*** lect. 40, Cyr. Jer., has 6 éorw eidwoAatpyc, Which Milland Griesb. recom- 
 mended. FG, Vulg. It. Goth. Victorinus, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster have 6 éorw 
 eldwhvdatpeia. By the latter the original 6c éoriv eidwhoratpyc, Which seemed to 
 require an explanation, that it might not be misunderstood, was explained, and 
 subsequently eiSwAoAdtpn¢ was restored, whereby the reading of Lachm. arose.— 
 Ver. 9. gwtéc¢] Elz. Matth.: zvetywaroc, in opposition to decisive witnesses. 
 Gloss from Gal. v. 25. — Ver. 17. ovvievtec] A B &, min, Chrys. ms. Damasce. 
 Jer. : ovviere. So Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Rick, Harless, 
 however, has ovvidvrec, after D* FG. The latter, though doubtless to be ac- 
 cented curovrec (see on Rom. iii. 11), is as the less common form to be pre- 
 ferred ; the imperative is a gloss from the context, supported by no version, — 
 Ver. 19. xvevyartixaic] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., and is 
 bracketed by Lachm. It might have been introduced from Col. iii. 16 ; but 
 the evidence for the omission is too weak, and the omission might easily be 
 occasioned by the homoeoteleuton. — év 79 xapdig] Lachm, and Riick. : év raic 
 xapdiatc, after important witnesses (not B). But the plural would in itself very 
 naturally occur to the copyists, and still more from the comparison of Col. iii. 
 16. — Ver. 21. Xpicrov] Elz. : Ocor, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among 
 which D EF G, codd. of It. add ’Ijc0i, some before, some after the Xp. Mill 
 uready rightly judges that ¢é8o0c Ocod was the more current conception, whereby 
 O00 (K : kvpiov) was brought in ; ¢6Goc Xpiorod does not occur elsewhere. —Ver. 
 22. After avdpdow, Elz. Scholz have trordccecbe, and Lachm. [and Treg. ] 
 irotaccécbwoav. The latter in accordance with A %, min. Copt. Vulg. Goth. 
 Clem. (once) Basil, Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. D E F G, lect. 19, It. Syr. have 
 the Recepta, but before roic idiow. These diversities only confirm the proba- 
 bility that the verb was originally wanting, as also B, codd. Gr. in Jer. Clem. 
 
CHAP? Yo, Lis 489 
 
 (once) have no verb, The verb, deleted by Tisch. and rejected by Reiche [and 
 West. and Hort], is an expedient to help the construction. -— Ver. 23. avjp (Elz. : 
 6 dvyp) and avtéc (Elz.: xat adtdc éo7r) rest on decisive critical evidence ; 
 although Reiche again defends the Recepta, which is a smoothing of the text.— 
 Ver, 24. idioic] is, following B D* E* F G8, min. codd. It., with Lachm. Treg. 
 Tisch. [West. and Hort], to be deleted as an addition from ver. 22.— Ver. 25. 
 éavTov]| is wanting in A B &, min. Clem. Orig. Cyr. Chrys. Deleted by Lachmm. 
 Tisch. and Riick. But if anything were added to yvvaixac, it would be most 
 natural to add idiac from ver. 22. The duov read in F G (Vulg. It. etc. : vestras) 
 is an explanation of éavTor, and tells in favor of this, the dropping out of which 
 is to be explained from its superfluousness. — Ver. 27. avréc] Elz. : aityv, in 
 opposition to far preponderating testimony ; altered from a failure to under- 
 stand the emphatic aivrdéc. — Ver. 28. Lachm. has rightly adopted, on decisive 
 authority, ojtwe¢ Kai of avdpeg boetAovarv, B has the order ofrwe¢ 69. 
 kal of dvdpoc. — Ver. 29. Instead of Xpioréc, Elz. has xvpsoc, in opposition to 
 decisive evidence. — Ver. 30. éx Ti¢ capKog atov Kai ix Tv dor. av’Tod] is wanting 
 in A B S8* 17, 67** al., Copt. Aeth. Method. and perhaps Ambrosiast. Deleted 
 by Lachm. [Treg. Tisch. West. and Hort], suspected also by Mill and Griesb., 
 defended by Reiche. The omission has arisen either from mere accident, by 
 passing in the process of copying from the first av7ov immediately to the third, 
 or more probably through design, from want of perceiving the suitableness of 
 the words in the context, and judging their meaning inappropriate. If they 
 had been added from the LXX. Gen. ii. 23, we should have found written éx 
 TOV doTéwv avTod Kai éx TIH¢ capKo¢ abtod. —Ver. 31. Tov Tat. aiTod kK. T. unt.) 
 Lachm. and Tisch. on preponderant testimony have merely ratépa kal puyrépa. 
 Rightly ; the Recepta is from the LXX.— rpd¢ tv yvv.] Lachm. and Rick. : 
 7H yovacki, in accordance doubtless with many and considerable witnesses (not 
 B), but an alteration in conformity with the LXX. (according to A, Ald.) and 
 Matt. xix. 5, 
 
 ContTENTS.—Exhortation to the imitation of God, to love, as Christ 
 through His sacrificial death has loved us (vy. 1, 2). Warning against un- 
 chastity, avarice, and other vices, inasmuch as they exclude from the Mes- 
 sianic kingdom (vv. 3-5). The readers are not to let themselves be deceived 
 by empty words, and not to hold fellowship with the vicious ; for, as those 
 who from being dark have become Christianly enlightened, they are under 
 obligation to walk accordingly, and to have no fellowship with the works 
 of darkness, but rather to rebuke them, which isa course as necessary as it 
 is salutary (vv. 6-14). They are therefore to be careful in their walk as 
 wise (vv. 15-17), and not to become drunken, but to become full of the Holy 
 Spirit, which fulness must express itself by alternate utterance in’ psalms 
 and hymns, by singing praise in the silence of the heart, and by continual 
 Christian thanksgiving towards God (vy. 18-20). Subject the one to the 
 other in the fear of Christ, the wives are to render to their husbands true 
 Christian subjection (vv. 21-24), and the men to their wives true Christian 
 love (vv. 25-33), in connection with which, however, the wife owes rever- 
 ence to the husband (ver. 83). 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. If Paul has just said xafec cai 6 Ocd¢ éxapicato buiv, he now, on 
 the ground of these words (oiv), sums up under one head the duty of love 
 
490 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 expressed in detail, iv. 32, and that as imitation of God by a loving walk, 
 
 such as stands in appropriate relation to the love shown to us by Christ, 
 
 which serves as pattern for our conduct. With this is expressed the specific 
 character and degree of the love required as an imitation of God (John xiii. 
 
 34, xv. 13). Accordingly, ver. 1 corresponds to the kato kai 6 cdg év Xp. 
 
 éyapicaro as a whole, and ver. 2 to the év Xpior@ in particular ; yivecbe ov at 
 the same time corresponds emphatically to the yiveoGe dé of iv. 82, introducing 
 in another form—flowing from the last words of ver. 82—the same thing 
 as was introduced by yiveode dé — Og téxva ayar.] in accordance with your 
 relation to God as His beloved children. ayazyj7a denotes neither amabiles, 
 
 ‘“lovely,” 1 nor good, excellent children, nor is it to be said with Vater : ‘ut 
 solent liberi, qui tune diliguntur,” ‘‘as children are wont, who are then 
 loved; but what a love has God shown to us by the viodeoia (1 John iii. 
 
 1; Rom. vy. 8,5, al.) ! Now, to be God’s beloved child, and not to become 
 like the loving Father, how contradictory were this! See Rom. vi. 1 ff.; 1 
 John iv. 7 ff.; Matt. v.45. Yet the expression ‘‘ imitators of God” is found 
 with Paul only here. — xai] annexes wherein this imitation of God must. 
 consist, namely, therein, that Jove is the element in which their life-walk 
 takes place—love, such as also Christ has displayed towards us.—xai rapédwkev 
 x.7.2.] Practical proof of the 7yéryoev. Comp. ver. 25 ; Rom. v. 8 f.; Gal. 
 ii. 20. Paul might have written zapécrycev, but wrote rapédwx., because he 
 thought of the matter as a self-surrender. The notion of sacrifice does not 
 lie in the verb, but in the attributes.2> We may add that with zapéd. we 
 have not to supply ci¢ bavaror,* but rH OcH* belongs to it, to the connecting 
 
 of which with eic doy evwdiac® the order of the words is opposed (comp. Ex. 
 
 xxix. 18; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, xxiii. 13, 18 ; Gen. vill. 21); since the emphane 
 prefixing of 7 Océ, if it belonged to ei¢ dou. eiwd., would be quite without 
 reason, inasmuch as there is not any kind of contrast (for instance, to human 
 satisfaction) in the case. —irép jor] for our behalf, in order to reconcile us 
 to God. The idea of substitution is not expressed in the preposition,® but 
 lies in the conception of a sacrifice, under which the N. T. represents the 
 death of Christ,” and that, indeed, as expiatory sacrifice. See on Rom, v. 
 
 6; Gal. iii. 18. — xpocdopay x. Suciav| as an offering and a sacrifice. The 
 latter (M37) is a more precise definition of the former ; for mpooopa is every- 
 thing in general which is brought as an offering, whether it be bloody or 
 unbloody (ID). Comp. Ecclus. xiv. 11. Of the sacrifice of Christ, also 
 Heb. x. 10, 14. Harless explains the joining of the two substantives to the 
 effect that Christ, as He was a sacrifice for others (Svciav), also presented 
 Himself as an offering (xpoodopdv). But, apart from the fact that thus Paul 
 must logically have written Yvoiav x. rpocdopav (asin Ps, xl, 7; Heb. x. 5), 
 
 1 Zanchius. ®See also van Hengel, ad Mom. I. 
 2 ™In opposition to Hofmann’s objection. p. 459 f. 
 3 Grotius, Harless, and others. 7In opposition to Hofmann, Schrifibew. 
 
 4 Which Bengel, Hofmann, and others II. 1, p. 883 f., who makes the apostle mere- 
 with less simplicity attach to mpood. x. ly say, ‘‘that Christ has gone the way of 
 Svatav. death, in order as our well-pleasing repre: 
 
 5 Luther, Koppe, Meier, Harless. sentative to come to God.” 
 
CHAP. V., 33 491 
 both words, in fact, state in what character Christ presented Himself to God, 
 both express the objective relation, while the subjective relation of Christ is 
 conveyed in rapédoxev éavtov trip yudv. Comp. 1 Pet. 1. 18. —eic donq 
 evodiac] so that it became for Him an odor of fragrance, figurative designation 
 of its acceptableness to God (Phil. iv. 18), after the Hebrew DV3-1 (Lev. i. 
 9, 13, 17, ii. 12, iii. 5), which was the original veal, anthropopathic basis of 
 the idea of the acceptableness of a sacrifice to God.’ The underlying notion 
 of the burning of that which was offered did not of course come into account 
 in the case of the iAacrjpiov of Jesus, but the thought of the expression is in 
 the sacrificial designation of the atoning deed independent of its origin.* 
 —The question whether Christ is here in reality presented as an expiatory 
 sacrifice, or merely as one who in His self-surrender well-pleasing to God 
 has left us a pattern,*? has been raised by the Socinians,* who denied the 
 former,’ is decided not merely by izép juov, but by the view prevailing 
 throughout the N. T., and specially with Paul, of the death of Jesus as the 
 idact#piov, Rom. ili. 25 (comp. also Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. i. 18; 1 Tim. 
 li. 6), which also is contained here in Gvoiay.£ Certainly the main point in 
 the connection of our passage is the love displayed by Christ, but the practi- 
 cal proof of this love is represented as that which it just really was, namely, 
 as expiatory sacrifice ; in opposition to which the addition ei¢ dcp. eiwd., 
 which in the O. T., save in Lev. iv. 31,7 1s not used of expiatory sacrifices, 
 is not to be urged, inasmuch as—even apart from Lev. /.c.—Christ offered up 
 Himself, consequently His expiatory sacrifice was at the same time a voluntary 
 offering. 
 
 Ver. 3. Aé] leading over to another portion of the exhortation. — axa¥apcia 
 and mdcovesia, quite as at iv. 19, the two main vices of heathendom. The 
 latter thus is here neither insatiability in lust,’ nor ‘‘imprimis de prostibulis, 
 quae sunt vulgato corpore, ut quaestum lucrentur,”’ ‘‘ especially of courtesans 
 who prostitute their bodies for pay,” Koppe, Stolz, but : avarice. — 7] is 
 not equivalent to xa,’ nor yet explicative,’? but disjunctive, separating another 
 vice from the correlative ropveia kai taoa axaSapoia; “ neither fornication and 
 every kind of uncleanness, nov avarice, nov shamelessness (ver. 4), etc. 
 — pndé ovouatéiodw év byiv| not once be named, etc. ; ixavac 75 wvoapov Tov elpy- 
 pévov bréderfe, Kai avTag avTOV Tpoonyopiac THo pviunco éEopicae KeAeboac, ‘‘ He 
 sufficiently indicated that which was impure in the subjects mentioned, 
 enjoining that their very names be banished from memory,” Theodoret,"*— 
 
 1 See Gen. viii. 21; Ewald, Alterth. p. 31. 
 
 2 Without that which is symbolized in 
 ‘oouy evwoias, the sacrifice of Christ would 
 not have been propitiatory. Comp. on the 
 expression itself the Homeric xvicans dvs 
 avTun, ‘Sweet savor of fat,’ Od. xii. 369. 
 
 3 So Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 113; Riickert. 
 
 *See Catech. Racov. 484, ed. Oeder, 
 p. 1006. 
 
 > See also Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 716 f. 
 
 6Comp. Lechler, apost. und nachapost. 
 Zeitalter, p. 77: Ebrard, Lehre von der stell- 
 vertrel. Genugth. p. 68 ff. ; Philippi, Dogm. 
 
 IV. 2, p. 294 ff. 
 
 7 See, with regard to this passage, Oehler 
 in Herzog’s Hneykl. X. p. 648. 
 
 8 As Heinsius (corntroverted by Salmasius, 
 de foen. Trap. p. 121 ff.), Estius, Locke, 
 Baumgarten, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
 others would take it. 
 
 ® Salmasius, Schleusner. 
 
 10 Heinsius. 
 
 11 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 275 f. 
 
 12 Comp. ver. 12. Dio Chrys. p. 360 B: 
 otaow dé ovdé ovomacery akétov map’ vmiv, “It 
 is improper for you even to mention the 
 
492 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 Kadac mpérer dytowc] namely, that these vices should not once be mentioned 
 among them. So aicypa dvéuara, ‘‘ such disgraceful words” ’ are they ! 
 
 Ver. 4. Alc ypéryc] abomination, disgraceful conduct.? Most expositors, in- 
 cluding Riickert, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen,* limit it to disgraceful utter- 
 ances, but without warrant of linguisticusage (this would be aicypodoyia, see 
 Col. iii. 8; Xen. de rep. Lac. v. 6 ; Aristot. derep. vii. 17 ; Polyb. viii. 18. 8, 
 xii. 13. 3) ; or in the context, in which it is only the following elements 
 that contain the unchristian speaking. — wwpodoyia] is the carrying on of in- 
 sipid, foolish talk.4 — evtparedia] signifies properly ready versatility from rpéra 
 and 3), urbanity ; then specially a witty, jesting manner ; and in a bad 
 sense, as here, the witticism of frivolity, scurrilitas, ‘‘ scurrility.” > [See Note 
 L., p. 524.]— rad ob« avijxovra] as that which is unseemly. Comp. Winer, 
 pp. 221, 888 f. It refers only to wwporoyia and eitparedia, since for aicypéryg 
 such a characteristic description would be entirely superfluous, and aA2a waArov 
 ebyaptotia] points back merely to those peccata oris, ‘‘ oral sins.”—aAAd pardov 
 evyapiotia| From the preceding ju7dé dvouatéodo év iuiv we have here to supply 
 éotw or ywwéoVw év ipiv, which is contained therein, in accordance with a well- 
 known brachylogy.® evyapioria is, according to standing usage,’ not grace- 
 Sulness of speech, as Jerome, Calvin,® Salmasius, Cajetanus, Hammond, Sem- 
 ler, Michaelis, Wahl, Meier, and others would take it, which would be 
 evyapt, but giving of thanks, in which case there results a contrast far more 
 in keeping with the Christian character and the profoundly vivid piety of 
 the apostle (comp. Col. ii. 7, iii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. v.18). Gratitude towards 
 God (for the salvation in Christ), expressing itself in their discourse, is to 
 supersede among Christians the two faults before mentioned, and to sanctify 
 their oral intercourse. ‘‘ Linguae abusui opponitur sanctus et tamen laetus 
 usus,” ‘‘the holy and yet joyful use of the tongue is opposed to its abuse,” 
 Bengel. Morus erroneously refers it to thanksgiving towards others; ‘‘ the 
 language of courtesy.” 
 
 Ver. 5. Paul returns to the vices mentioned ver. 3, and assigns the reason 
 for their prohibition. ——iore y.véckovrec| indicative ; Paul appeals to the con- 
 sciousness of the readers, which, considering their familiarity with the prin- 
 ciple laid down, was at all events more natural to him, and more in keep- 
 ing with the destination as a motive (yap), than the imperative sense.® The 
 participle, however, is not here to be explained from the well-known 
 
 faction.” Herod. i. 188: dooa 8 ode moréecy 41: 
 
 ovK e£eatt, TavTa ovde Aéyeww éEeorte, ‘* What it 
 is not allowable to do, itis not allowable 
 even to mention.” Dem. 1259, 17: &@ Kat 
 ovopaGerv OKvycarm’ av, ‘* which I would hesi- 
 tate even to mention.” 
 
 1 Plat. ep. p. 344 B, and Stallbaum in Joc. 
 
 2 Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A. 
 
 3 Not Matthies and Harless. 
 
 4 Antig. de Mirab. 126: pwpodrwyias Kai 
 adodecxias, “idle talk and frivolity,” Arist. 
 H, A.i. 11; Plut. Mor. 504 A. 
 
 * See in general, Wetstein ad loc. ; Dis- 
 sen, ad Pind. p. 180; Kriiger on Thue. ii. 
 
 § Kiihner, IT. p. 604. : 
 
 7 Comp. also Loesner, Obss. p. 345 f. 
 
 8“*Sermones nostros vera suavitate et 
 gratia perfusos esse debere, quod fiet, si 
 miscebimus utile dulci,” ‘‘ Our conversation 
 should be pervaded with true sweetness 
 and grace, which will occur if we will 
 mingle the useful with the sweet.” 
 
 ® Vulgate, Valla, Castalio, Vatablus, 
 Erasmus Schmid, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, 
 Bengel, Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, Ols- 
 hausen, Bleek, and others. 
 
CHAP: Vs, 5: 493 
 Hebrew and Greek mode of connecting the finite verb with its participle,’ 
 inasmuch as yevdéck. is another verb ; but it denotes the way and manner of 
 the knowing.*—7rdc. . . ov« éyer}] See on iv. 29, and Winer, p. 155. — dc 
 éotwv eidwAoAatpye| applies to the covetous man, whom Paul declares in a meta- 
 phorical sense to be an idolater, inasmuch as such an one has made money 
 and property his god, and has fallen away from the service of the true God 
 (comp. Matt. vi. 24). Comp. Phil. iii. 19 ; Col. iii. 5; and the passages 
 from Philo and the Rabbins, which express the same mode of regarding 
 covetousness and other vices, in Wetstein, and Schéttgen.? Doubtless zopveia 
 and axaapoia are also subtle idolatry ; but only with regard to avarice 
 does Paul, here and at Col. iii. 5, bring it into special relief, in order with 
 thoroughly deterrent force to make this felt kav’ éoyfv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 
 as antichristian (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 10). For Paul, in particular, whose all- 
 sacrificing self-denial (2 Cor. vi. 10, xi. 27) stood so sharply contrasted with 
 that self-seeking passion, such a peculiar branding of wAeoveEia was very nat- 
 ural. Zachariae, Koppe,‘ Meier, Harless, as also Fritzsche, * refer 6¢ éotvv eidw2.. 
 to all three subjects. Unnecessary deviation from that which after the singu- 
 lar of the relative must most naturally suggest itself to the reader, and op- 
 posed to the parallel Col. iii. 5, where ric éoriv eidwAoAarTpeia has its reference 
 merely to the zAcovegia assured by the use of the article ryv mAcoveeiav, and it 
 is only afterwards that the comprehension of the before-named vices by 
 means of the neuter plural dv’ @ comes in. — ov« éyee KAypovouiav] Comp. on 
 i. 11. By means of the present tense the certain future relation is realized as 
 present.®° —év 7H Baows. tov Xpiotov x. Ocov] for the Messianic kingdom be- 
 longs to Christ and God, since Christ and God shall have the government of 
 this kingdom. Christ opens it at His Parousia, and rules it under the su- 
 preme dominion of God (1 Cor. xv. 27) until the final consummation, where- 
 upon He yields it up to God as the sole ruler (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). But, after 
 Beza, Zanchius, Glass, Bengel,’ Riickert and Harless have explained it, on 
 the ground of the non-repetition of the article : ‘‘of Him, who is Christ and 
 God,” so that Christ is here spoken of as God.* Incorrectly, since @ed¢ had 
 no need of an article (see Winer, p. 110 f.; comp. BaciAsia Oeov, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 
 10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21), and Christ, in accordance with the strict monothe- 
 ism of the apostle (comp. iv. 6), could not be called by him @ed¢ in the abso- 
 lute sense, and never has at all been called by him Gedc. See on Rom, ix. 
 
 1 Winer, p. 317 f. 
 
 = This you are aware of from your own 
 knowledge, so that I need not first to instruct 
 you with regard to it, that, ete. Comp. the 
 classic opay kai axovwy oida, ‘*I know by see- 
 ing and hearing,’ Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 14. 
 Tovrto thus applies to the following or, 
 not to ver. 3 f.,as Winer maintains. See 
 Kihner, II. § 631. 2. 
 
 3 Horae, p. 779. 
 
 4 Koppe, we may add, allows a choice be- 
 tween two arbitrary alterations of the lit- 
 eral meaning. The sense in his view is 
 either: “quae quidem flagilia regnant inter 
 
 gentiles idololatras,”’ ‘‘ which crimes prevail 
 indeed among Gentile idolaters,” or: ‘‘ as 
 little as an idolater.”’ 
 
 5 De conformat. N. T. critica Lachm. I. 
 1841, p. 46. 
 
 § See Bernhardy, p. 371. 
 
 7 Comp. also Calovius. 
 
 8 Yet Riickert is of opinion, inconsistently 
 enough, that the question whether Paul in 
 reality here meant it so cannot be decided, 
 because he is not here speaking of Christ 
 in general, but only incidentally making 
 mention of His kingdom, 
 
494 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 5: Col. ii. 2.?. The designation of the kingdom as faovieia of Christ and of 
 God is climactic (comp. on Gal. i. 1), and renders the warning element more 
 solemn and more powerful to deter, through the contrast with the supreme 
 holiness of the kingdom.? — On the proposition itself, comp. Gal. v. 21. 
 
 Ver. 6. Let no one deceive you with empty words! In those against whom 
 the warning is here given, Grotius sees partly heathen philosophers, partly 
 Jews, which last ‘‘ omnibus Judaizantibus, quomodecunque vixissent, partem ~ 
 fore dicebant in seculo altero,” ‘‘ said that for all Judaizers no matter how 
 they lived there would be a part in the world to come.” Olshausen * thinks 
 of frivolous Christians of antinomian sentiments, who would in future 
 emerge ; Meier, of teachers of Gentile tendencies. In accordance with the 
 context (é7i rove viod¢ Tio amevteiac, cvupétoyoL a’TOY, WTE yap ToTE oKéToOc) We 
 have to understand Gentiles who have remained unbelieving, who in their in- 
 tercourse with the Christians sought to palliate those Gentile vices, to give 
 them out as matters of indifference, to represent abstaining from the same 
 as groundless rigor, and thereby to entice back the Christians to the Gentile 
 life. Their discourses were xévor, inasmuch as the corresponding contents, 
 i.e., the truth, was wanting to them.’ — da tavra yap «.7.2.] for certainly 
 very serious consequences follow these vices : on account of these vices (Sd 
 raira emphatically prefixed) comes (down) the wrath of God upon the dis- 
 obedient, for this vicious conduct piles up the load of guilt one day to re- 
 ceive punishment (Rom. ii. 5), from which they could be liberated only by 
 means of faith in Christ, the despising of whom leaves them to abide under 
 the wrath of God and to encounter its judicial execution. To refer ravra 
 to the deceiving with empty words,® has against it not so much the plural— 
 since raira often also in classical writers denotes (see Winer, p. 146) one 
 notion or thought (according to the aggregate of its several marks)—as 
 rather the unsuitability of the sense in itself and to the following j7 oiv 
 yiveobe k.7.A. as well as to the parallel Col. iii. 6. — 7 épyy tov Oeov] Not the 
 punishment of the present life is meant,° since the dpy7 tov Ocov is the opposite 
 of the Baoireia, ver. 5 ; but the wrath of God in the day of judgment, which 
 future, as in ver. 5, is realized as present. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 10. —The 
 vioi tH¢ ated. are here those refusing faith to the gospel, and thereby diso- 
 bedient to God. It is otherwise ii. 2. Comp. Rom. xi. 30, xv. 31. 
 
 Ver. 7. Ov] since on account of these sins, ete. — cuupétoyou avtov] abtov 
 can, in keeping with the context, only be referred to the viode rao arevd., 
 whose co-partners the Christians become, if they practise the same sins, 
 whereby they fall from the state of reconciliation (Rom. xi. 22 ; 2 Pet. ili. 
 17) and incur the divine opyf (ver. 5). Koppe’s interpretation : ‘‘ejusdem 
 cum iis fortunae compotem fieri,” ‘‘to become participant of the same fort- 
 
 1Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. IT. p. 299 f. ; also KevoAoyia, empty talk, Plut. 
 
 p. 203 f. Mor. p. 1069 C ; KevoAoyetv, Isa. vill. 19. 
 2 Comp. also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. 5 Chrysostom places both explanations 
 p. 207 f. side by side; comp. Theophylact and 
 3 Comp. Bleek. Oecumenius. 
 
 *i Comp Cole sit. Sis xON Ee ay, dea 6 Calvin, Meier, and others; Matthies 
 Plat. Lach. p. 196 B; Dem. 821, 11; Hom. combines present and future. 
 Od. xxii. 249, and the passages in Kypke, 
 
CHAP. V.; ‘8559. 495 
 une with them,” is an importation at variance with the context (see vv. 8— 
 11). — As to cuupéroyoc, see on iii. 6. 
 
 Ver. 8. Reason assigned for the exhortation just given : For your former 
 state of darkness (with which those vices were in keeping) is past ; now, 
 on the other hand, ye are Christianly enlightened. ; as befits such, let your 
 walk be. — jre] prefixed with significant stress, has the force of ‘a ground 
 assigned as practerite, just as at Rom. vi. 17. Riickert incorrectly holds 
 that Paul has omitted yév, which is at variance with good composition. The 
 non-use of yév has its logical ground, and that in the fact, that the clause is 
 not conceived in relation to that which thereupon confronts it by dé. Just so 
 in classical writers, where pév seems to be wanting.’ —cxéroc] Abstrac- 
 tum pro concreto, ‘‘ abstract for concrete,” to make the designation the 
 stronger (Kiihner, II. p. 25 f.) : dark, by which the opposite of the posses- 
 sion of divine truth is denoted. — viv dé «.7.A.] now on the other 
 hand, since your conversion, how entirely different is it with you, 
 how entirely different must your walk be! Light in the Lord are 
 ye, i.e., furnished with divine truth in your fellowship with Christ, 
 in whom, as the source and giver of light (ver. 14), ye live and move. 
 Comp. i. 
 ones. 
 they are now to show themselves in their walk. 
 tation comes in with the greater energy.’ 
 
 Ver. 9. Parenthetic incitement to the observance of the preceding sum- 
 mons, by holding forth the glorious fruit which the Christian illumination 
 bears ; doxiwdfovrec is then (ver. 10) accompanying definition to repirarteize, 
 and the jj cvycowwveite, ver. 11, continues the imperative form of address. 
 For taking the participle of ver. 10 as grammatically incorrect in the sense 
 of the imperative * there is absolutely no ground. — jap] for, not the merely 
 explanatory namely, which introduces into the whole paraenetic chain of the 
 discourse something feeble and alien. — 6 xapréc tov gwrd¢] indicates in a fig- 
 urative manner the aggregate of the moral effects (kapzé¢ collective, as in 
 Matt. ili. 8 ; Phil. i. 11) which the Christian enlightenment has as its result. 
 Comp. on Gal. v. 22.4— év réoy ayafwcivy] se. éori, so that every kind of 
 probity (ayafwc., see on Rom. xv. 14 ; Gal. v. 22), ete., is thought of as that, 
 in which the fruit is contained (consists).*— dicaocivy] moral rectitude, 
 Rom. vi. 13, xiv. 17. See on Phil. i. 11.°—<aiybeia] moral truth, opposed 
 to hypocrisy as ethical ypeddoc, 1 Cor. v. 8; Phil. i. 18, iv. 8; John iii. 21. 
 
 18. — oc réxva dwrtdc| as children of light, i.e., as enlightened 
 Comp: (1) Thess. -v.; 6°; Luke xvi. 83 John xii. 36: As such 
 Without oiv the exhor- 
 
 1 See Kriiger, Anqd. ili. 4. 41; Bornemann, 
 ad Cyrop. iii. 2. 12, Goth. ; Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 356 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 388. 
 
 2Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 
 C; Dissen, ad Pind. Exe. II. p. 276. 
 
 3 Bleek, following Koppe. 
 
 4 Where what is here termed xapzr. tod 
 dwtos is called xapz. trod mvevpatos. Not as 
 though mvedua and das were one and the 
 same thing (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 390), 
 but the Spirit, through whom God and 
 
 Christ dwell in the heart, Rom. viii. 9, pro- 
 duces the $as inthe heart (2 Cor. iv.6; Eph. 
 i. 17 f.), so that the fruit of the Spivit is al- 
 so the fruit of the light, and vice versd. 
 Nor is the fruit of the word sown upon the 
 good ground anything different. 
 
 5 Comp. Matthiae, p. 1342. 
 
 6 According to Pnil. i. 11, the Christian 
 moral rectitude has again its capzos in the 
 several Christian virtues, which are the ex- 
 pressions of its life. 
 
496 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 The general nature of these three words, which together embrace the whole 
 of Christian morality, and that under the three different points of view 
 ‘‘ good, right, true,” forbids the assumption of more special contrasts, as 
 e.g. in Chrysostom : ayafwc. is opposed to wrath, dccavoc. to seduction and 
 deceit, 4270. to lying. Others present the matter otherwise ; see Theophy- 
 lact, Erasmus, Grotius. 
 
 Ver. 10. Aoxiydfovrec] after the parenthesis in ver. 9, a modal definition of 
 the walk called for in ver. 8, which is to be prosecuted under a searching 
 consideration of what is well-pleasing to Christ (r@ kvpiw), as to which sub- 
 jectively the Christian conscience (Rom. xiv. 23) and objectively the gospel 
 of Christ (iv. 20 ; Rom. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 27) give the decision. Comp. ver. 
 15> Rom. xn? 5-1 hess. vy. 2h. 
 
 Ver. 11. Svyxowwveire] have not fellowship with (the disobedient) im the 
 works of darkness (comp. ver. 7 ; and as regards the dative, see on Phil. iv. 
 14), z.e., in those works, which are wrought in consequence of spiritual dark- 
 ness—of the ethical frame of mind opposed to divine truth. Comp. Rom. 
 xiii, 12. They are the épya rovypa (Col. i. 21), the épya tHe capkdg (Gal. v. 
 21), the vexpa épya (Heb. vi. 1), the épya aceBeiag (Jude 15). — roic axdpracc| 
 the non-fruitful ones, inasmuch, namely, as they draw no blessing after them. 
 The perdition which they have as result (Rom. vi. 21, vill. 13 ; Gal. vi. 8 ; 
 Eph. iv. 22, al.) is conceived as negation of blessedness (comp. ver. 5). 
 Comp. épya vexpd, Heb. vi. 1, ix. 14. —addov 62 Kai] but rather even, imo adeo. 
 See on Gal. iv. 9; Rom. ix. 34. Bengel well remarks : ‘‘ non satis absti- 
 nere est,” ‘‘it is not enough to abstain.” — é2éyyere] reprove them (these 
 works), which occurs when they are not passed over in silence and indul- 
 gently excused, but are held up with censure to the doer, and have their 
 immorality discovered and brought home, in order to produce amendment. 
 This chastening reproof is an oral one, since the context does not intimate 
 anything else ; not one de facto, ‘‘ expressed in deeds,” * not ‘‘ dictis et fac- 
 tis,” ‘*by words and deeds.” ? Comp. on John iii. 20, xvi. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 
 24. 
 
 Ver. 12 assigns the reason for the demand just expressed, éAéyyere, by 
 pointing to what quite specially needed the é2éyyew,—by pointing to the 
 secret vicious acts of the unbelievers, which are so horrible, that one must 
 feel ashamed even but to mention them. Thus, consequently, the ééyyere 
 has its ground assigned as concerns its great necessity. — kpvdj] not elsewhere 
 in the N. T.* in the protasis has the emphasis,—hence it is prefixed,-_and 
 denotes that which takes place in secret, in the darkness of seclusion. More 
 special references, such as to the horrible excesses in connection with the 
 heathen mysteries,* or even to the ‘‘ familiam Simonis Magi, quae erat infanda- 
 
 1“Sancta nimirum et honesta vita,” 
 “doubtless a holy and honorable life,” 
 Beza: comp. Erasmus, Cameron, Zanchius. 
 
 2 Bengel; comp. Theophylact, Photius, 
 Calovius, Holzhausen, Olshausen, and 
 others. 
 
 3 But see Deut. xxviii. 57; Wisd. xviii. 9: 
 
 3 Macc. iv. 12; Xen. Symp. v. 8; Pind. Ol. 
 i. 75; Soph. Trach. 686, Antig. 85 ; to be writ- 
 ten with Iota subsecriptum, Ellendt, Lew. 
 Soph. I. p. 992; Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. 
 p. 6 f. 
 
 4 Elsner, Wolf, Michaelis, Holzhausen. 
 
CHAP. V., 12. 497 
 
 rum libidinum magistra,” ‘‘establishment of Simon Magus which was the 
 mistress of dreadful lusts,” ! have just as little warrant in the context as the 
 weakening of the meaning of the word by Morus, who understands thereby 
 the mores domesticos, ‘‘domestic habits,” of the Gentiles. According to 
 Koppe,? Meier, Harless, and Olshausen, the xpv¢f yevdueva are not meant to 
 be specially the secret deeds of vice, but the épya tov oxdrove in general, 
 which are so designated in accordance with the view conditioned by oxéroc.$ 
 But against this may be urged, first, the fact that oxéroc¢ (here in the ethical 
 sense) and xpvd@ are quite different notions, inasmuch as manifest vice also 
 is an épyov Tov cxétovc, whereas only the peccata occulta, ‘‘ secret sins,” take 
 place xpvéy ; secondly, the emphasis, which the prefixing of xpvd7 demands 
 for this word, and which, if «ovd7 denoted nothing special, would be entire- 
 ly lost, so that Paul might have written merely ra yap yuwéueva bw adrov ; 
 thirdly, the contrast of the following ¢avepotvra, which presupposes in the 
 éhéyxew something which had been done secretly ;* and lastly, that it would 
 in fact be quite an exaggerated assertion to say of the sins of the Gentiles gen- 
 erally, that it is a shame even to mention them. — iz’ aitév] by the viol ric 
 areieiac. — kai Aéyew | even only * to say, what they in secret do, one must be 
 ashamed.® The tacit contrast is the zoeiv of the doers. Compare the pdé 
 of ver. 3. 
 
 Remark.—The confirmatory relation of ver. 12 to what precedes has 
 been very variously apprehended, and with various definitions of the sense 
 itself. Calvin, anticipating, holds that the intention is to state what is 
 accomplished by the éAeyéic ; thereby light is brought into their secret things, 
 “ut sua turpitudine pudefiant,’’ ‘‘that they may become ashamed of their 
 baseness,” comparing 1 Cor. xiv. 24. Of this there is mention only in the 
 sequel. Entirely at variance with the words is the view of Grotius (comp. 
 Calovius): ‘nam nisi id fiat, audebunt etiam clam turpiora,” ‘for unless he 
 were to do this, they will dare secretly even baser things.’’ Bengel (comp. 
 already in Oecumenius) finds in ver. 12 the cause adduced, ‘‘cur indefinite 
 loquatur ver. 11 de operibus tenebrarum, cum fructum lucis ver. 9 definite de- 
 scripserit,’’ ‘‘ why he speaks indefinitely, ver. 11, of the works of darkness when 
 he definitely described, ver. 9, the fruit of light.” Imported, and opposed to 
 the emphatic xpv¢7. While, moreover, Koppe translates yap by doubtless [zwar], 
 Rickert wishes at least to supply a doubtless. ‘‘Doubtless their secret sins are 
 not of such kind that they can be mentioned with honor, yet it belongs to you, 
 as children of the light, to convince them of the wickedness of their actings.”’ 
 But the supplying of év is pure invention. See on ver. 8. Quite mistaken 
 also is the explanation of Meier: ‘‘ Yes, reprove them severely and openly to 
 the face ; for the merely unconcerned speaking and telling of such deeds of 
 shame secretly committed is likewise disgraceful, unworthy, and mean.” This 
 
 1 Estius. tioned and unlawful.” 
 2 Flagitia quaevis, ‘“‘ any kind of crimes.” 5 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 136. 
 3 See Harless. ®§ Comp. Plat. Rep, p. 465 C : ocv@ Kat Aéyewv, 
 
 4 Comp. Heliodorus, viii. p. 397 : 6 rHs Sikys “T hesitate even to mention,’ Dem. 1262, 11: 
 OPOadmos eAcyywv Kal TA aunvuTA Kpvdia Kat  & wOAAHY alaoxVryv ExeL Kat A€yewy, ‘* Which are 
 abéuita dwtigwr, “the eye of justice con- very shameful even to mention,” and the 
 victing and enlightening secrets unmen- passages in Wetstein. 
 
 32 
 
498 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Paul would at least have expressed thus: 70 yap Aéyew povov (antithesis to 7d 
 éhéyyewv) Ta Kpugy br’ adT@v ywvdueva aicxp. éott. Impossible, likewise, is Holz- 
 hausen’s interpretation : ‘‘ The sins committed in the darkness of the heathen 
 mysteries the Christians are not to disclose; they are not even to utter the names 
 thereof, they are tooabominable.’’ Apart from the consideration how singular 
 such a precept must appear face to face with the decidedly moral character of 
 the apostle, apart also from the fact that the mysteries are purely imported (see 
 above), such a view should have been precluded as well by the yap in itself 
 (since, in fact, no counterpart of kpvdq precedes), as by the succeeding ra dé 
 xavrta, which, according to Holzhausen, is meant to signify the vices, ‘which 
 can endure your light.” Following Anselm, Piscator, Vorstius, Zanchius, 
 Flatt, Harless finally discovers in ver. 12 the assigning of a reason not for the 
 éhéyyete, Which is held to follow only with ver. 13, but for u7 cvyKxowvwveite roc 
 épyoue Tole dkdpT. Tov oxérov¢: ‘‘ for even but to mention their secret deeds is a 
 shame, to say nothing of doing them.’ But against this the right apprehension 
 of the emphatic xpvg7 (see above) is decisive ; moreover, the exhortation “7 
 ovykolvwveite K.T.A., has already, in what precedes, such repeated and such 
 specifically Christian grounds assigned for it (vv. 3, 4, 5, 8, as also further 7roi¢ 
 axaprocc, ver. 11), that the reader, after a new thought has been introduced 
 with ywaiAov, could not at all expect a second ground to be assigned for the 
 previous one, least of all such a general one—-containing no essentially Christian 
 eround—as would be afforded by ver. 12, but rather would expect a ground 
 to be assigned for the new thought mdAAov dé nai éAéyyere Which had just been 
 introduced. 
 
 Ver. 13. The assigning of grounds for that precept, waAdov dé kat éAéyyere, 
 is continued, —being attached by means of the contradistinguishing dé,—in- 
 asmuch as there is pointed out the salutary action of the Christian light 
 which is brought to bear by means of the required ¢7.éyyew upon all those 
 secret deeds of shame : But everything (all those secret sins), when it is re- 
 proved, when you carry that é2éyyere into effect upon it, is by the light (ixo 
 tov gwtéc has the emphasis) made manifest, is laid bare in its real moral char- 
 acter, unveiled and brought into distinctness before the moral consciousness 
 by the light of Christian truth which is at work in your éAéyyew ; by the 
 light, I say, it is made manifest, for,—in order to prove by a general propo- 
 sition that this cannot come otherwise than from the light—all that which is 
 made manifest, which is brought forth from concealment and is laid open in 
 its true nature, és /ight, has ceased thereby to have the nature of darkness, 
 and is now of the essence of light. This demonstrative proposition is based 
 upon the inference : ‘‘Quod est in effectu, ‘what it is in effect’ (gG¢ eave), 
 id debet esse in causa, ‘it ought to be in cause’ (izé rod gwrdc).” Tf thus 
 there is warrant for the general ray 7d gavepodu. ¢@¢ éo7r, So must there also 
 be warrant for what was previously said in the Christian sense, i776 Tow 
 aT d¢ davepoita. [See Note LI., p. 524seq.] From this simple explanation 
 of the words it becomes at once clear that we have not, with most expositors, ! 
 to attach ir rod ¢. to édeyyoueva, but to gavepodra:,? to which it is emphat- 
 
 1JIncluding Baumgarten-Crusius and de Schmid, Estius, Bengel, Meier, Harless, 
 
 Wette. Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek. 
 2Castalio, Zanchius, Zeger, Erasmus 
 
CHAP. V., 13. 499 
 eally prefixed ; and further, that davepotuevor is not to be taken as middle, 
 in which case again various explanations have been brought out, namely, 
 either : ‘“‘ZLux enim illud est, quod omnia facit manifesta,” ‘‘for that is 
 light which makes all things manifest,” Tor: ‘* Omne enim illud, quod mani- 
 Testa facit alia, lux est,” ‘‘for everything that makes other things man- 
 ifest is light,”* or: ‘‘Quilibet autem, ‘For every one’ [ydp !], qui alios 
 docet, est lux, . . . eo ipso declarat, se esse verum Christianum,” ‘‘ who 
 teaches others is a light... and by this very thing declares that 
 it is true Christianity,” * or : ‘‘he who does not refuse to be made manifest, 
 becomes an enlightened one,” Bengel,—against which interpretations not 
 only the immediately preceding passive gavepovra is decisive, but also lin- 
 guistic usage, in accordance with which ¢gavepoipar is always passive.t And 
 if we adhere to the view of ¢gavepoiu. as passive, we must exclude every ex- 
 planation, in which a quid pro quo is perpetrated, or something is imported, 
 or yap is either neglected or incorrectly taken. We have therefore to set 
 aside—(1) the explanation given by Elsner and Wolf, that Paul says : ‘‘ hom- 
 inum scelera in tenebris patrata, a fidelibus, qui lux sunt, improbata, non modo 
 protrahi in lucem, verum etiam homines, illis sceleribus inquinatos, rubore suf- 
 Sundi inerepitos convictosque, et ipsos quoque oac fieri hac ratione, emendatis 
 vitiis tenebrisque in novae vitae lucem conversis,” ‘‘ that the crimes of men 
 perpetrated in darkness, condemned by believers who are light, not only are 
 brought to the light, but also that men, stained with these crimes, chided 
 and convicted, are covered with shame, and in this way they themselves 
 become light, by the reformation of their vices, and the change of the dark- 
 ness into the light of the new life ;” (2) that of Zachariae : ‘‘ Everything 
 which is sharply tested according to the light of the doctrine of Christ and holds 
 its ground, one has no need to keep secret; . . . all, however, which one can per- 
 form openly and before every one’s eyes . . . is itself light, and strikes every 
 one as good and praiseworthy ;” (3) that of Storr : ‘* Quisquis ea, quae moni- 
 tus est a luce, audit, is patefit, emergit e tenebris ; guisquis autem patefuctus 
 est, is luce collustratus est,” ‘‘ Whoever hearkens to those things which he 
 is taught by the light is made manifest, emerges from darkness ; but who- 
 ever is made manifest is illumined by the light ;” that of Koppe :° ‘‘for 
 what is itself enlightened must be also a light for others ;” (5) that of Riickert, 
 who would refer yap to a conclusion tacitly drawn from what precedes (‘‘ ye 
 are light, consequently it is also your business éAéyyew ta éxeivwv épya’) : 
 ‘for all that is made manifest, that is, or by that very fact becomes, light,” from 
 which again the suppressed conclusion is to be drawn : consequently it may 
 be hoped that those also will become light, when they are convinced of the 
 
 
 
 1 Beza ; so Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and 
 others, as also Bleek, who in place of ave- 
 povmevoy conjectures : ¢avepovy To, 
 
 2 Erasmus Schmid; so also Cajetanus, 
 Estius, Michaelis, and others. 
 
 3 Kuinoel in Velthusen, ete., Commentatt. 
 Hie pe i73 f. 
 
 4The article before das might (this we 
 remark in opposition to Olshausen) be dis- 
 
 pensed with even in Beza’s explanation, so 
 that das €or. Would have to be translated : 
 is light-essence, has the nature of light. If, 
 however,—which is not the case,—davepovp, 
 were really to be translated as active, the 
 simplest rendering, and the one most in 
 keeping with the context, would be : for i¢ 
 is the light making everything manifest. 
 5 Comp. Cramer. 
 
500 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 reprobate character of their action ; (6) that of Meier and Olshausen : ‘‘ for 
 all that is enlightened by the light, is itself light,” ' which according to Meier 
 is equivalent to : ‘‘ becomes itself transparent and pure as light,” according 
 to Olshausen : ‘‘ becomes changed into the nature of light.” (7) Nearest to 
 our interpretation comes that of Harless, followed in part by Schenkel. 
 Harless, however, finds expressed from ra dé ravra onward the necessity of 
 the é4éyyerv, Which is rather implied in ver. 12, to which in ver. 13 the sal-. 
 utariness of the éAéyyew attaches itself ; he explains ¢avepoiu., moreover, as 
 if it were praeterite, and does not retain trav yap 7 gavepobu. «.7.A. in its gen- 
 erality as locus communis, inasmuch as he takes ¢o¢ éorvv : is no longer a 
 secret work of darkness, but is light. — According to Baur, p. 435, the prop- 
 osition av 7 davep. d@¢ éate belongs to the Gnostic theory of light,? and has 
 been introduced into its present connection out of this quite different sphere 
 of ideas. But the state of the case is exactly the converse ; the Valentin- 
 ians laid hold of this utterance of the apostle as supporting their doctrine, 
 and expressly cited, it,* and consequently took it away from the connection 
 in which he used it so as to favor their own theory. ; 
 
 Ver. 14. This necessity and salutariness of the Aeyévc, which Paul has 
 just set forth in vv. 12, 13 (not of the mere subsidiary thought, wav yap 
 k.7.4.), he now further confirms by a word of God out of the Scripture. — 
 66] wherefore,—because the é2éyyere is so highly necessary as I have shown in 
 ver. 12, and of such salutary effect as is seen from ver. 13,—wherefore he 
 saith: Up, thou sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon 
 thee. This call of God to the viol rij¢ aveeiacg to awake out of the sleep and 
 death of sin confirms the necessity of the éAeyEc, and this promise : ‘‘ Christ 
 shall shine upon thee,” confirms the salutary influence of the light, under 
 which they are placed by the éiéyyerv. Beza refers back 6:6 to ver. 8, which 
 is erroneous for this reason, if there were no other, that the citation address- 
 es the as yet unconverted. According to Piickert,* the design is to give 
 support to the hope expressed in ver. 13, namely, that the sinner, earnestly 
 reproved and convicted, may possibly be brought over from darkness into 
 light. But see on ver. 13. With the correct interpretation of ray yap x.7.2., 
 the expositions are untenable, which are given by Meier : ‘‘on that account, 
 because only what is enlightened by the light of truth can be improved ;” 
 and by Olshausen : ‘‘ because the action of the light upon the darkness can- 
 not fail of its effect.” Harless indicates the connection only with the words 
 of Plutarch :* yaipew ypy toic éhéyyouow' . . . quae yap Avrovvteg dueyeipovow, 
 ‘* Those reproving should rejoice ; for by grieving, ‘they arouse us.” Tnex- 
 act, and—inasmuch as with Plutarch yaipem and dvrovvrec stand in em- 
 phatic correlation, and Avrowvrec thus is essential 
 
 
 
 inappropriate. — Aéyec] In- 
 troduces, with the supplying of 6 Oed¢ (as iv. 8), a passage of Scripture, of 
 which the Hebrew words would run: VS) DNDI- 7D nmypmM w muy 
 mw 1. But what passage is that? Already Jerome says: ‘‘ Wunguam 
 
 1 Olshausen. 3 rodTo SE O TavAos Aéyer x.7.A., ** And this 
 2** All development takes place only Paul says,” etc., in Iren.i. 8. 5. 
 through that which in itself already exists 4 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. 
 
 becoming manifest for the consciousness.” 5 Tom. xiy. p. 364, ed. Hutt. 
 
CHAP, V., 14. 501 
 hoc scriptum reperi,” ‘‘ Never have I found this writing.” Most expositors 
 answer: Isa. Ix. 1. So Thomas, Cajetanus, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, 
 Calovius, Surenhusius, Wolf, Wetstein, Bengel,' and others, including Har- 
 less and Olshausen ; while others at the same time bring in Isa. xxvi. 19,” 
 as also Isa. lii. 1° and Isa. ix. 1.4 But all, these passages are so essentially 
 different from ours, that we cannot with unbiassed judgment discover the 
 latter in any of them, and should have to hold our citation—if it is assumed 
 to contain Old Testament words—as a mingling of Old Testament reminis- 
 cences, nothing similar to which is met with, even apart from the fact that 
 this citation bears in itself the living impress of unity and originality ; 
 hence the less is there room to get out of the difficulty by means of Bengel’s 
 expedient : ‘‘apostolus expressius loquitur ex luce N. T.,” ‘‘The Apostle 
 speaks more expressly according to N. T. light.” Doubtless Harless says 
 that the apostle was here concerned not about the word, but about the 
 matter in general, and that he cites the word of pre-announcement with the 
 modification which it has itself undergone through fulfilment, and adduces 
 by way of analogy Rom. x. 6 ff. But in opposition to this may be urged, 
 first generally, that such a modification of Isa. lx. 1 would have been not a 
 mere modification, but would have quite done away with the identity of the 
 passage ; secondly, in particular, that the passage Isa. 1x. 1, specially ac- 
 cording to the LXX. (¢wrifov, guriov Inpovoadju, peer yap cov Td ac, Kal 
 06&a Kkupiov éxi o& avarétaAxev), needed no change whatever in order to serve 
 for the intended Scriptural confirmation, for which, moreover, various other 
 passages from the O. T. would have stood at the command of the apostle, 
 without needing any change ; and lastly, that Rom. x. 6 is not analogous, 
 because there the identity with Deut. xxx. 12-14 is unmistakably evident 
 in the words themselves, and the additions concerning Christ are not there given 
 
 
 
 as constituent parts of the Scripture utterance, but expressly indicated as 
 elucidations of the apostle (by means of rov7’ orc). Quite baseless is the view 
 of de Wette, that the author is quoting, as at iv. 8 (where, indeed, the cita- 
 tion is quite undoubted), an O. T. passage in an application which, by fre- 
 quency of use, has become so familiar to him that he is no longer precisely 
 conscious of the distinction between text and application. Others, includ- 
 ing Morus, have discovered here a quotation from an apocryphal book, under 
 which character Epiphanius names the prophecy of Elias, Georgius Syncel- 
 lus an apocryphal authority of Jeremiah, and Codex G on the margin, the 
 book (‘‘Secretum”) of Hnoch.* That, however, Paul wittingly cited an 
 apocryphal book,* is to be decisively rejected, inasmuch as this is never done 
 
 1 Who, however, at the same time follow- 
 ing older expositors in Wolf (comp. Rosen- 
 miiller, Morgenland, VI. p. 142) called to his 
 aid a reminiscence of the ‘‘ formula in festo 
 buccinarum adhiberi solita,’ ‘‘a formula 
 that used to be employed at the feast of 
 trumpets.’’ See, in opposition to the error 
 as to the existence of such a formula, 
 based upon a passage of Maimonides, Wolf, 
 Curae. 
 
 2 Beza, Calixtus, Clericus, Meier Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, and others. 
 
 3 Schenkel. 
 
 4 Baumgarten, Olshausen. 
 
 5 See, in general, Fabricius, Cod. Pseude- 
 DUO TVs) Le PP. L074) 1105s, CA mocr sesso. 
 p. 524. 
 
 6 According to Jerome, he is held not to 
 have done it, ‘‘quod apoerypha compro- 
 baret, sed quod et Arati et Epimenidis et 
 
502 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 by him, but, on the contrary, the formula of citation always means canoni- 
 cal passages. Hence, also, we have not, with Heumann,' Michaelis, Storr, 
 Stolz, Flatt, to guess at an early hymn of the Church as the source.” Others 
 have found therein a saying of Christ, like Ocder,* in opposition to which 
 may be urged, not indeed the following 6 Xpioréc, which Jesus might doubt- 
 less have said of Himself, but rather the fact that the subject Xpuorée to 
 2éyer could not be at all divined, as indeed Paul has never adduced sayings 
 of Christ in his Epistles. This also in opposition to the opinion mentioned 
 in Jerome,‘ that Paul here, after the manner of the prophets (comp. the 
 prophetic : thus saith the Lord), ‘‘ xpoowxoroiay Spiritus sancti figuraverit,” 
 ‘uttered a prosopopoeia of the Holy Ghost.” Grotius* regards even 7d ¢&¢ as 
 subject : ‘‘ Lua illa, i.e., homo luce perfusus, dicit alter,” ‘the light, 7.e., a 
 man pervaded with light, says to another.” Asif previously the gé¢ were 
 homo luce perfusus! ‘‘a man pervaded with light,” and as if every reader 
 could not but have recognized a citation as well in 0d Aéyec as in the char- 
 acter of the saying itself! Erroneously Bornemann also * holds that Aéyec 
 is to be taken impersonaliter, ‘‘impersonally ;” in this respect it is said, one 
 may say, so that no passage of Scripture is cited, but perhaps allusion is 
 made to Mark y. 41. This impersonal use is found only with @yoi. See the 
 instances cited by Bornemann, and Bernhardy, -p. 419. In view of all these 
 opinions, my conclusion, as at 1 Cor. ii. 9, is to this effect : From 6:0 Aéyee 
 it is evident that Paul desired to adduce a passage of canonical Scripture, 
 but—as the passage is not canonical—in virtue of a lapsws memoriae he ad- 
 duces an apocryphal saying, which, citing from memory, he held as canoni- 
 eal. From what Apocryphal writing the passage is drawn, we do not 
 know. [See Note LIL, p. 525.]— éyespe] up! Comp. dye, érevye. See, in op- 
 position to the form of the Recepta éyepa," Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 55 f. — 
 6 xafetduv] and then éx vexp&v form a climactic twofold description of the 
 state of man under the dominion of sin, in which state the true spiritual 
 life, the moral vital activity, is suppressed and gone, as is the physical life 
 in the sleeping (comp. Rom. xiii. 11) and in the dead respectively. Comp. 
 Isa. ix. 10. How often with the classical writers, too, the expression dead 
 is employed for the expression of moral insensibility, see on Matt. viii. 22 ; 
 Luke xv. 14; Musgrave, ad Oed. R. 45 ; Bornemann, in Luc. p. 97.°— dv- 
 
 
 
 Menandri versibus sit abusus ad ea, quae 
 voluerat, in tempore comprobanda,” 
 “because he approved the Apocrypha, but 
 because he adapted the verses of Aratus, 
 Epimenides, and Menander to those things 
 that he wished at the time to be approved.” 
 
 1 Poicile, II. p. 390. 
 
 2This opinion is already mentioned by 
 Theodoret: tuvés -6€ Tov EpunvevtwY epacav 
 TVEVLATLKHS XapLTos agiwwOevTas Tivas Wadpmovs 
 ovyypavar, ““some of the interpreters said 
 that those endowed with spiritual grace 
 composed certain psalms,” in connection 
 with which they had appealed to 1 Cor. xiy. 
 26. Bleek, too, ad /oc., and already in the 
 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 331, finds it probable 
 that the saying is taken from a writing 
 composed by a Christian poet of that early 
 age. 
 
 3 Syntagm. Obss. sacr. p. 697 ff. 
 
 4 Comp. also Bugenhagen and Calixtus, 
 
 > Comp. Koppe. 
 
 6 Schol.in Luc. p. xlviii. f. 
 
 7 So also Lachmann. 
 
 8 Ono cadevdwy, comp. Sohar. Levit. f. 
 383, c. 180: ** Quotiescunque lex occurrit, toties 
 omnia hominum genera excitat, verum omnes 
 somno sepulti jacent in peccatis, nihil intelli- 
 gunt neque attendunt,”’ “ As often as the law 
 occurs, it excites all classes of men, but 
 
CHAPH Vie, clo, 16: 503 
 
 éo7a] On the form, see Winer, p. 73 ; Matthiae, p. 484. — érid¢atboer] from 
 éxidaboxw, see Winer, p. 82; Job xxv. 5, xxxi. 26. The readings érupaioer 
 co. 6 Xp. and ixupatioere tov Xp. are ancient,' and are not to be explained 
 merely from an accidental interchange in copying, but are connected with 
 the preposterous fiction that the words were addressed to Adam buried 
 under the cross of Christ, whom Christ would touch with His body and 
 blood, thereby causing him to become alive and to rise. See Jerome. The 
 words themselves : Christ shall shine upon thee, signify not: He will be 
 gracious to thee,? but : He will by the gracious operation of His Spirit 
 annul in thee the ethical darkness,* and impart to thee the divine a2/Aea, 
 of which He is the possessor and bearer (Christ, the light of the world). 
 Observe, moreover, that the arising is not an act of cne’s own, indepen- 
 dent of God and anticipating His gracious operation, but that it takes place 
 only through God’s effectual awakening call. On this effectual calling then 
 ensues the Christian enlightening. 
 
 Ver. 15. Oiv] is, after the digression begun with pwaAdov dé Kai édéyyere of 
 ver. 11, resumptive, as at iv. 17. Look then to it—now to return to my ex- 
 hortations with regard to the Christian walk, vv. 8-10—how ye, ete. Cal- 
 vin, whom Harless follows, states the connection thus: ‘‘ Si aliorum dis- 
 cutere tenebras fideles debent fulgure suo,quanto minus caecutire debent in 
 proprio vitae instituto,” ‘‘If believers ought by their brightness to dis- 
 perse the darkness of others, how much less should they be blind in their 
 own course of life.” This would be correct, if Paul had written Biérere ov 
 aitoi, Or BAéreTe odv, THC avToi. — BAérere] is the simple : look to, take heed to 
 (1 Cor: xvi. 10); Phil. iii. 2; Col. iv. 17), not: ‘ utimini luce vestra ad 
 videndum,” ‘‘ use your light for seeing,” Estius,4 which is forbidden by rac. — 
 mac aKkpiBac Tepiareite| 7H ¢ not equivalent to iva,° and repirareire not for the 
 subjunctive,® but : look to it, in what manner ye carry out the observance of an exact 
 walk in strict accord with duty.? Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Mritzschior. 
 Opusc. p. 208f.; Winer, p. 269. —p7 dc doogo, x.7.A.] Epexegesis of the axpr- 
 fac just mentioned, negative and positive : presenting yourselves in your walk 
 not as unwise, but aswise. We have thus tosupply neither repuratowvrec * nor 
 anything else ; but, like axpifac, its more precise definition py d¢ dcogor K.T.A. 
 is dependent on reperareite. With regard to m7, referring to BAgmere, see 
 Winer, p. 421; and for the emphatic parallelismus antitheticus, ‘‘ anti- 
 thetical parallelism,” comp. Niigelsbach,® Bremi,’’ Winer, p. 537 f. 
 
 Ver. 16. Accompanying modal definition to the preceding dc cddor : ementes 
 vobis, ‘‘ buying for yourselves” (middle) opportunitatum, ‘‘the opportunity,” 
 i.e., in that you make your own the right point of time for such walk, do not let 
 it pass by unused. In this figurative conception the doing of that for which 
 
 they all lie in sins, buried in sleep, and 5 Koppe. 
 
 neither understand, nor attend to aught.” 6 Grotius. 
 1 See Chrysostom and Jerome ad loc. 7 Comp. axptBodicatos, Arist. Hth. Nic. v. 
 2So, at variance with the context, Bret- 10. 8. 
 
 schneider. 5 Harless. 
 3 Avwv THY VUKTa TIS auaptias, ** dispersing 8 Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 80 f. 
 
 the night of sin,’ Gregory of Nazianzus. 10 4a Dem. de Chers. p. 108, 73. 
 
 4 Comp. Erasmus. 
 
504 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 the point of time is fitted, is thought of as the purchase-price, by which the 
 xarpoc becomes ours.’ Others have thought of the sacrifice of all earthly things 
 and of all lusts asthe purchase-price ;? but this is imported, since the context 
 yields nothing else than the fulfilment of duty meant by the axpiBag zepura- 
 relv ; hence we have not, with Harless, to interpret it of the right moment 
 ‘‘for letting the light of correction break in upon the darkness of sin,” ® 
 which would be to revert, at variance with the context, to the topic of the 
 éAeyéic already ended. Luther‘ incorrectly renders : ‘‘ Suit yourselves to the 
 time.” That would be dovdevery tg KarpO, Rom. xii. 11. Similarly also 
 Grotius :° ‘‘quovis labore ac verborum honestis obsequtis vitate pericula et 
 diem de die ducite,” ‘‘In any labor, and honorable obedience of wérds, 
 avoid dangers and pass the time.” Comp. Bengel, who compares Amos v. 
 13, and understands the prudent letting the evil day pass over ‘‘ quiescendo 
 vel certe modice © endo,” ‘‘by resting, or certainiy by working moder- 
 ately,”” where better time is purchased, in order to make the more use 
 thereof. b _osition to Grotius and Bengel, it may be urged that this 
 alleged mode of the éZayopafevw tov karpév is not mentioned by Paul, but im- 
 ported by the expositor, and that the counsel of such a trimming behavior 
 is hardly compatible with the moral decision of the apostle, and with his ex- 
 pectation of the approaching end of the aidy oiroc. We may add that the 
 compound i€ayop. is not here to be understood as redeem (Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), 
 as ¢.g., Bengel would take it (from the power of evil men), and Calvin (from 
 the devil), seeing that the context does not suggest such reference ; but the 
 éx in the composition is intensive, and denotes what is entire, utter, as also 
 in Plut. Crass. 2 ; Polyb. iii. 42. 2; Dan. ii. 8. [See Note LIIL., p. 525. ] — 
 bre ai yépar TovApai eioc| Supplies a motive for the éfay. r. xarp., for the days, 
 the present times, are evil, for moral corruption is now in vogue. Somuch the 
 more must it intimately concern you as Christians (for how exalted is their 
 task above the wickedness of the present time! Phil. ii. 15, ili. 20) rov 
 Karpov éEayopalecba:.  Beza, Flacius, Grotius, Hammond, Rosenmiiller, and 
 others refer zovypai to the misfortune of the time (Gen. xlvil. 9 ; Ps. xlix. 6 
 [5]) ; but the conteat opposes the moral bearing of the Christian to the im- 
 moral condition of thetime. According to de Wette’s here very unfounded 
 scepticism, the writer is indistinct and hesitating, because he is bringing 
 Col. iv. 5 into another connection. 
 
 Ver. 17. Ava tovro0] Because ye ought so to walk as is said in vv. 15, 16, of 
 which ye as agpovee (whose walk, in fact, cannot be wise) would be inca- 
 pable. Others : because the times are evil.® But the dre ai ju. mov. eloc was 
 
 “Comp: Col. iv. 53 LXX. Dan. ii. 8; 2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius ; 
 
 Atonin. vi. 26: kepSavréov 7d mapov, “the 
 present must be bought,” Plut. Philop. 15: 
 katpov apmacgev, “ to seize an opportunity.” 
 The opposite is katpoyv mapieva, ‘* the oppor- 
 tunity passes by,” Thucyd. iv. 27. Gal. vi. 
 10 is parallel as to substance. Classical 
 writers say katp. mpiacOar, “to purchase an 
 opportunity,’ Dem. 120. 26, 187. 22, but in 
 the proper sense of buying for money. 
 
 comp. also Augustine, Flacius, Zanchius, 
 Estius, Riickert, and others. 
 
 3 Comp. Michaelis and Rosenmiiller. 
 
 4 Who in earlier editions had rightly: re- 
 lease the time. 
 
 > Comp. Hammond. 
 
 * Menochius, Zanchius, Estius, eé al., in- 
 cluding Riickert, Matthies, and de Wette. 
 
CHAPS Vs, 18,) 10. 505 
 only a subsidiary thought subservient to the ayopat. t. kap., and affords no 
 suitable reason for the following exhortations. — p17 yiveofe| not : be not, but 
 become not. — adpovec| devoid of intelligence, imprudentes, t.e., ‘ qui mente non 
 recte utuntur,” ‘‘those who do not use the mind aright,”’ namely, for the 
 moral understanding of the will of Christ, as here the contrast teaches. 
 Comp. on ¢pédvycc, i. 8. The doogov of ver. 15 is a higher notion than 
 a@povec, which latter denotes the want of practical understanding, the oppo- 
 site of gpdviuoc.2 Every a¢par is also dcogoc, but the dcogoc may yet be ¢pd- 
 vywog (Luke xvi. 8), namely, for immoral ends and means, which here the 
 context excludes. See also the following contrast. — cvviovrec] understand- 
 4 nore than yivécxovtec. Comp. Grotius, and see on Col. i, 9, —7rd 6éA. 
 tou kup.| of Christ. Comp. Acts xxi. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 19. 
 
 Ver. 18. Kai] and in particular, to mention a single vice, which would 
 belong to agpoctyn. — ui webdoK. civ] become not drunken through wine, which 
 stands opposed to the allowable use of wine, without our having on that 
 account to seek here a reference to Montanism.* To cor clr le, however, 
 from ver. 19 that excess at the Agapae is meant (1 Cor. xi. 21), as Koppe 
 and Holzhausen maintain,‘ is quite arbitrary ; inasmuch as neither in the 
 preceding nor following context is there any mention made of the Agapae, 
 and this special abuse, the traces of which in the N. T. are, moreover, only 
 to be found in Corinth, would have called fora special censure. —év 6 éorw 
 dowria] deterring remark. év © does not apply to oivm alone, as Schoettgen 
 holds,® but to the peficKecba: oivw : wherein is contained debauchery, dissolute 
 behavior. A vivid description of the grosser and more refined dowria may 
 be seen in Cicero. On the word itself (in its literal sense wnsavableness), 
 see Tittmann, Synon. p. 152 ; Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 559. A more precise 
 limitation of the sense’ is without warrant in the text. — d/id rAnpovcbe év 
 mvevpari| but become full by the Spirit. The imperative passive finds its ex- 
 planation in the possibility of resistance to the Holy Spirit and of the 
 opposite fleshly endeavor ; and é» is instrumental, as at i. 23 ; Phil. iv. 19. 
 The contrast lies not in olvoc and rvevua,* because otherwise the text must 
 have run p7 olive pedion., GAN év rvebuate rAnp., but in the two states—that of 
 intoxication and that of inspiration. This opposition is only in appearance 
 strange,’ and has its sufficient ground in the excitement of the person in- 
 spired and its utterances (comp. Acts li. 13). [See Note LIV., p. 525.] 
 
 Ver. 19. Accompanying definition to the just required ‘‘ being filled by 
 the Spirit,” as that with which this Aateiv éavroic warwoic x.7.A. isto be simul- 
 taneously combined as its immediate expression: so that ye speak to one 
 another through psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. What a contrast with 
 
 1 Tittmann, Synon. p. 143. 
 
 2 Plat. Gorg. p. 498 B; Xen. Mem. ii. 3,1; 
 comp. Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 36; Luke xi. 
 40, xii. 20. 
 
 3 Schwegler. 
 
 4 Comp. also de Wette. 
 
 * Whose Rabbinical passages therefore, 
 as Baminidb. rabba, f. 206, 3. “* ubicunque est 
 vinum, ibi est immunditia,” ‘‘ wherever 
 
 there is wine, there is uncleanness,”’ are 
 not to the point here. 
 
 6 De Fin. ii. 8. 
 
 7 Jerome understands lascivious excess, as 
 also Hammond, who thinks of the Bac- 
 chanalia. 
 
 8 Grotius, Harless, Olshausen, and others. 
 
 ® In opposition to de Wette. 
 
506 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the preceding év @) éo7w aooria |! Comp. Col. ili. 16. — AadAoivrec éavroig] not 
 meditantes vobiscum, ‘‘ meditating with you,” ! but it denotes the reciprocal 
 speaking (éavroic, inthe sense of a2AjAoce, as iv. 82, toeach other), the oral inter- 
 change of thoughts and feelings, which—just because the condition is, that 
 of being filled by the Spirit—does not make use of the conversational lan- 
 guage of ordinary life, or even of drunken passion, but of psalms, etc., as 
 the means of mutual communication (dativus instrumentalis, ‘* instru- 
 mental dative ;” Luther incorrectly renders : about psalms®). That, how- 
 ever, the apostle is here speaking of actual worship in the narrower sense, * 
 is assumed in opposition to the context, since the contrast y7 webion. civ, 
 GaAa rAyp. év xv. does not characterize the AaAeiv éavroic as taking place in 
 worship, although in itself it is not denied that in worship too the inspired 
 antiphonal singing took place. The distinction between padpoe¢ and 
 juvoc consists in this, that by yaa. Paul denotes a religious song in 
 general bearing the character of the O. T. psalins, but by inv. specially a song 
 of praise,° and that, in accordance with the context, addressed to Christ 
 (ver. 19) and God (ver. 20). Properly waaucéc (which originally means the 
 making the cithara sound) is a song in general, and that indeed as sung to 
 astringed instrument; ° but in the N. T. the character of the psalm is deter- 
 mined by the psalms of the O. T., so called xav’ é&oyqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently” 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26 ; Jas. v. 13). According to Harless, the two words are 
 not different as regards their contents, but waApoi¢ is the expression of the 
 spiritual song for the Jewish-Christians, bvoc¢ for the Gentile- Christians. 
 An external distinction in itself improbable, and very arbitrary, since the 
 special signification of iuvoc, song of praise, is thoroughly established, and 
 warudc also was a word very current in Greek, which—as well in itself as 
 more especially with regard to its sense established in Christian usage in 
 accordance with the conception of the O. T. psalms—could not but be 
 equally intelligible for the Gentile-Christians as for the Jewish-Christians. ’ 
 According to Olshausen, wapoi are here the psalms of the O. T., which had 
 passed over from the synagogue into the use of the church. But worship 
 is not spoken of here ; and that the Christians, filled by the Spirit, impro- 
 vised psalms, is clear from 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. Such Christian psalms and 
 hymns are meant, as the Spirit gave them to be uttered (Acts il. 4, x. 46, 
 xix. 6),—phenomena doubtless, which, like the operations of the Spirit 
 generally in the first age of the church, are withdrawn from our special 
 cognizance. —xai @daic rvevu.| Inasmuch as 064 may be any song, even 
 secular, rvevyatuxatc is here added, so that by @daic tvevu. is denoted the whole 
 
 1 Morus, Michaelis. hymns is of course not even remotely to be 
 
 * Pliny, Hp. x. 97: Carmen Christo quasi 
 Deo dicunt secum invicem,’ “they sing 
 with one another a hymn to Christ as 
 God” (€avrois). 
 
 3 Olshausen. 
 
 4 See 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26; Niceph. Call. xiii. 
 8: THY TeV avTipwvov cuvyPerav avwOev amoc- 
 TOAWY 7 ExKAnoia mapédAaBe, ‘‘The church re- 
 ceived the use of antiphons from the times 
 of the apostles.” <A collection of church- 
 
 thought of in our passage ; and it is to go 
 in quest of a reason for suspecting our 
 Epistle, when, with Schwegler, the mention 
 of WaAmoi «.7.A. is designated as surprising. 
 
 5 Plat. Legg. iii. p. 700 B, opposed to @p7- 
 vos. 
 
 6 See Spanheim, ad Callim. p. 55. 
 
 7 See also Rudelb. in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. 
 Theol. 1853, 4, p. 634 f. 
 
CHAP. V., 20. 507 
 genus, of which the watyoi and tuvos were species. mrvevuarixaic defines 
 the songs as proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as Oeorveborovc.’ It is to be 
 observed, moreover, that Paul does not require a constant Aadciv éavroig parpoig 
 k.7.4. on the part of his readers, but, in contradistinction to the heathen dcwria 
 in drunkenness, as that which is to take place among the Christians instead 
 of drunken revelry with its dissolute doings. — The ewmulation warp. x. bur. 
 x. 9d. rv. belongs to the animated and urgent style of discourse.* — q@Jovre¢ 
 kal paddovrec év TH Kapd. bu. TO Kvpiw] co-ordinate with the preceding Aadovvtec 
 k.T.A., containing another singing of praise, namely, that which goes on in 
 the silence of the heart. The point of difference lies in éy raic¢ xapd. iu., as 
 contradistinguished from the preceding éavroic. Usually this second par- 
 ticipial clause is regarded as subordinate to the previous one ; it is held to 
 affirm that that reciprocal singing of praise must take place not merely with 
 the mouth, but also in the heart.* But how could it have occurred to Paul 
 here to enter such a protest against mere lip-praise, when he, in fact, repre- 
 sents the psalm-singing, etc., as the utterance of the being filled by the 
 Spirit, and makes express mention of rvevuartixaic daic, in which case, 
 at any rate, the thought of a mere singing with the mouth was of itself ex- 
 cluded. The right view is found substantially in Riickert (who, neverthe- 
 less, already here imports an ‘‘ always’), Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Schenkel. — 76 xvpiw] to Christ, ver. 20. 
 
 Ver. 20. A third modal definition to the rAnpotote év rvebuarti, likewise co- 
 ordinate with the two preceding ones, bringing into prominence—after the 
 general singing of praise, etc., of ver. 19, which is to take place as well audi- 
 bly as in the heart—further, and in particular, the thanksgiving, which the 
 readers have always for all things to render to God. — ravrore|] This always 
 is not to be pressed ; see on 1 Cor. i. 4 ; in accordance with Col. iii. 17, a¢ 
 all action in word and work. 
 
 
 
 Observe, however, that ravrore is only intro- 
 duced at this point ; for not the dev and wWaArew, but certainly, amidst the 
 constant consciousness of the divine manifestations of grace, thanksgiving 
 also, like prayer in general, may and ought to belong to the constant activ- 
 ity of the Christian life. Comp. vi. 18 ; Rom. xii. 12 ; Col. iv. 2; 1 Thess. 
 v. 17. For the emphatic juxtaposition rdavrore irép ravtwy, comp. 2 Cor. ix. 
 8, and see Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 56. This ravrwv is not masculine,* but neu- 
 ter, and relates, in accordance with the context, to all Christian blessings. 
 To understand it of all that happens to us, even including sufferings, as is 
 done by Chrysostom,*® Jerome, Erasmus, and many, including Meier, Ols- 
 hausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de Wette, is foreign to the connection, 
 yet doubtless the Christian repaxayore and joy in suffering belong thereto. 
 — éy ovéu. Tov Kvpiov x.7.2.] not ad honorem Christi, ‘‘for the honor of 
 
 1 Pind. Ol. iii. 18: devpopor viocovt’ én’ av- 
 Ypwrovs aovdar, ‘‘songs allotted by the gods 
 go to men.”’ 
 
 2 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxviii. 
 f. Comp. also Lobeck, Parailip. 1. p. 60 f. 
 
 make melody in his heart who moves his 
 tongue, but he who excites his mind to the 
 understanding of the things said,’’ Theo- 
 doret. 
 
 4 Theodoret. 
 
 37H Kapdia WadAer 0 KH OvoY THY yA@TTaY 
 Kiv@v, aAAG Kal TOY VoUY Els THY TOY AEyomevwV 
 katavono. dveyetpwv, ‘““ Not only does he 
 
 5 Chrysostom, in fact, includes even hel/ 
 therein, the contemplation of which is for 
 us a check of fear and thus very salutary. 
 
508 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 Christ,” } but : so that what is embraced in the name Jesus Christ? is the 
 clement, in which your grateful consciousness moves in the act of thanks- 
 giving. Comp. Col. iii. 17 ; John xiv. 13. As regards subject matter, év 
 Xpior@ (iii. 21) would be different, and dca Xpeorod (Rom. vii. 25) similar. — 
 7 Oe kal ratpi] See on i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24. The referring of 
 xarpi to Christ, the Son,* is more in keeping with the connection (év dyéuare 
 x.7.A.) than the rendering : our Father.* é 
 Ver. 21 f.5 The words iroracc. aAAjn. év 68 Xp. still belong to ver. 20,° 
 parallel to the et yapiorovvreg x.7.2., adding to this relation towards God the 
 mutual relation towards one another. Then begins with ai yuvaixes a new 
 section, into the first precept of which we have to take over the verb from 
 the iroraccouevor just used, namely, irotdcoecde™ or broraccéoSwcay (Lach-— 
 mann). Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, and others,® in- 
 correctly hold that the participle is to be taken imperatively ; in that case an 
 éavé to be supplied in thought must, as in Rom. xii. 9, have been suggested 
 by the context. Olshausen quite arbitrarily proposes that we supply men- 
 tally : ‘‘are all believers.” If the new section was to begin with érorace., 
 then droracc. add. év ¢. Xp. would have to be regarded as an absolutely pre- 
 fixed general attribute, to which the special one afterwards to be adduced 
 would be subordinate (‘‘inasmuch as ye subject yourselves in the fear of 
 Christ, the wives ought,” etc.). It would not militate against this view, 
 that in the sequel only the tréraévc of the wives follows, while the iaxoy of 
 the children and servants, in chap. vi., can no longer be brought into con- 
 nection with our iroracoéuevor. For often with the classical writers also, 
 after the prefixing of such absolute nominatives, which have reference to 
 the whole collectively, the discourse passes only over to one part (not to 
 several).° But against it may be urged the consideration that ai yvvaixeg has 
 no special verb ; such a verb, and one correlative as to notion with izoracc., 
 could not but be associated with it.—On the thought irordccecdar 
 ahAgAotc, comp. 1 Pet. v. 5 ; Clem. Cor. i. 38. — iv ¢68w Xpiorovd] is the 
 fundamental disposition, in which the izoraccecdar a7AH201¢ is to take place. 
 And Christ is to be feared as the judge. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 22. 
 — roi¢ Wiow avdpacw| to their own husbands. Without being misunderstood, 
 Paul might have written merely rtoi¢ avdpdciv, but idiowe serves to make the 
 obligation of the trordcceodar roig avdpacw palpable in its natural necessity ; 
 for what a wife is she, who refuses obedience to her own husband 2” Through- 
 
 1 Flatt. 
 2 Per quem omnia nobis obtingunt,” “ by 
 whom all things become ours,” Bengel. 
 
 % Erasmus, Estius, Harless, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, and others. 
 
 *Zanchius, Rickert [Bleek], Matthies, 
 [Braune], and others. 
 
 5 Amore sublime, more ideal regulation 
 of the married state is not conceivable than 
 that which is here set forth by the apostle, 
 vy. 21-33, and yet it is one which has flowed 
 from the living depth of the Christian con- 
 sciousness, and hence is practically appli- 
 
 cable to all concrete relations. 
 ®So Lachmann, ‘Tischendorf, 
 [West. and Hort]. 
 
 7 Hizevir. 
 
 8 Comp. also Reiche, Comm. erit. p. 183. 
 
 ® See particularly Niigelsbach, 2. Zdias, ed. 
 3, p. 885 f. 
 
 10 So also Stobaeus, S. 22: Geava.. 
 Seloa, TL TpOTOV Ely yuVaLKi, TO TH Ldlw, Ey, 
 apeckey avdpi, ‘* Theano, being asked what 
 was the first thing to a wife, ‘To please,’ 
 said he, ‘her own husband.’ ”’ 
 
 Bleek 
 
 . €pwrn- 
 
CHAP. V., 23, 24. 509 
 out the N. T. idvoc never stands in place of the mere possessive pronoun, but 
 has always, as also with the Greeks, an emphasis to be derived from the con- 
 nection, even at Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 14 (see in loc.) ; 1 Pet. iii. 1 ; and Tit. il. 
 5 (where the relation is as in our passage). This in opposition to Winer, 
 p. 139, and at the same time in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who! see 
 in 6 idvoc av#p Nothing more than a designation which has become usual for the 
 husband. From the very context, in itself 6 avjp is husband.? That which, 
 on the other hand, Bengel finds in idiog : ‘‘ etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur 
 habere consilia,” ‘‘ even though elsewhere they should seem to have better 
 judgment,” is imported. — 6¢ 76 kvpiw] By this is not meant the husbands;* 
 which must have been roic¢ xupiowc, but Christ, and &¢ expresses the mode of 
 view in which the wives are to regard their obedience towards the hus- 
 bands, namely, as rendered to the Lord; comp. vi. 6, 7. For the husband 
 (see what follows) stands in relation to the wife not otherwise than as Christ 
 to the church ; in the conjugal relation the husband is the one who repre- 
 sents Christ to the wife, in so far as he is head of the wife, as Christ is the 
 Head of the church. To find in cc the mere relation of resemblance* is erro- 
 neous on account of what follows ; the passage must have run in the form 
 O¢ 7 éxkAnoia TO kvpiw, Which Erasmus has imported into his paraphrase : 
 “non aliter, quam ecclesia, subdita est Domino Jesu,” ‘‘ not otherwise than 
 as the church is the subject to the Lord Jesus.” We may add that the view 
 of Michaelis—that here and Col. iii. 18 the teachings as to marriage are di- 
 rected against errors of the Essenes (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3)—is the more to be 
 regarded as a fiction, inasmuch as Paul is speaking not of the propriety of 
 marriage, but of the duties of the married life. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. "Ore avyp . éxxAyjoiac] Reason assigned for the é¢ 7@ Kvpiv 
 just demanded. For the husband is in the marriage relation the same as 
 Christ is in relation to the church ; the former, like the latter, is the 
 head. —avijp| a husband is head of his wife; hence avip is without, and 
 yuvatxéc with the article. — dc xai| as also with Christ the relation of being 
 Head exists, namefy, in regard to the church. — atic 6 cwryp Tov cémaroc] is 
 usually taken as apposition to 6 Xproroc,® according to which aizé¢ would 
 take up the subject again with special emphasis :° ‘‘ He, the Saviour of the 
 body,” He who makes His body, 7.e., the church, of which He is the Head, 
 partaker of the Messianic cwrypia.’ But while there is not here apparent 
 from the connection any purpose, bearing on the matter in hand, for such 
 an emphatic description,* there may be urged against it the following aia, 
 
 1 Comp. also Dorville, ad Charit. p. 452. 
 
 2 Hom. Od. xix. 294; Matt. i. 16. 
 
 3 Thomas Aquinas, Semler. 
 
 4“ Uxoris erga maritum officia stmilia 
 quodammodo sunt officits Christianorum erga 
 Christum,” ‘“ The duties of a wife towards 
 her husband are ina measure like the du- 
 ties of Christians towards Christ,” Koppe. 
 
 5 Holzhausen (comp. already Chrysostom) 
 has again referred airos to the husband, 
 who is called cwrip 70d cHpaT0s in compar- 
 ison with Christ, inasmuch as the being of 
 the wife is conditioned by the husband. In- 
 
 correctly, since no reader could refer avrés 
 to any other subject than to the one imme- 
 diately preceding, 0 Xproros, and since it 
 was intelligible to describe the church 
 doubtless, but not the wife, as 70 capa 
 (without further addition). Nor is cwr7p 
 ever employed in the N. T. otherwise than 
 of Christ or God. 
 
 6 Schaefer, Melet. p. 84; Bernhardy, p. 283. 
 
 7‘*Merito et efficaica,”’ ‘“‘ by merit and 
 effleacy,’’ Calovius. 
 
 8 For the view, that hereby a reminder is 
 given to husbands of the fact, which is 
 
510 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 which, if it is not placed in combination with avric 6 cwr. Tr. cou., admits of 
 no logical explanation. Uswally, it is true, this a2Aa is taken syllogistically.* 
 But the syllogistic 4444, and that in the Greek writers combined with pq, 
 is employed for the introduction of the propositio minor, ‘‘minor proposi- 
 tion ;’? whereas here we should have the conclusio, ‘‘ conclusion,” and we 
 should thus have to take a2Ad, in accordance with its discontinuative 
 force,* for éo7e, against which, however, militates the fact that the sen- 
 tence assigning a reason, 67¢ dvjp «.7.A., has already fulfilled its destined 
 object (ver. 22), so that it could not occur to any reader to seek in the ad- 
 versative d4Aa an inference from this confirmatory clause. If Paul had 
 wished again to infer, from ver. 23, that which is proved by this verse, he 
 would have written oiv or the metabatic dé. Besides this, however, ver. 24, 
 as an inference from ver. 23, would contain a very superfluous prolixity of 
 the discourse, inasmuch as the contents of ver. 24 was already so fully given 
 by the thought of ver. 23 attached to what precedes by means of 67, that 
 we could not but see here a real logical pleonasm, such as we are not accus- 
 tomed to mect with in the writings of the concise and sententious Paul. 
 According to Winer, p. 400, ver. 24 is meant to continue and conclude the 
 argument, so that ver. 23 proves the é¢ 76 kvpig from the position of Christ 
 and the husband, while ver. 24 proves it from the demand implied in this 
 position, and hence a//a amounts ultimately to the sense : ‘‘ but then, which 
 is the main thing.” But even in this way only a continuing dé, autem, and 
 not the adversative 4224, at, would be quite in accordance with the thought. 
 When, moreover, it is assumed, with Riickert, Harless, Bleek, that a/2a, 
 after the intermediate thought airoc 6 owr. 7. o., is used as breaking off and 
 leading back to the theme,‘ it is self-evident that the brief clause abro¢ 6 
 cor. tT. o.—introduced, moreover, only as apposition—has not at all inter- 
 rupted the development, and consequently has not given occasion for such 
 
 a leading back to the theme. ® 
 
 often forgotten by them, that they (see ver. 
 29) ought to make their wives truly happy 
 (Erasm., Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, 
 including Riickert, Meier, Matthies, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius ; comp. also Hofmann, 
 Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 134 f.), is inadmissible, 
 since the instructions for husbands begin 
 only with ver. 25. Harless remarks: ‘ In- 
 asmuch as the apostle finds the obedience 
 of marriage, realized in it by the wife, also 
 in the relation of the church to Christ, he 
 shows immediately the ground of this 
 peculiar relation in the manifestation of the 
 gracious power of the Lord by redemp- 
 tion.’ Butin this way the question as to the 
 reason determining this addition is not an- 
 swered, and the gracious power of the Lord 
 is, in fact, not denoted by the simple cw77p. 
 Olshausen (so already Piseator) thought 
 that avros 0 owrnp tod cou. had merely 
 the design of setting forth Christ more 
 distinctly in the character of xe#ady%, inas- 
 
 Hofmann finally takes a/Aa as repelling a 
 
 much as it designates the church as the 
 copa which He rules. But it is not tod 
 cpatos that has the emphasis ; and kedady 
 Tis éxkA., spoken of Christ, needed no eluci- 
 dation, least of all in ¢his Epistle. 
 
 1 So Beza, Grotius, and others, including 
 Matthies, Olshausen, de Wette [Ewald, 
 Braune]. 
 
 2 Apollon. Alex. in Beck, Anecd. II. p. 
 518, 839; Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 3884; 
 Fritzsche, a@ Rom. v. 14; Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 638. 
 
 3 “ Argumentorum enarrationem aut 
 aliam cogitationem abrumpit et ad rem 
 ipsam, quae sit agenda, vocat,” “‘ It breaks 
 off the reckoning of arguments or other 
 thought, and calls to the subject itself 
 which is to be done,”’ Klotz, Z.c. p. 5; comp. 
 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812; Ellendt, Lex. 
 Soph. 1. p. 78. 
 
 4 See Hartung, /.c. II. p. 37. 
 
 5 And how would Paul have returned to 
 
CHAP. V., 295. 511 
 possible objection, and to this effect : ‘‘ But even where the husband is not 
 this (namely, one who makes happy, as like Christ he ought to be) to his 
 wife, that subordination nevertheless remains,” etc. But in this way the very 
 thought, upon which everything is held to turn, is purely read into the 
 passage. In view of all that has been said, I (and Schenkel agrees with me 
 in this) cannot take abroc 6 cur. rT. o. as apposition, but only as an indepen- 
 dent proposition, and I understand add in its ordinary adversative sense, 
 namely, thus: ‘‘ He for His person, He and no other, és the Saviour of the 
 body ; but this relation, which belongs exclusively to Himself, does not take 
 away the obligation of obedience on the part of the wives towards their 
 husbands, nay, rather, as the church obeys Christ, so must also the wives obey 
 their husbands in every respect.” The right view was already perceived by 
 Calvin, when on account of the adversative a424 he proposed the expla- 
 nation :’ ‘‘ Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator ecclesiae, 
 nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse, Christiexemplo, utcunque 
 pari gratianon polleant,” ‘‘It is true that Christ has this peculiarity, that He 
 is the Saviour of the Church ; nevertheless, let the women know that their 
 husbands are over them, according to the example of Christ, however un- 
 equal may be the favor they exercise.” Comp. also Bengel, who aptly re- 
 marks: ‘‘ Vir autem non est servator uxoris ; in eo Christus excellit ; hinc 
 sed sequitur,”’ ‘‘The husband, however, is not the Saviour of the wife ; in 
 this Christ excels ; hence but follows.” . .. What Hofmann objects is 
 quite irrelevant ; for the thought, that Christ is Saviour of the body, is not 
 superfluous, but has its significant bearing in the contrast which follows ; 
 and Paul had not to write 746» instead of rot céuatoc with a view to 
 clearness, since Christ was, in fact, just designated as xegaay ; consequently 
 nothing was now more natural and clear than the designation of believers 
 The objection of Reiche, that 
 airéc comes in asyndeticully, can have no weight in the case of Paul espe- 
 cially, and of his brief and terse moral precepts (see immediately ver. 28, 
 and comp. in particular Rom. xii, 9 ff.). —ai yuvaixec] se. iroraccécSucav. 
 See ver. 22. — év ravri | in which case it is presupposed that the command- 
 ing on the part of the husbands is in keeping with their position as representing 
 Christ towards the wife. ‘Q¢ ceioeBéae vouoderov rpooréderke TO év Tavti, 
 ‘* As making rules for the godly, he added the év ravri,” Theodoret. 
 
 Ver. 25. If the duty of the wives was izordocec@as Toic avdpaow o¢ 
 T@ kupig, that of the husband is: dyarare 
 Xptoro¢ k.t.A., a love, therefore, which is ready to undergo even death 
 out of affection for the wife. ‘Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in unum 
 conjicias, non tam persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem mutuam, quam hic 
 Paulus,” ‘“‘Tf you cast all the arguments of orators together, you will not 
 
 by row cdéparoc, the correlative of Kegary. 
 
 e 
 
 Tac yuvaikac, KaAHc Kat O 
 
 his theme! He wouldhayve said again, in 
 another form, in ver. 24, that which he had 
 just said in ver. 23! After so short a clause 
 aS a’tds 6 owt. t.¢., What an un-Pauline 
 diffuseness ! 
 
 1 He did not, however, himself give it the 
 preference, but erroneously took adda as 
 
 ceterum, and in avrds 0 owt. +. o. found the 
 thought: ‘“‘ita nihil esse mulieri utilius nec 
 magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit,”’ 
 ‘* Nothing is more useful, nor more adyvan- 
 tageous to a woman than to be subject to 
 a husband.” 
 
512 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 persuade husband and wife so effectually to mutual love as Paul does here,” 
 Bugenhagen, — xa? éavtdv mapéd. x.t.A.] A practical proof of the 7yaryoe. 
 Comp. ver. 2. What giving up is meant (namely, that unto death) is obvious 
 of itself here, where no definition is added to rapéd. ; Gal. ii. 20; Rom. iv. 25. 
 Ver. 26. Aim, which Christ had in view in giving up Himself for the 
 church, and therewith continued statement of the pattern of love given by Him. 
 — iva air. ay. «.t.4.] ‘in order to sanctify it, after having cleansed it through. 
 the bath of water, by means of the word.” In His sacrificial death, namely, 
 Christ’s intention with regard to His future church had this aim, that, after 
 having by baptism brought about for its members the forgiveness of their 
 pre-Christian sins, He would make it partaker of Christian-moral holiness 
 by means of the gospel. That cleansing is the negative side of that, which 
 Christ contemplated with regard to His church in His death, and this sanc- 
 tification by means of the gospel constantly influencing the baptized is the 
 positive side ; the former the antecedens, ‘‘ antecedent,” the latter the conse- 
 quens, ‘* consequent ;” and both are caused by the atoning death, which is 
 the causa meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” of the forgiveness of sins brought 
 about by means of baptism, and the contents of the gospel as the word of 
 the cross. The sanctifying influence of the latter is the efficacy of the Holy 
 Spirit, who works by means of the gospel (vi. 17) ; but the Holy Spirit is 
 subject to Christ (2 Cor. iii. 18), and Christ also communicates Himself in 
 the Spirit to men’s hearts (Rom. viii. 9 f.) ; hence it is said with justice 
 that Christ sanctifies the church through the word (comp. also ii. 21), in 
 which case it is self-evident to the Christian consciousness that the opera- 
 tive principle therein is the Spirit operating by means of the word. The Vul- 
 gate translates xa6ap. mundans, ‘‘ cleansing,” and Zanchius says: ‘‘ modum 
 exprimit, quo eam sanctificet,” ‘‘he expresses the mode, whereby he 
 sanctifies it.” So, too, Harless, who holds dyidoy and kafapicac not to be 
 different notions, but the latter to be a more precise definition of the for- 
 mer, which signifies purum reddere a culpa peccati, ‘‘ to render pure from the 
 guilt of sin.” The aorist participle would not be opposed to this view, be- 
 cause it could express that which is coincident in point of time with dy.doy 
 (see on i. 9) ; but it is opposed by the fact that év pfuare cannot be joined 
 to kafapicac (see below), but sanctification by the word must of necessity be 
 something other than the cleansing by baptism, as also at 1 Cor. vi. 11 
 (comp. Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16), the cleansing by means of ee (aredovoacle) 
 
 precedes the sanctification (jyiaofyre).! Comp. Tit. ili. 5—7.2— 76 Aovrpé tod 
 
 1In Act. Thom. p. 40 f. : 
 cis THY OHV TOlmYNY Kadapicas avTos év TO OO 
 Aoutpe k.7.A., ‘‘ Mingle them with thy fold, 
 
 emaculetur ; care ungitur, ut anima conse- 
 cretur,” ‘*The flesh is washed, in order 
 that the soul may be cleansed ; the flesh is 
 
 katau..Eov avtovs 
 
 having cleansed them in thy laver,” the act 
 of the xarductéov x.7.A., is (in opposition to 
 Harless) conceived of as immediately swb- 
 sequent to the act of the xadapioas x.7.A, 
 The Fathers, too, separate the cleansing 
 and the sanctifying of the person who re- 
 ceives baptism. So e.g., Justin Martyr, de 
 resurrect. in Grabe, Spicil. II. p. 189. Tertull. 
 de resurrect. 8: “Caro abluitur, ut anima 
 
 anointed that the soul may be consecrated.” 
 Cypr. ad Donat. de gratia, p.3: **‘ Undae 
 genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa 
 in expiatum pectus serenum desuper se 
 lumen infudit,” “‘ By the aid of the genital 
 wave, the stain of the former life being cleans- 
 ed, the light from above infuses itself into 
 the expiated breast,” ete. 
 
 2 Hofmann, II. 2, p. 135, would, in opposi- 
 
CHAP. V., 26. 513 
 wdatoc| (genitive materiae, ‘‘of material”) denotes the well-known bath of 
 water kav’ égoy7v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” which is administered by baptism. We 
 have thus here not simply an adlusion to baptism,’ but a designation of the 
 same (comp. Tit. ili. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11), and an allusion to the bath of the 
 bride before the wedding-day ; see on ver. 27. — év pyyati] belongs to ay:doy 
 (comp. John xvii. 17), but is not placed immediately after it, because the 
 two verbal definitions dyidoy and xafapicac, and again the two instrumental 
 definitions 76 Aovtpe tov idaroc and év pyuazi, are intended to stand together, 
 whereby the structure of the discourse is arranged of set purpose conform- 
 ably to the sense and with emphatic distinctness. fjua is the gospel, 7d pija 
 mec miotew, Rom. x. 8, comp. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, and here stands 
 without an article, because, denoting the word xa7’ éfoy#v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 
 it could be treated like a proper noun, such as véuoc, yapic, and the like. 
 The connecting of év yy. with ayaoy is followed also by Jerome, Castalio, 
 Calevius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Winer, p. 125, Riickert, Bisping, Bleek.? 
 Others, however, join it to 76 Aovrpé tov idartoc,* in which case they under- 
 stand by pjua either the baptismal formula,* or the divine precept,’ or the 
 divine promise,® or ‘‘lavacro invocatione divini nominis efticaci,” ‘‘ the laver 
 efficacious by the invocation of the divine name,” ’ or the gospel,* or the divine 
 power and efficacy in the word of truth, so that év pjuatcis equivalent to év rreb- 
 patt.° But all these explanations break down in presence of the fact, that we 
 should need to read 7¢ Aovtpa@ tov bdaToc T@, OF Tov év PHu., Since neither 7d Aoutpdév 
 nor 7d idwp admits of being joined into unity of idea with év pjyare 3° as well 
 as of the fact, that the special interpretations of pia, except that of gospel, 
 are purely invented. Others have combined év jj. with cafapicac,” in which 
 case likewise év jju. has been explained by some of the words of the institu- 
 tion and their promise,” by others of the gospel,’* while Harless trans- 
 
 tion to the simple and clear course of the 
 representation, combine kadtapioas x«.r.d. 
 with the following “va rapactyoyn, but for 
 the invalid reason that afterwards thy 
 exkAyjovay is repeated, and not the mere 
 ai7Tyv used. Asif Paul might not have used 
 the mere eatry¥v even with this combination ! 
 And how often do all writers repeat the 
 noun with emphasis (so here), or for the 
 sake of perspicuity, instead of using the 
 pronoun! Comp. on iv. 16. 
 
 1 Grotius, Homberg. 
 
 2 Against de Wette’s objections is to be 
 observed, (1) that, according to Rom. x. 8, 
 17, pyxa can certainly be taken as the 
 gospel ; (2) that sanctification is wrought 
 indeed through the Spérif, but the Spirit is 
 mediated through the gospel Gal. iii.5; (8) 
 that the order of the words is not forced, 
 but purposely chosen. 
 
 3Luther: “by the water-bath in the 
 word.” 
 
 4 Chrysostom: év pymate wolw; év dvépmate 
 TOU TaTpds Kal TOD Viov Kal TOV ayiov mVEV- 
 gatos, “In what word? In the name of the 
 
 33 
 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ;” comp. Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Oecumenius, Ambrosiaster, Menochius, 
 Calovius, Flatt, de Wette, and others. 
 
 5“TLavationem. . . nitentem divino man- 
 dato,” “‘ a washing resting upon the divine 
 command,” Storr. 
 
 6‘ Qua vis et usus signi explicatur,” 
 “whereby the force and use of the sign are 
 explained,” Caivin; comp. Michaelis, 
 Knapp. Tychsen. 
 
 7 Erasmus. 
 
 8 Augustine, Estius, Flatt, Holzhausen, 
 and others. 
 
 % Olshausen. 
 
 10 Such as at évtoAai év d0ymacr, ii. 15, or 7 
 miotis ev Xp., or the like. 
 
 11 Syriae, which inserts cat before ev py ; 
 Bengel, Baumgarten, Matthies, Harless. 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann; perhaps 
 also Beza and Calvin ; Meier is quite indis- 
 tinct. 
 
 12 Baumgarten. 
 
 13 Syriac, Bengel: ‘“‘in verbo est vis mun- 
 difica, et haec exseritur per lavacrum,” 
 
514 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 lates : ‘‘ by way of utterance, by way of promise,” which can refer only to the 
 promise given with the institution ; and Hofmann : with a word, which is 
 alleged to mean : so that He uttered His effective will, that it should become 
 clean. But it is altogether arbitrary, since xafapicac already has a modal 
 definition, to attach év pjuare thereto in addition, and on the other hand to 
 leave dy:don isolated, although év pj. can very suitably as regards sense be 
 attached to dy:acy ; further, that which cleanses, é.e., that which not merely 
 symbolically represents the cleansing,’ but does away with the pre-Chris- 
 tian guilt of sin, is baptism,? comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 21, Acts ii, 38, xxii. 16, 
 and not the pjua, whether we understand thereby the gospel or the words of 
 the institution ; lastly, the sense by ‘‘ way of promise” Paul would have 
 known how to express otherwise than in so indefinite and enigmatic a 
 manner, such as, possibly, by kar’ érayyediav, Gal. ili. 29 ; as, indeed, also 
 the sense understood by Hofmann could not have been more indistinctly 
 conveyed than by the bare év pyuare.* Grotius combines éy pjyate with 
 xalap., but supplies é¢ before éy 7g Aovtp@ : ‘‘ verbo suo quasi balneo,” ‘by 
 his word asabath.” As if one could simply thus supply é6¢ ! Lastly, Koppe 
 is quite wrong in holding that év pjuate iva is in accordance with the 
 Hebrew 4yx 333 Sy, ‘upon the word which,” nothing more than the bare 
 iva. Not even the LXX. have translated thus barbarously! [See Note 
 LV., p. 525 seq. | 
 
 Ver. 27. Aim of the dy:don év phuatt, and so jfinal aim of the éavrdv rapé- 
 Soxev brép avtae, to be realized at the Parousia. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 2. zapac- 
 thon is already rightly referred to the time of the conswmmatio saeeuli, *‘ consum- 
 mation of the world,” by Augustine, Jerome, Primasius, Thomas, Beza, Estius, 
 Calovius, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek ; 
 while the Greek Fathers, Lyra, Cajetanus, Bucer, Wolf, Bengel, and others, 
 including Harless and Hofmann, p. 136, think of an act of Christ in the 
 aidv obroc, ‘* this world,” and many others do not at all declare their views 
 with regard to the time. But if iva rapaor. «.7.2. is not to apply to the time 
 of the Parousia, it must either be taken as the design of the xcafapioac,* or 
 as a parallel to iva abriv dydoy.® The former is not admissible, because év 
 phuatt, which itself belongs to dydon (see on ver. 26), stands between ; nor 
 yet is the latter, because dy:dcy does not denote the same thing with xaBapioag 
 (see on ver. 26), but the making holy through the word ; and this making 
 holy cannot from its nature be parallel to the momentary act of presenting of 
 the church asa glorious and spotless one, but can only be antecedent, so 
 
 ““in the word is the cleansing force, and 
 this is exerted through the laver,’’ comp. 
 Matthies and Baumgarten-Crusius, as also 
 Schenkel. 
 
 1 Schenkel. 
 
 2This also in opposition to Theile in 
 Winer’s Haeget. Stud. p. 187: €v pyuate is a 
 sort of correction of 76 Aovtpe@ Tod VéaTos. 
 
 3What Hofmann, II. 2, p. 191, oddly 
 enough adduces by way of elucidation: 
 “As the husband by the word, which ex- 
 
 presses his will to make a woman his wife, 
 takes away from her the reproach of her 
 virgin state (comp. Isa. iv. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 36), 
 so has Christ done for the church,” drags 
 in something entirely foreign to the matter, 
 and, indeed, something very wnsuitable, as 
 though the church were thought of as 
 Tapdevos VTEpaK}.os | 
 
 4 Bengel. 
 
 5 Harless. 
 
CHAP. V., 27. 515 
 that this presentation must be the final result of the sanctifying which has 
 already taken place through the word. — rapaorjoy| might set forth, present, 
 coram sisteret, namely, as His bride. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2. The view of Har- 
 less, that the church is conceived of not as bride, but as spotless offering 
 (on wapacr. comp. Rom. xii. 1), is opposed to the context, and incorrect 
 also on account of éav7@, by which, in fact, there would result the concep- 
 tion that Christ presents the offering to Himself. No, the union of Christ 
 with His Church at the Parousia, in order to confer upon it Messianic bless- 
 edness, is conceived of by Paul (as also by Christ Himself, Matt. xxv. 1 ff., 
 comp. Rey. xix. 7 ff.; see also John iii. 29) under the figure of the bring- 
 ing home of a bride, wherein Christ appears as the bridegroom and sets 
 Jorth the bride, ¢.e., His church, as a spotless virgin (the bodily purity is a 
 representation of the ethical) before Himself, after He has already in the 
 aia obtoc, ‘this world,” cleansed it by the bath of baptism (7.e., blotted out 
 the pre-Christian guilt of the church) and sanctified it through His word. To 
 deny the reference of xafapicac «.7.A. and of ver. 27 to the circumstances of a 
 wedding, and particularly the allusion to the bath to be taken by the bride 
 before the wedding-day,’ is an over-refinement of taste at variance with the 
 context.*—The presentation in our passage was referred by Kahnis®* to the 
 Lord’s Supper, an application which is warranted neither by the context nor 
 by the analogy of 2 Cor. xi. 2 and Matt. xxv. —airic éavtoé] so that what 
 takes place is not therefore as in the case of the bringing home of actual 
 brides by others, but Christ Himself, as He gave Himself to sanctify it, etc., 
 presents the church as bride to Himself at His Parousia, and indeed as 
 évdofoyv, in glorious beauty (Luke vii. 25; Isa. xxii. 18, al.), which is 
 with emphasis placed before 77» éxxAyoiay, and subsequently receives by 
 means of pu éyovoay x.7.A..a detached, more precise negative definition 
 specially to be brought into prominence.4— oridov] maculam, comp. 2 Pet. 
 ii. 13, a word of the later age of Greek, instead of the Attic «iic.° In the 
 Jigure is meant a corporeal blemish, but in the reality a moral defilement. 
 The same is the case with putida, rugam, ‘‘ wrinkle,” which occurs only here 
 in the N. T., but often in the classical writers, not in the LXX. or Apoc- 
 
 rypha. Special distinctions as to what is intended by the two figures are 
 arbitrary. So e.g. Estius :° oid. signifies deformitas operis, ‘‘ deformity of 
 
 1 Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, 
 and others. 
 
 2 It is certainly obvious that this bathing 
 in the case of an actual bride was not the 
 business of the bridegroom (as Hofmann ob- 
 jects); but in the case of the church con- 
 ceived as the bride the cleansing by the 
 bath of baptism is the act of the bride- 
 groom (who in fact does not cause the 
 bride, cleansed and sanctified by him, to be 
 presented by others, but presents her to 
 himself), and thus Paul has drawn the 
 Jigure itself in accordance with the state of 
 matters in the reality delineated, as indeed 
 frequently figures are modified in accord- 
 ance with the thing to be represented 
 
 (comp. on Matt. xxv. 1; Gal. iv. 19). If we 
 press the figures beyond the ¢ertiwm com- 
 parationis, no one is any longer appropri- 
 ate.— On the Aovrpoy vupndicov, ‘* bridal 
 laver” (at which cadap. ro Aovtpe Tov VdaTos 
 here glances), comp. specially Bos, Hxercitt. 
 p. 185 f. ; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 31. 6; 
 Becker, Chavicles, ii. p. 460 ff. ; as also Bux- 
 torf, Synag. p. 626. 
 
 3 Abendm. p. 144. 
 
 4 With regard to avtis éav7a, comp. 2 Cor. 
 1.9; Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 11; Thucyd. vi. 40. 3; 
 Kriiger, § 51. 2. 12. 
 
 > See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 28. 
 
 6 After Augustine. 
 
516 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 work,” and pur. duplicitas intentionis, ‘‘duplicity of intention ;” Grotius : 
 
 the former applies to the carere vitiis, ‘‘to lack faults,” the latter to the 
 
 vegetos semper esse, ‘‘ always to be vigorous,” for good (because wrinkles are 
 
 characteristic of age). — # ts Tav towovTwr] Which belongs to the category of 
 
 such things, of that which disfigures, like spots and wrinkles. — a4” iva 9 
 
 x.7.2.] change of the construction, instead of a4” oicay k.7.A., as If iva wi Eqn 
 x.7.A. had been said before. Versatility of the Greek mode of thought and 
 
 expression.!—dyia] the thing signified in place of the figure, which would 
 be more congruously expressed by dyvy (2 Cor. xi. 2). —duopoc] i. 4. 
 
 Comp. Cant. iv. 7. Grotius, at variance with the context, holds that Paul 
 had in the case of both expressions thought of : ‘‘quales victimae esse de- 
 
 bebant in V. T.,” ‘‘as victims had to be in the O. T.” 
 
 Ver. 28. Oitwc] To refer this, with Meier and Baumgarten-Crusius, as 
 also de Wette is disposed to do, to the following ¢,* might, doubtless, be 
 admissible in itself (see on 1 Cor. iv. 1), but is here quite out of place ; 
 because oirwe would then have an undue emphasis, and the declaration 
 would stand without any inner connection with that which precedes. It 
 relates to what is said from xaf@¢ kai 6 Xpiordc, ver. 25 onwards to ver. 27, 
 and is equivalent to : in accordance with this relation, in keeping with this holy 
 love of Christ for the church.2 We may add that Zanchius, who is followed 
 by Estius and Harless,* is in error in saying, ‘‘digressus non nihil ad mys- 
 terium, nunc ad institutum redit,” ‘‘the digression recurs sometimes to the 
 There was no digression in what pre- 
 cedes, but a delineation of the love of Christ serving as an example for the 
 husbands. — dc ta éavtév odpara] not : like their own bodies,* but : as their 
 own bodies. For Christ loved the church not /ike His body, but as His body, 
 which the church 7s and He its head, ver. 23. So is also the husband head of 
 the wife, and he is to love the wife as his body—which conception, however, 
 does not present the Gnostic notion of the z/jpopua,® but, on the contrary, 
 comp. 1 Cor: xi. 8. Schoettgen, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, and others make 
 like themselves ; but this is in it- 
 
 mystery, but now to the ordinance.” 
 
 ©¢ 7a éavt. couata Mean nothing more than : 
 self quite arbitrary and without support from linguistic usage, and also ut- 
 terly inappropriate to the example of Christ, since we certainly cannot say 
 of Christ that He loved the church lize Himself! In the Rabbinical pas- 
 sages, too, as Sunhedr. f. 76, 2: ‘‘ qui uxorem amat wt corpus suum,” “ who 
 loves his wife as his body,” etc., this wt corpus suum, ‘‘as his body,” is to 
 
 1 See, in general, Matthiae, p. 1527 f. ; 
 Winer, p. 509; Buttmann, newtest. G7. p. 205 
 [E. 'T. 241]. 
 
 in those words ; but this whole precept is 
 by means of ovtws grounded on what is said 
 from kadas> x. 6 Xp., ver. 25, onward. 
 
 2 Estius likewise would have it so under- 
 stood, unless ottws Kat ot avdpes odetAovaor 
 be read; which, however, is really to be 
 read, see the critical remarks. 
 
 3 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. 1. 39; Herm. 
 ad Viger. p. 798. 
 
 4 Who thinks that Paul is only resuming 
 the simple injunction of ver. 25, with the 
 expansion ws 7a é€avtav cwuara, Certainly 
 the main point of the precept, ver. 28, lics 
 
 5 Meier; comp. also Grotius, who here 
 brings in the entirely heterogeneous com- 
 parison : “ Sicuti corpus est instrumentum 
 animi, ita uxor est instrumentum viri ad 
 res domesticas, ad quaerendos liberos,” “As 
 the body is the instrument of the mind, so 
 the wife is the instrument of the husband for 
 domestic affairs, for obtaining children.” 
 
 6 Baur. 
 
CHAP. V., 29} 517 
 be taken literally, and that in accordance with the mode of regarding man 
 and wife as one flesh. We may add that Paul does not by means of dc r. 
 éaut. oOu. pass over into another figure, or even to another view of the sub- 
 ject,! but already, in the preceding description of the love of Christ to the 
 church, his conception has been that Christ loves the church, His bride, as 
 his body, which conception he now first, in the application, definitely indi- 
 sates, and in vv. 29-31 more particularly elucidates. — 6 ayarav tiv éavtow 
 yuvaixa éavtov ayaa] From the duty of loving their own wives dc ra éavrév 
 couara, results—inasmuch as in fact according to this the wife belongs es- 
 sentially to the proper self of the husband as such—the proposition of con- 
 jugal ethics, that the love of one’s own wife is love of oneself. This proposition 
 Paul lays down, in order to treat it more in detail, vv. 29-82, and finally 
 repeat it in the form of a direct precept in ver. 33. 
 
 Ver. 29. Tap] assigns the reason of what immediately precedes, and that so, that 
 this statement of the reason is intended to impel to the exercise of the self-love 
 involved in the love to the wife. The connection of the thoughts, namely, is 
 this : ‘‘ He who loves his own wife, loves himself ; for, if he did not love her, 
 he would hate his own flesh, which is so repugnant to nature that no one has 
 ever yet done it, but rather every one does the opposite, as also Christ—and 
 that gives to this natural relation the highest consecration—acts with regard 
 to the church, because this constitutes the members of His body.” — roré] 
 ever, not, as Mayerhoff would take it:? formerly, in the heathen state, the 
 contrast to which is supposed to be : but possibly now, under the influence 
 of an asceticism directed against marriage—a view, which the present 
 tenses that follow ought to have precluded. — rv éavrov capxa| capf is here 
 indifferent® without the conception of what is sinful.* Paul might have 
 written cova instead,® but chose cdpxa, because the idea of the pia capé, 
 which is realized in the married state, is already (see ver. 21) present to his 
 mind. — a/2’] se. éxacroc.° — éxtpéger] enutrit, ‘‘nourishes.”” The compound 
 form denotes the development that is brought about by the nourishing ; 
 comp. vi. 4.7 — @aArec] makes it warm, fovet (Vulgate) ; Goth : ‘‘vurmeith.” 
 It is thus to be taken in its proper signification.* Bengel aptly says : ‘‘id 
 spectat amictum,” ‘‘ this refers to clothing, as nourishing does to food.” The 
 ‘* he fosters it,” Luther. Without suppert from lin- 
 guistic usage. —It is, we may add, self-evident that oideic . 
 expresses a proposition of experience, the correctness of which holds asa 
 general rule, and is not set aside by exceptional cases. The erucifying of 
 the flesh, however, in Gal. v. 24, has regard to the sinful cap£. —Kaldc Kai 6 
 Xp. tiv éxKdAgo.] sc. extpéder kat POdArer, Which is here, of course, to be inter- 
 
 
 
 usual interpretation is : 
 
 avrny 
 
 ' Riickert. corporis nostri caritatem,” ‘‘ I confess that 
 
 . 
 
 2 Woloss. p. 144. 
 
 3 Comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 425. 
 
 #See also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. 
 p. 54. 
 
 5 Curtius, vil. 1: ‘‘ corporibus nostris, 
 quae utique non odimus,” ‘with our 
 bodies, which assuredly we do not hate ;’” 
 Seneca, Zp. 14: ‘“‘fateor insitam nobis esse 
 
 love of-our body is implanted in us.” 
 
 6 See Stallbaum, ad Flat. Rep. p. 3806 D; 
 ad Symp. p. 192 E. 
 
 7 See the passages in Wetstein. 
 
 8 Hom. Odyss. xxi. 179, 184, 246; Xen. Cyr. 
 v. 1.11; Soph. Phil. 88; also Theocr. xiv. 
 88; Deut. xxii.6; Job xxxix. 14; 1 Thess. 
 ii. 8. 
 
518 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 preted metaphorically of the loving operation of Christ for the salvation of 
 His church, whose collective prosperity He carefully promotes. To bring 
 out by interpretation specially two elements' is arbitrary. According to 
 Kahnis,? Christ nourishes the church as His body by the communication of 
 His body in the Supper. But apart from the fact that @aare: does not suit 
 this, there isno mention at all of the Lord’s Supper in the whole connection. 
 Comp. on rapacr., ver. 27, and see on ver. 30 ff. The xa@d¢ kai 6 Xp." 
 vv éxxA. is the sacred refrain of the whole Christian ethics of marriage ; 
 comp. vv. 28, 20. 
 
 Ver. 30. Reason why Christ éxrpédec kai OaAwec the church : because we are 
 members of His body. jédn is prefixed with emphasis ; for we are not an 
 accidens, ‘‘accident,” but integral parts of His body. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 27. 
 — &k The capKoc avToU K. EK TOV doTéwv avTov| More precise definition of the pé27 
 rov cdmatoc avrov just said, in order to express this relation as strongly as 
 possible : (proceeding) from His flesh and from ITis bones. This form of 
 expression is a reminiscence of Gen. ii. 23,5 where Adam expresses the origin 
 of Eve out of his bones and out of his flesh,#—to which origin the deriva- 
 tive relation of Christians to Christ is analogous, of course not physically, 
 but in the spiritual, mystical sense, tnasmuch as the Christian existence as 
 such—the specific being and spiritual nature of Christians—proceeds from 
 Christ, has in Christ its principle of origination, asin a physical manner Eve 
 proceeded from Adam. The at any rate non-literal expressions are not in- 
 tended to bear minuter interpretation. They do not affirm that believers 
 are produced and taken out of Christ’s glorified body,® which is already for- 
 bidden by the expression ‘‘ flesh and bones.” Rather is the same thing in- 
 tended—only brought, in accordance with the connection, into the definite 
 sensuously genetic form of presentation suggested by Gen. /.c.—which else- 
 where is denoted by xawy xriow (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15), as well as by ¢@ 
 dé ovKére éy@, CH dF Ev Emo Xprordc (Gal. ii. 20), by Xpiordv évedboacbe (Gal. ii. 
 27), by the relation of the & xvevua eiva to Christ (1 Cor. vi. 17), and in 
 general by the expressions setting forth the Christian zat:yyeveoia.° Comp. 
 the xowovdv yivechar Oeiac ooewe, 2 Pet. i. 4. With various modifications it 
 has been explained of the spiritual origination from Christ already by Chry- 
 sostom (who understood the regeneration by baptism), Ambrosiaster, Theo- 
 doret, Oecumenius,’? Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Vorstius,* Calvin (‘‘qui 
 
 
 
 1 Grotius: ‘* nutrit eam verbo et Spiritu, 
 vestit virtutibus,”’ ‘‘nourishes it with His 
 word and Spirit ; clothes it with virtues.” 
 
 2 Abendm. p. 143 f. 
 
 3 This reminiscence the more readily sug- 
 gested itself to the apostle, not only in 
 general, because he was wont to think of 
 Christ as the second Adam (Rom. v. 12 ff.), 
 but also specially because he was just 
 treating of the subject of marriage. 
 
 4 That Paul should not prefix é« Tay 
 octewv, aS in Gen. ii. 23, but é« THs capkos, 
 was quite naturally suggested to him by 
 ver. 29. The explanation of Bengel is arbi- 
 trary and far-fetched. 
 
 5 Gess, Person Christi, p. 274 ff. ; comp. 
 Bisping. 
 
 6 Philo also, p. 1094, applies the words of 
 Gen. l.c. to a spiritual relation—to the rela- 
 tion of the soul to God. If the soul were 
 better and more like God, it would be able 
 to make use of those words, because, 
 namely, it ov« éativ aAdotpia avtod, adda 
 opddpa oixeca, ‘is not foreign to Him, but 
 emphatically His own.” ; 
 
 7 €& avtov Sé, Kad atapxy Nuav eat THs Sev- 
 Tépas TAdgews, WaoTep ex TOD Adam dia THY TPw- 
 cv, “Of Him, as He is our beginning of the 
 second creation, as Adam was by the first.” 
 
 8 “Spirituali tantum ratione ex ipso 
 
 Ps 
 
CHAP.OVS, 34s 519 
 spiritus sui virtute nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vitam ex eo hauriamus,” 
 ‘who by the virtue of His Spirit inserts us into His body, that we may derive 
 life from Him’), Calovius, Bengel, Matthies, de Wette,1 Hofmann, Reiche, 
 and others ; while, withal, Koppe (so also Meier) thought only arctissimam 
 quamlibet conjunctionem, ‘a most intimate union,” to be denoted, whereby 
 justice is not done to the genetic signification of the éx. Others explained it: 
 in so faras we have the same human nature as He. So Irenaeus, Jerome, 
 Augustine, Thomas, Michaelis ; comp. also Stolz and Rosenmiiller. Decid- 
 edly erroneous, partly because Paul could not in this sense say : ‘‘ we are 
 of Christ’s flesh and bone,” but only the converse : ‘‘ Christ is of our flesh 
 and bone” (Rom. i. 3, ix. 5; John i. 14) ; partly because the element of 
 having like nature with Christ would apply not merely to Christians, but 
 to men as such generally. Others refer it to the crucifixion of Christ: ‘ex 
 carne ejus et ossibus crucifivis, i.e., ex passione ejus predicata et credita 
 ortum habuit ecclesia,” ‘‘ from his flesh and crucified bones, 7.e., from his 
 passion preached and believed, the church has its origin,” Grotius.* But the 
 crucifixis, *‘ crucified,” is purely imported, and could the less be guessed 
 here, inasmuch as from the words the history of Adam and Eve inevitably 
 came to be recalled ; and there is nothing to remind us* of the ‘‘martyr- 
 stake of the cross,” upon which Christ ‘‘ gave up” His flesh and bones 
 “‘and suffered them to be broken” (? see John xix. 83, 36). Others, finally, 
 have explained it of the real communion with the body of Christ in the Lord’s 
 Supper. So recently,‘ in addition to Kahnis and Thomasius,° also Harless 
 and Olshausen, the latter of whom says : ‘‘it is the self-communication of 
 His divine-human nature, by which Christ makes us to be His flesh and 
 bone ; He gives His people His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.” But 
 not even the semblance of a plea for explaining it of the Supper hes in the 
 words ; since Paul has not written kai éx tov aiatoc avtov, Which would have 
 been specific in the case of the Supper, but kai éx rod doréwy adrowv! Riickert has 
 renounced any attempt at explanation, and doubts whether Paul himself 
 thought of anything definite in the words. A very needless despair of 
 exegesis ! [See Note LVL, p. 526. ] 
 
 Ver. 31. Not a citation from Gen. ii. 24, but (comp. vi. 2) Paul makes 
 these words of Scripture, which as such were well known to the readers, 
 his own, while the deviations from the LXX. are unimportant and make no 
 difference to the sense. What, however, is spoken, Gen. /.c., of the union 
 of husband and wife, Paul applies by typical inrerpretation to the coming 
 
 Christo quasi procreatos esse,” ‘‘ Only in 
 a spiritual manner, as if they were pro- 
 
 their interpretation. So Beza and Calvin 
 say that it is obsignatio et symbolum, “a 
 
 ereated from Christ Himself.” 
 
 1 Who, however, in the second edition, 
 regards the words as spurious. 
 
 2 Comp. already Cajetanus, as also Zan- 
 chius, Zachariae, Schenkel, having refer- 
 ence to John vi. 51 f., xiv. 18 ff. 
 
 3 In opposition to Schenkel. 
 
 4 Many of the older expositors, following 
 Theodoret and Theophylact, at least 
 mixed up the Supper in various ways in 
 
 sealing and symbol,” of the mystie fellow- 
 ship with Christ here meant. Grotius 
 found an allusion to the Supper; while, on 
 the other hand, Calovius maintained that 
 we were ex Christo, “* of Christ,’? not only by 
 regeneration, but also by the communica- 
 tion of His body and blood in the Lord’s 
 Supper. 
 SMe ta 
 
520 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 (future: xarareie x.t.2.) union of Christ with the church (see ver. 32), 4 
 union which shall take place at the Parousia, up to which time the church 
 is the bride of Christ, and at which time it is then nuptially joined with 
 Him (see on ver. 27),—and so the apostle expresses this antitype of the con- 
 jugal union in the hallowed words of Scripture, in which the type, the 
 marriage union in the proper sense, is expressed. We have accordingly 
 to explain it thus : For this reason, because we are Christ’s members, of His 
 flesh and of His bone, shall a man (i.e., antitypically, Christ, at the Parousia) 
 leave father and mother (i.e., according to the mystic interpretation of the 
 apostle : He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and be united with 
 his wife (with the church), and (and then) the two (the man and the wife, 2.e., 
 Christ who has descended and the church) shall be one flesh (form one ethi- 
 * cal person, as married persons by virtue of bodily union, become a physical 
 unity). Those expositors who, in keeping with the original sense of Gen, 
 l.c., take the words of aetual marriage,’ have against them as well the 
 avtt tovrov, Which cannot be referred without arbitrariness to anything else 
 than what immediately precedes, as also the future expression, which (as 
 also in Gen. /.c.) must denote something yet to come ; and not less the 
 statement of Paul Himself, ver. 32, according to which av#pwroc must be 
 interpreted of Christ, and tiv yvvaixa of the church, not merely perhaps? is to 
 be so interpreted. Hofmann likewise * understands it of real marriage, and 
 sees all difficulties vanish if we more closely connect ver. 32 with ver. 31, 
 so that rd pvot#piov tovro sums up the Old Testament passage itself and 
 makes this the subject, and then the sense is: ‘* That, as the passage affirms, 
 the marriage communion is the most intimate of all communions for this reason, 
 because the wife proceeds from the husband—this mystery, which was foreign to 
 the Gentiles, is great. It is a highly significant mystery of the order laid 
 down by the creation, a most important revelation of the divine counsel in this 
 domain, which the apostle interprets as applying to Christ and the church, 
 because marriage in this respect has its higher counterpart in the domain of 
 redemption, but without excluding its validity also for the married as regards 
 their relation regulated by the creation.” This view is incorrect, for the very 
 reason that to make rd jvorjpiov be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite 
 foreign to, and remote from, the connection ; because, further, Paul must 
 have written é@ dé viv Aéyw 3 because Aéyw does not mean ‘‘I say of it,” but 
 “‘T say @t,” @.e., L interpret it ; because av7i rovrov would remain entirely out 
 of connection with that which precedes, and thus the passage of Scripture 
 would make its appearance quite abruptly ; because, if the reader was to 
 understand the whoie passage of Scripture as the subject, summed up in 7d 
 pvoTtnp. Touro, of what follows, the apostle must have indicated this, in order 
 to be intelligible, by something like 75 dé avri tobrov k.7.A., wrothpioy 
 péya éotiv ; and because, finally, the validity of the fundamental law of 
 marriage, ver. 31, for married persons is so entirely self-evident, that a quite 
 
 So most expositors, including Matthies, an abrupt form merely as a hint thrown 
 Meier, Schenkel, Bleek, Riickert, who, out for the more initiated. 
 however, here too despairs of more precise 2 Reiche. 
 explanation, as the passage stands forth in 3 TI. 2, p. 139. 
 
CHAP: '¥.,/31. 521 
 
 unsuitable thought (‘‘ but without excluding,” etc.) is attributed to the jv 
 of ver. 33. — Those, further, who explain it of Christ and the church, as Hun- 
 nius, Balduin, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, are mistaken in be- 
 lieving the connection with Christ already existing in the present aidy as that 
 which is meant ; inasmuch as in the caradeier tov war. k. 7. unt. they think 
 of the incarnation,’ or generally of the fact that ‘‘ Christus nihil tam carum 
 habuit, quod non nostri causa abdicaverit,” ‘‘ Christ held nothing so dear 
 as not to have abdicated it for our sake,”’* or even of the separation of Christ 
 from His nation ® or from the synagogue ;* while Harless and Olshausen 
 pass- over xatadeiper Tov rarépa k.7.2. Without more precise explanation, as 
 unessential to the connection and aim, and regard only kai éoovrar oi 0. eic 
 o. gz. as the main point, explaining it of the Lord’s Supper.’ But the whole 
 reference to the already present connection with Christ is incorrect, because 
 this connection was just before expressed in the present form by péA7 éopiv 
 x.7.2., but now upon this present relation is based the setting in of a future 
 one (karadeiper x.7.2. ; Observe the futwre forms), and that by avri totbror, 
 quite as in Gen. il. 24 by means of évexey robrTov the future relation of 
 marriage is deduced from the then existing relation of Adam and Eve. 
 These expositors, besides, overlook the fact that in the aiéy oiroc, ‘‘ this 
 world,” Christ is not yet husband, but until the Parousia still bridegroom of 
 the church (ver. 27), which He only at the Parousia presents to Himself as 
 a purified and sanctified bride for nuptial union. Moreover, the setting 
 aside of the whoie portion kataAciec dvOpwroe Tov rat. K.t.2., On the part of 
 Harless and Ol]shausen, is a purely arbitrary proceeding. — avti toitov] See 
 Winer, p. 326. It is distinguished from the évexey rotrov in the LXX. only 
 
 by its placing the cause and the fact thereby conditioned in comparison 
 
 1“ Etiam Christus patrem quasi reliquit,”’ 
 “*Christ also, as it were, left His Father,” 
 Bengel. 
 
 * Grotius. 
 
 3 Michaelis. 
 
 4 Bisping. 
 
 ® What in marriage the fleshly union is, 
 that in the connection of the church with 
 Christ the substantial union by means of 
 the Supper is alleged tobe! “As man 
 and wife are indeed always one in love, but in 
 the elements of conjugal union, in which the 
 specific nature of marriage consists, become in 
 aspecial sense one flesh ; sois also the church 
 as a whole, and each congregation, like each 
 soul in it, always one spirit with Christ, the 
 Head of the body; but in the eements of the 
 sacred Supper the believing soul celebrates in a 
 very special sense the union with its Saviour, 
 in that it takes up into itself His flesh and 
 blood, and therewith the germ of the immortal 
 body.” This fanciful view of Olshausen is 
 without any warrant in the context, and at 
 variance with the future cataAeiwer, which 
 must—and that indeed according to Gen. 
 
 ii.—express something not yet accomplished, 
 but only ¢o be expected in the future. More- 
 over, the ‘leaving,’ ete., does not at all 
 suit the conception of the communion of 
 Christ with believers in the Supper, and 
 least of all the orthodox Lutheran concep- 
 tion of ubiquity. [See above, Note XIV.] 
 Nevertheless Kahnis (Abendm. p. 144) has 
 entirely acceded to the view of Olshau- 
 sen. He objects to the explanation of the 
 union of Christ with the church at the 
 Parousia, that this union cannot possibly be 
 thought of as ‘‘a sacrificial renunciation, 
 on the part of Christ, of His heavenly 
 glory.’’ But the matter is neither so thought 
 of nor so represented. That which is meant 
 by kxaradciwer, the coming again of Christ 
 from heaven, will—and this was well known 
 to the believing consciousness of every 
 reader—take place not without His heavenly 
 glory, but with that glory; and by the 
 union, which is expressed in the typical. 
 representation mpookoAAnOycerat x.7.A., the 
 cvvdoéac0jvac of the believers will then be 
 accomplished. Comp. Col. iii. 4. 
 
mh | 
 
 22 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 with each other according to the conception of requital (for this). The 
 reference of avri robrov, with regard to which many are entirely silent, can 
 be found only in ver. 80 : because our relation to Christ is this. See above. 
 Other references, as those of Estius : ‘‘ quia mulier formata est ex ossibus et 
 carne viri,” ‘‘ because the woman was formed of the man’s flesh and bones,” 
 and Holzhausen : ‘‘ because the man, in loving his wife, loves himself,” ? 
 are forced just because of their taking ver. 31 not according to its mystic 
 reference, but of real marriage. — av6épu70c| a human being, t.e., according to 
 the context, a man,? by which, however, according to the mystical interpre- 
 tation of the apostle, Christ is antitypically te be understood. — kai ri 
 pyrépa] is doubtless taken up along with the rest as a constituent part of 
 the words of Adam, but is not destined for a special exposition in the 
 typical reference of the passage to Christ, since caraAeiwer tov matépa avTov 
 can, in accordance with that typical reference, only apply to the descend- 
 ing of Christ from the right hand of God, which will ensue at the Parousia. 
 Then the cirOpovoc of the Father comes down to earth, to wed Himself 
 (Matt. xxv. 1) to the church, the bride, 2 Cor. xi. 2. 
 
 Ver. 32. For the understanding of ver. 31 in the sense of the apostle an 
 exegetical gloss was necessary, which is here given: This mystery is great, 
 is Important and exalted in its contents, but [say it, adduce it (namely, this 
 mystery, by which is meant just the declaration of Gen. ii. 24), in reference 
 to Christ and the church. — 7d pvoripiov rovT0] So Paul terms those Old Testa- 
 ment words just employed by him, in so far as they have a hidden meaning 
 not recognized without divine enlightenment.4— éy@ dé] 6, which Holz- 
 hausen even declares to be superfluous, has emphasis : 7, however (dé meta- 
 batic), opposed to the possible interpretations which might be given to the 
 mysterious utterance. — cic Xporov Kal ei¢ THv ExxAnoiay] so that we have thus 
 under @v@pwo7oc to understand Christ, and under 7 yuvy avtov the church. 
 This has been rightly discerned already by the Fathers,*® only they should 
 not have thought of the coming of Christ in the flesh,* but of the Parousia. 
 See on ver. 31. Lastly, it is worthy of notice simply under a historical 
 point of view, that Roman Catholics,* on the ground of the Vuigate, which 
 translates pvotipiov by sacramentum, proved from our passage *® that marriage 
 is a sacrament. 
 
 
 
 It is not this that is conveyed in the passage, as indeed in 
 general marriage ‘‘non habet a Christo dnstitutionem sacramentalem, non 
 Jormam, non materiam, non jinem sacramentalem,” ‘‘ has from Christ neither 
 a sacramental institution, nor form, nor substance, nor end,” but it is rather 
 
 1 Comp. avé’ ®yv, and see Matthiae, Hor. p. 784. Philo, p. 1096, allegorizes those 
 
 p. 1327; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 170. 
 
 2 Comp. Meierand Matthies. 
 
 3’ Without on that account av@pwmos stand- 
 ing for avyp, see Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 593. 
 
 4With the Rabbins, too, the formula 
 mysterium magnum, “a great mystery” 
 (Jalkut. Rud. f. 59, 4: SVD NP) N) is 
 very common. See Schoettgen, Horae, 
 p. 783 f. 
 
 § Later Rabbinico-mystical interpretations 
 of marriage may be seen in Schoettgen, 
 
 words in reference to reason, which for- 
 sakes wisdom and follows the senses. 
 
 6 See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
 lact, Jerome. 
 
 7 Tn connection with which Jerome inter- 
 preted thy uyntépa of the heavenly Jerusa- 
 lem ; comp. Estius. 
 
 5 But not Erasmus, Cajetanus, or Estius. 
 
 * See also Catech. Rom. ii. 8. 16 f. 
 
 10 Calovius, and see the Apol. Conf. Aug. 
 M. 204, J. 215. 
 
CHAP, V.5 33% d20 
 
 the sacredly ideal and deeply moral character, which is forever assured to 
 marriage by this typical significance in the Christian view. We may add 
 that monogamy is presupposed as self-evident, but does not form the set pur- 
 pose of the passage, which would be purely imported.’ 
 
 Ver. 33. TlAyv] is usually explained to the effect, that it leads back 
 to the proper theme after the digression of vv. 80-32, or merely ver. 32.7 
 ‘* Paulus prae nobilitate digressionis quasi oblitus propositae rei nune ad 
 rem revertitur,” ‘‘ Paul as it were forgetting his subject, through the 
 nobleness of the digression, now returns to it,” Bengel. A digression, 
 however, has certainly not taken place, but vv. 30, 31 essentially belong 
 to the description of the love of Christ to the church, and ver. 82 was a 
 brief gloss pertaining to the right understanding of ver. 31, and not 
 a digression. And zA/jv is used by way doubtless of breaking off (Luke 
 xix. 27, al.), but not of resuming. So also here: Yet—not further to 
 enter upon the subject of this jworhpiov—ye also ought (as Christ the 
 church), each one individually, in such manner (ovtuc, 7.e., in keeping with 
 the ideal of Christ contained in this yvorjpiov) to love his own wife as himself. 
 With «ai the persons appealed to, and with otvw¢ the mode of what they are 
 to do, are placed in a parallel with Christ. — oi caf iva] ye one by one, vos 
 singuli, man by man.? The following verb, however, has taken its regimen 
 from éxaoroc, not from the proper subject jweic, as often also in classical 
 writers.* — The twofold designation oi xa? éva éxacroc strengthens the concep- 
 tion, that each one without exception, etc. — dc éavrév] as himself, so that the 
 love issues from, and is determined by, the point of view : 6 ayarév tiv 
 Eavrov yuvaika éavrov ayara, Ver. 28. —7 dé yuv7y iva doBATa TOV avdpal 7 O& yuvy 
 is with emphasis absolutely ° prefixed, not yet dependent on the notion of 
 volo (see on 2 Cor. vill. 7) to be supplied in thought before iva. Hence : 
 but the wife—she ought to fear her husband. In this brief stern closing utter- 
 ance, the apostle, while stating the obligation of the husband to love the 
 wife dc éav76v, yet secures as concerns the wife the relation of subordina- 
 tion, namely, the duty of reverence for the husband—a duty, which is not 
 done away with by that obligation on the part of the husband. ‘‘ Optime 
 cohaerebit concordia, si wtrimque constabunt officia,” ‘‘ Harmony will 
 best be maintained, if on both sides the duties be diligently observed,” 
 Erasmus, Paraphr. Rightly, we may add, in accordance with the context 
 Oecumenius defines the notion of ¢0ByAraL: be mpérer yuvaixa goBeiabar, fu?) 
 dovdorperac, ‘‘ Not in a servile way, but as is fitting that a wife fear.” See 
 
 V. 22-24. 
 
 
 
 1 In opposition to Schwegler, p. 387. Gorg. p. 503 E; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iii. 1. 
 2 Olshausen. 8. 
 3 See Matthiae, p. 1357. 5 Winer, p. 506. 
 
 4See Matthiae, p. 765; Stallbaum, ad 
 
524 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Notes spy AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 L. Ver. 4. aisypétyc, ka? pwporoyia 7 evtparenia. 
 
 The first is ‘the shameful, whether actively exhibited or passively approved 
 in word, gesture or deed ”’ (Ellicott). As to the second, ‘‘that which is meant. 
 here by stultiloquy or foolish speaking is the ‘lubricum verbi,’ as St. Ambrose 
 calls it, the ‘slipping with the tongue,’ which prating people often suffer, 
 whose discourses betray the vanity of their spirit, and discover ‘the hidden 
 man of the heart’ (Jeremy Taylor, quoted by Trench). ‘* Luther hits the mark 
 with Narrentheidinge, buffoonery, which denotes what is high-flown, pompous, 
 in loose discourse’? (Braune). Both Stier and Trench call attention to the 
 fact that, considering the sense of ‘‘fool” and ‘folly ” in the N. T., something 
 positive as well as negative is here indicated. The classical evtpamedog was 
 ‘one ready with an answer or repartee.” To be such ‘‘required polish, 
 refinement, knowledge of the world, wit.’’ Yet sin, by losing its coarseness, 
 only became all the more dangerous. ‘In the finer talk of the world, its 
 ‘persiflage,’ its ‘badinage,’ there is that which would attract many, whom 
 seutrile buffoonery would only revolt and repel’’ (Trench). Itis ‘‘ that ribald- 
 ry, studied artifice, polite equivoque, which are worse in many cases than 
 open foulness of tongue” (Eadie) ; that finds ‘‘ occasion for wit or levity in 
 anything, however sacred, fearing nothing so much as to be dull, and mistak- 
 ing all seriousness and reserve for dulness’’ (Barry). ‘‘ Pleasantry of every 
 sort is not condemned by the apostle. He seems to refer to wit in connection 
 with lewdness — double entendre” (Nadie). Stierremarks that even St. Paul did 
 not abstain from wit, as may be seen in Acts xxvi. 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. 
 xii. 13, and adds: ‘But his wit is holy, full of meaning, and his jesting, if so 
 it may be called, is inseparably united with the purest earnestness, as is 
 proper. Never from mere pleasure in empty wit do we find the form without 
 profitable contents, as well as never to the injury of his neighbor,”’ 
 
 LI. Ver. 13. av yap 70 davepotpmevov dc éEotiv. 
 
 The interpretation of Meyer has been adopted in the English Revised Ver- 
 sion, and supported among others by Alford, Ellicott, Barry, Riddle. The 
 chief. objection urged by Olshausen and Nadie, ‘that light does not always 
 exercise this transforming influence, for the devil and the wicked are reproved 
 by the light, without themselves becoming light,’” is answered by Ellicott : 
 ‘‘ All that is asserted is that ‘whatever is illumined is light ; whether that tend 
 to condemnation or the contrary depends upon the nature of the case and 
 the inward operation of the outwardly illumining influence.” ‘St. Paul here 
 explains still more clearly what he means by illumination. It implies the 
 catching the light and reflecting it so as to become a new source of light. It 
 must be noted that the subject of the sentence is not ‘the works of darkness,’ 
 but ‘all things’ in general. Hence the whole process is described, with almost 
 scientific accuracy, as threefold. First, the things or persons are dragged out 
 of darkness into light ; then they are illuminated ; lastly, they become light 
 in themselves and to others. There are no doubt exceptions to this the right 
 and normal process, in the case of the utterly reprobate, who have lost all 
 
NOTES. 5723) 
 
 power of reflecting light, and are, therefore, dark still in the blaze of noon ; 
 but the next verse shows that St. Paul is not contemplating these ; and even 
 these may be beacons of warning to others ” (Barry), 
 
 LIT. Ver. 14. did Aéyer. *Eyetpe. 
 
 Better than Meyer's explanation is that of Ellicott : ‘It seems much more 
 reverent, as well as much more satisfactory, to say that St. Paul, speaking 
 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is expressing in a condensed and 
 summary form the spiritual meaning of the passage. The prophet’s imme- 
 diate words (Is. Ixi., 1 sq.) supply, in substance, the first part of the quotation ; 
 the concluding part is the spiritual application of the remainder of the verse.” 
 See Terry’s Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 500 sq.; Toy’s Quotations in the N. T., 
 p. 199 sq. 
 
 Litt. Ver. 16. éSayopafouevoe Tov Karpov. 
 
 «That we are to make a wise use of circumstances for our own good or that 
 of others, and like prudent merchants to buy up the fitting season for so doing” 
 (Ellicoit). Compare Dan. ii. 8: ‘I know that ye would gain the time,” ‘‘i.e., 
 catch the opportunity to escape from difficulty ’’ (Barry), 
 
 LIV. Ver. 18. 14) oiv@ pebioKete k.T.A. 
 
 “Tt is a sensation of want, a desire to fly from himself, a craving after some- 
 thing which is felt to be out of reach, eager and restless thirst to enjoy some 
 happiness and enlargement of heart, that usually leads to intemperance. But 
 the Spirit fills Christians and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and 
 peace ; genuine elevation and mental freedom; superiority to all depressing 
 influences ; and refined and permanent enjoyment. Of course, if they are so 
 filled with the Spirit, they feel no appetite for debasing and material stimnu- 
 lants ” (Hadie). 
 
 LY. Ver. 26. év pjuate. 
 
 The construction is peculiar, and grammatical difficulties appear to what- 
 ever of the three words this clause be attached, the separation from the ayiacy 
 being a great objection to Meyer's view. May not the true solution be indi- 
 cated by the incidental remark of Ellicott that it belongs ‘‘to the whole 
 expression’? Developing this still further, the idea would become ‘‘that he 
 might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the word ; for the means of this cleans- 
 ing was by a washing of water, in accordance with and in virtue of the word.”’ 
 “Ep pyart, if it be joined with xa@apioac or with 7@ AovTpw Tod bdaToc, Means 
 in virtue of a word, viz., of the word of salvation preached, év being taken as in 
 Acts iv. 7, 9,10... This xa@., ete., possesses its distinctive power and force 
 because it takes place in virtue of a word, and év p. serves only to complete the 
 thought, the description of baptism. Hence the omission of the article”’ 
 (Cremer’s Lexicon, p, 267). Philippi (v. 1, 197) also calls attention to the 
 fact that the omission of the article before the Jyuazc ‘‘marks the close, insep- 
 arable connection between the Aourpér bdaro¢ and the pjua.” Accedit verbuin ad 
 elementum et fit sacramentum (Augustine). ‘‘It is not the water that produces 
 these effects, but the word of God which accompanies and is connected with 
 the water, and our faith which relies on the word of God connected with the 
 
526 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. ‘ 
 
 water’ (Luther, Small Catechism, iv. 3). ‘‘If the word be taken away, the 
 water is the same as that with which the servant cooks” (Luther, Large Cate- 
 chism, p. 464). 
 
 Ellicott defines fjua as ‘‘the gospel,” i.e., «the word of God preached and 
 taught preliminary to baptism,” a view which is perfectly consistent with the 
 word of divine institution and promise, since the entire gospel is epitomized 
 therein. A 
 
 LVI. Ver. 30. 67¢ péAn éopév K.7.2, 
 
 While any direct allusion to the Lord’s Supper must be rejected, nevertheless, 
 as in John vi., a principle is here presented which finds its highest realization 
 in that sacrament, 
 
CHAP. VI. 527 
 
 CHAPTER’ Yi. 
 
 Ver. 1. After iuév Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have év xvpiw, in opposition to B D* F G, 
 It. Marcion, Cyril, Cypr. Ambrosiast. Rejected by Mill, suspected by Griesb., 
 deleted by Lachm. and Riick., but defended (on the ground of Col. iii. 20) by 
 Harless and Reiche. The latter with justice ; since the witnesses who omit do 
 not preponderate, and since for the purpose of a gloss not év xupiw but o¢ To 
 kupi@ (v. 22) would have suggested itself. If, however, év xvpiw had been added 
 from Col. l.c., it would have been brought in after décacov. — Ver, 5. Toi¢g xupioue 
 kata odpka] Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riick.: toi¢ cata capKa 
 «vpiowe, following A B 8, min. Clem, Dam. Theophyl. From Col. iii. 22.—Ver. 
 6. The article before Xpvovov is, with Lachm. and Tisch. [West. and Hort], in 
 accordance with preponderating testimony, to be deleted. — Ver. 7. &¢, which 
 is wanting with Elz., is decidedly attested. — Ver. 8. 6 iav tu &xaoroc] Lachm. 
 [Treg.] and Riick. have éxacroc 6 éav, which was also recommended by Griesb., 
 following ADEFG, min. Vulg. It. Bas. Dam. Other variations are, éxaoro¢ 
 édv Tt (B), éav moujo. éxacroc (N*), ev Te TOL. Ex. (N**), 6 Edv Tee ExaoToc (1, 2, 32) 
 al.), édv te éxaor. (46, 115, al., Theoph. ms.), éav tig éxaor. (62, 197, al.), €av TLC 
 (or 71) dvOpwroc (Chrys. in Comment.). The best attested reading is accordingly 
 &xaotoc 6 éav. But if this had been the original one, it would not be at all easy to 
 see how it could have given rise to variations, and specially to the introducing 
 ofthe 7. The Recepta, on the other hand (again adopted by Tisch.), became very 
 easily the source of the other readings, if the copyist passed over from OTI at 
 once to the subsequent TI. Thus arose the corruption 6ru éxaoto¢ Toon K.T.A., 
 and thence, by means of different ways of restoring what had been omitted, 
 were formed the variations, in which case dv@pwroc came in instead of éxacro¢ 
 as a gloss, designed to indicate the general sense of éxactoc.—Komweita] A B D* 
 FG &* Petr. alex.: xoicetas.! So Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], Rick. 
 In Col. iii. 25, likewise, these two forms are found side by side in the critical 
 witnesses. Nevertheless here, as there, couiceta: is more strongly attested, and 
 hence to be preferred. «xoeitae may have originated in a reminiscence of 
 1 Pet. v. 4. — Ver. 9. tuav aitov] many variations, among which avr@v x. iav (So 
 Lachm, Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], Riick. and Harless; recommended also by 
 Griesb.) is that most strongly attested, namely, by A B D* min. Arm. Vulg. Goth. 
 Copt. Clem. Pet. Chrys. (alicubi) Damasc. Jer. Aug. Pel. Rightly. The men- 
 tion of the slaves (aitv) appeared here partly in itself, partly from a comparison 
 with Col. iv. 1, not relevant; hence the Recepta (anew defended by Reiche) 
 juav av7ov, in which case ai7ov applies to the masters, just as abrav vyov in 
 EF G,and merely juov in 17. Others, leaving the «ai standing, at least pretixed 
 juov (L, min. Syr. p. Fathers: dudv xai airov). &* testifies in favor of Lach- 
 mann’s reading by éavrav kai tudv, whereas 8**, like the others, has regarded 
 
 1 A reads KOMISETE, and thus testifies indirectly in favor of copicerat. 
 
528 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 the prefixing of tuav (thus ty. «. éavr.) as necessary. — Ver. 10. 76 Aoiz6v] Lachm. 
 Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort. and Riick. read roi Aoirov, following AB &* 17, 73, 
 118, Cyril, Procop. Dam. Thus at least not preponderantly supported. In 
 favor, however, of To Aorér, testifies also the reading duvayovobe, which is found 
 in B17, instead of the following évdvvayoicfe, and probably has arisen from 
 the confounding on the part of the copyist of the N in Aourév with the N in 
 ENodvvayovobe. Since, moreover, 76 Ao.zrdv better accords with the sense than - 
 Tod Aourov (see on Gal. vi. 17), I hold the latter to be a mechanical repetition 
 from Gal. l.c. — The following ddeAgoi ov is wanting in BD E &* Aeth. Arm. 
 Clar. Germ. Goth. Cyril, Damase. Lucifer, Ambrosiast. Jerome ; while in A! F 
 G, codd. Ital. Syr. p. Vulg. Theodoret, only wov is wanting. adeAgoéi pov, which 
 Griesb. also holds suspected, and Lachm. Tisch. Rick. | West. and Hort], have 
 deleted, is an addition from Phil, iii. 1, iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. And 
 this addition, too, tells in favor of the originality of 70 Aoczov. —- Ver. 12. jyuir) 
 B D* FG, 52, 115, Syr. Ar. pol. Slav. ant. It. Goth. Lucif. Ambrosiast. : tiv. 
 Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rick. But how naturally 
 would juiv suggest itself to the copyists, inasmuch as the whole context speaks in 
 the second person !—rov cKxorove Todtov] Elz. has tov ox. Tov aiwvoc TovTov, in Op- 
 position to decisive witnesses. Expansion by way of gloss. — Ver. 16. éxi zdow] 
 Lachm. [West. and Hort] reads év zdow, for which more current expression, 
 however, only B 8, min. Vulg. It. and some Fathers testify, and several vss. are 
 doubtful. — ra before wexvp. is wanting, indeed, in B D* FG, and is deleted by 
 Lachm., but was easily regarded as superfluous and thus passed over. — Ver. 
 17. défacHe] is wanting in D* F G, codd. It. and various Fathers, while A D*** 
 K Land min. read défacha: (so Matth.), and Arm. places détao0e before Tv mepiked. 
 Suspected by Griesb. But if no verb had stood, and a gloss had been supplied, 
 we should most naturally expect dva/iaBere to be added. In consideration, 
 however, of the seeming redundancy, it is much more likely that the omission 
 was made. The infinitive has come in after the preceding ofécar. — Ver. 18. 
 aizd Touro] A B &, min. Basil, Chrys. (in commentary) Damasce. have only avr ; 
 D* F G have ai7év, and Latins in illwn or in illo s. ipso, which readings likewise 
 tell in favor of the simple ai7é. With reason (in opposition to Reiche) rovro is dis- 
 approved by Griesb., and rejected by Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., West. and Hort] and 
 Riick. An exegetical, more precise definition in accordance with Paul’s practice 
 elsewhere. — Ver. 19. dv07] Elz. has do$ein, in opposition to decisive testimony. 
 Perhaps occasioned by a mere repetition of the H in copying. — Ver. 21. eidjre 
 kai bueic] Lachm. and Rick. read kaiiueic eidj7e. SoA DEFG 8&8, min. Vulg. 
 It. Theodoret, Lat. Fathers. In what follows Lachm. and Riick. [West. and 
 Hort] place yrwpice: before juiv, following BDE FG &, min. It. Goth. Ambrosi- 
 ast. The latter from Col. iv. 7. And the former is to be explained from the cir- 
 cumstance that «ai? iweic was, through inattention to the reference of the kat, 
 omitted as superfluous (so still in cod. 17), and was thereupon reintroduced 
 according to the order of the words which primarily suggested itself, by which 
 means it came before eidjrte. 
 
 ContEents.—How the children (vv. 1-8), the fathers (ver. 4), the slaves 
 (vv. 5-8), and the masters (ver. 9) are to demean themselves. Concluding 
 exhortation to the acquiring of Christian strength, for which purpose the 
 
 1A has adeAdoi only after évévvamotade. 
 
CHAP. VI.; 1, 2. 529 
 
 readers are to put on the whole armor of God, and thus armed to stand forth, 
 in order victoriously to sustain the conflict with the diabolic powers (vv. 
 10-17) ; in connection with which they are ever to apply themselves to 
 prayer, and to make intercession for all Christians, and, in particular, for 
 the apostle (vv. 18-20). Sending of Tychicus (vv. 21, 22). Concluding 
 wishes (vv. 23, 24). 
 
 Ver. 1. ’Ev xvpiw| characterizes the obedience as Christian, the activity of 
 which moves in Christ, with whom the Christian withal stands in commun- 
 ion of life. The reference to God’ is already refuted by the very év 4680 
 Xpiorov, iv. 21, placed at the head of all these precepts, as also by the stand- 
 ing formula itself (comp. Col. ili. 20). —dixatov] right, ¢.e., kata Tov Tov Ocod 
 vouov, ‘‘ according to God’s law,” Theodoret. Comp. Col. iv. 1; Phil. i. 7, 
 iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; Luke xii. 57.—In favor of infant baptism, i.e., in favor of 
 the view that the children of Christians were as early as that time baptized, 
 nothing at all follows from the exhortation of the apostle to the children.? 
 The children of Christians were, through their fellowship of life with their 
 Christian parents, even without baptism ayco: (see on 1 Cor, vii. 14 ; Acts xvi. 
 15), and had to render to their parents obedience év kupiw. [See Note LVIL, 
 p. 557. | 
 
 Ver. 2. The frame of mind towards the parents, from which the braxotew 
 just demanded of the children must proceed, is the rywav. Hence Paul con- 
 tinues, and that in the express hallowed words of the fourth commandment : 
 tia Tov warépa cov k.T.A. (EX. xx. 12; Deut. v. 16). And as he had before 
 subjoined the general motive of morality rovro yap éore dixaov, so he 
 now subjoins the particular incitement 7ric¢ éorw évtody mpdry év éxayyed., 
 so that the relation as well of the two precepts themselves, as of their motives, 
 vv. 1, 2, is climactic, and #ric . . . éxayyedia can by no means be a paren- 
 - thesis.® —7ric| utpote quae, ‘‘ since it is,” specifies a reason. See on iii. 13. 
 —évtoAy mporn év exayyed.| The article is not necessary with the zpér7, which 
 is in itself defining, or with the ordinal numbers generally.4 Comp. Acts 
 xvi. 12; Phil. i. 12, a7. And the statement that the commandment jirst as 
 to number in the Decalogue has a promise, is not inconsistent with the facts, 
 since the promise, Ex. xx. 6, Deut. v. 10, is a general one, having reference 
 - to the commandments as a whole. Just as little is it to be objected that no 
 further commandment with a promise follows in the Decalogue ; for Paul says 
 porn, having before his mind not only the Decalogue, but also the entire 
 series of all the divine precepts, which begins with the Decalogue. Among the 
 commandments, which God has given at the time of the Mosaic legislation 
 and in all the subsequent period, the commandment : ‘‘ Honor father and 
 mother,” is the first which is given with a promise. The apparent objection 
 is thus removed in a simple manner by our taking év7027 as divine command- 
 ment in general, and not restricting it to the sense ‘‘commandment in the 
 
 1“ Praeter naturaelegem. . . Dei quoque 2In opposition to Hofmann, Schrifibew. 
 auctoritate sancitum docent,” ‘‘In addi- Tks 2 jos Tp 
 tion to the law of nature, they teach that 3 Griesbach, Riickert, and others. 
 which is established by the authority of 4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. vii. 7. 35. 
 
 God,” Calvin ; comp. Wolf. 
 34 
 
530 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 Decalogue.” If Paul had had merely the Decalogue in mind, he must have 
 written : the only commandment.’ For the assumption that ‘‘it is the first, 
 not with regard to those which follow, but to those which have preceded,” ? 
 would not even be necessarily resorted to, if it were really established— 
 which, however, is assumed entirely without proof—that Paul had taken 
 into account merely the ten commandments, seeing that he and every one of 
 his readers knew that no other commandment of the ten had a promise. 
 From the arbitrary presupposition, that merely the Decalogue was taken into 
 account, it followed of necessity in the case of other expositors, either that 
 they restricted évroAy simply to the commandments of the second table,* in 
 connection with which Holzhausen even maintained that évr0A# never denotes 
 a commandment in reference to God (see Matt. xxii. 36, 88 ; Mark xii. 28) ; 
 or else that they tampered with the numerical sense of rpér7, and made out 
 of it a very important, a chief commandment. What a feeble motive would 
 thus result ! and xpéry would in fact mean the most important, which, how- 
 ever, the fourth commandment is not (Matt. xxii. 38; Rom. xiii. 9, 10 ; 
 Gal. v. 14). Further, the proposal of Erasmus, that tpéry év étayyeA. should 
 be held to apply to the definite promise of ver. 3, mention of which jirst 
 occurs in the fourth commandment, is not worthy of attention,® but errone- 
 ous ; because the same promise occurs after the fourth commandment only 
 with a general reference to the commandments as a whole (Deut. v. 33, vi. 2), 
 as it has also occurred even lefore the fourth commandment in such a gen- 
 eral form (Deut. iv. 40) ; and because, besides, érayy. could not but have 
 the article. — év érayyed.| is to be closely attached to mpéry, as expressing 
 that, wherein this commandment is the first, the point in which the predi- 
 cate pertains to it. Comp. Diodor, xiii. 37 : 
 “the first in nobility and richness,” Soph. O. R. 33: zparog év ovpdopaic, 
 ‘“the first inresults.” In point of promise it is the first (ov rq raFe, ‘* not in 
 order,” Chrysostom). 
 
 Ver. 3. After Paul has just said: ‘‘ the first commandment with promise,” 
 he now adduces the definite promise, on account of which this predicate 
 pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Ex. xx. 
 12, Deut. v. 16, with immaterial variation (LXX. : kai iva paxpoyp. yévy ent 
 tT. y.), and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine, 
 which in the LXX. follows after yc. This omission, however, was not 
 occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life 
 
 év dé evyeveia kal TAOUT@ TpOTOC, 
 
 1 According to Bleek, Paul had not at the 
 moment the form of the following com- 
 mandments of the Decalogue definitely 
 before his mind. But with such inadvert- 
 ence no one is less to be charged than 
 Paul. 
 
 2 Harless. 
 
 3 In opposition to this, Erasmus aptly re- 
 marks: ‘‘ Haee distinctio non est fundata 
 in s. literis, sed est commentum recentio- 
 rum theologorum,” ‘‘This distinction is 
 not grounded in the Holy Scriptures, but is 
 a fiction of more recent theologians.”? In 
 
 general it is to be observed that, according 
 to Philo and Josephus, each of the two 
 tables contained jive commandments, not,, 
 as Augustine (whom Luther followed) sup- 
 posed, the first ¢hvee, and the second seven, 
 —and thus two sacred numbers, in which 
 case, moreover, there was found in the 
 first table a reference to the Trinity. Am- 
 brosiaster, Zachariae, Michaelis, the latter 
 misconstruing the absence of the article 
 before évroAy mpwHTy as favoring his view. 
 
 4 Koppe, Morus, Flatt, Matthies, Meier. 
 
 5 Harless. 
 
CHAP. VI., 4. 531 
 
 in general,' in which case, indeed, én? r#¢ ye might also have been left out ; 
 but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words 
 of the promise, that with the mere iz? r7¢ yj¢ enough was said to preclude 
 any misunderstanding which should depart from the original sense : im the 
 land, i.e., Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the 
 original text well known to the readers, éxi ti¢ yc is to be understood, not 
 as ‘‘upon earth ;” for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its 
 original sense is not at all to be altered or spiritualized, or to be taken con- 
 ditionally, as e.g. was done by Zanchius : if the promise is not fulfilled sim- 
 pliciter, ‘‘absolutely,” yet it is fulfilled commutatione in majus, ‘‘by a 
 change to what is greater ;” or by Calovius : ‘‘ Promissiones temporales 
 cum conditione intelligendae, quantum sc. temporalia illa nobis salutaria fore 
 Deus censuerit,” ‘‘ Temporal promises must be understood conditionally, 
 viz., so faras God regarded that these temporal matters would be salutary 
 to us ;” comp. also Estius, who at the same time remarks? that the land of 
 Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Matt. v. 5), and the long 
 life everlasting blessedness. Nor is it to be said, with Bengel, Morus, 
 Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly blessing is promised 
 not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons ‘‘thow shalt ” 
 in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed 
 to the people, the individual is withal addressed, as is evident from the very 
 commandments in which the neighbor is mentioned, and as is the view 
 underlying all the N. T. citations from the Decalogue-law, Matt. xv. 4, v. 
 21, 27; Rom. vil. 7, xiii. 9. —ed oor yévyrar] Comp. Gen. xii. 13 ; Deut. iv. 
 40 ; Ecclus. i. 13. A Greek would employ ed rdoyew, eb mpdtre, or the 
 like, or even ayafé cou yévytar. — kai ton k.t.A.| is regarded by Winer, p. 258. 
 and de Wette,* not as dependent upon iva, but as a direct continuation of 
 the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as iva with the 
 future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1 Cor. ix. 18 ; Gal. ii. 4) ; 
 and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct continua- 
 tion of the discourse in those passages of the O. T., the sense of which Paul 
 reproduces. At Rev. xxii. 14 also the future and subjunctive are inter- 
 changed after iva, as also in classical writers the same variation after é7w¢ is 
 well known.* And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit 
 the sense, so that yévyrac expresses the pure becoming realized, and ion 
 paxpoxpév. the certain emergence and continued subsistence.° The change is a 
 logical climax. 
 
 Ver. 4. The duty of fathers, negative and positive. — kai oi ratépec| and ye 
 fathers, so that cai quickly subjoins. Comp. ver. 9. Paul does not address 
 the mothers, not because he is thinking of the training of grown-up children, ® 
 nor on account of an Oriental depreciation of the mothers,’ in opposition to 
 
 1 Calvin, Koppe, Riickért, Matthies, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277; 
 
 Schenkel, and many. Ellendt, Zex. Soph. Il. p. 335 f. ; Buttmann, 
 2So again typically Olshausen, comp. Neutest. Gramm. p. 184 [E. T. 213}. 
 Baumgarten-Crusius. 5 Kiihner, IT. p. 491. 
 3 Comp. already Erasmus. ® So quite arbitrarily Olshausen. 
 
 4 See on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, 7 Riickert. 
 
532 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 which view—even apart from passages like Prov. xiv. 1, xxxi. 10 ff.—the 
 whole teaching of the apostle concerning the relation of husband and wife 
 in marriage (v. 25 ff.) is decisive ; but because the husband, as the head of 
 the wife, has, even in the bringing up of children the rule, and the wives 
 join in prosecuting the work of training iroracoaémevar tore Wiow avdpdow 
 (v. 22 ff.).— yu mapopyitere] by injustice, harshness, hastiness of temper, 
 undue severity, and the like, whereby the children are irritated against the 
 fathers ; at Col. iii. 21 there is subjoined as motive wa py abvudow. — éxtpé- 
 dere] not asat v. 29, but of the bringing up, and that on its moral side. 
 Prov. xxili. 24; 1 Macc. vi. 15,55; Plato, Gorg. p. 471 C ; Polyb. vi. 6. 
 2.’ — év raideia kai vovbecia kvpiov] év denotes the regulative element, in which 
 the training is to take place.? Hence : in the Lord’s training and correction. 
 ratdeia is the general term, the training of children asa whole, and vov@ecia 
 is the special one, the seproof aiming at amendment, whether this admoni- 
 tion take place by means of words or of actual punishments.* See Gellius, 
 vi. 14 ; Kypke, Obss. ad 1 Thess. v. 14. With regard to the form, in place 
 of which the better Greek has vovféryoic, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. 
 [See Note LVIIL., p. 557.] «vpéov means neither to the Lord,® nor according 
 to the doctrine of Christ,® nor worthily of the Lord,’ or the like ; but it is the 
 subjective genitive, so that the Lord Himself is conceived as evercising the 
 training and reproof, in so far, namely, as Christ by His Spirit impels and 
 governs the fathers therein. Riickert is unable to come to a decision, and 
 doubts whether Paul himself had a distinct idea before his mind. 
 
 Ver. 5. On vv. 5-9, comp. Col. iii. 22-iv. 1. — Here, too, there is doubt- 
 less no approval, but at the same time no disapproval of the existing slavery 
 in itself, which—in accordance with the apostolic view of a Christian’s 
 position (Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. vii. 22; comp. Tit. 1. 9 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 18)— 
 like every other outward relation of life, ought not to affect spiritual free- 
 dom and Christian unity ; hence at 1 Cor. vii. 21 it is expressly prescribed 
 that the slave is to remain in his position,® as, indeed, Paul even sent back 
 Onesimus after his conversion to his master, without requiring of the latter 
 his manumission."® — roic¢ Kvpiore kata capxa] to those, who in a merely human 
 
 1 See Wyttenbach, ad Plut. de educ. p. 66; 
 Lennep, ad Phalar. p. 350 b. 
 
 2 Comp. Polyb. i. 65. 7: 
 VOMLOLS K, TOALTLKOLS EbeoLY ExTEApaupevor, “ Of 
 those brought up in the training and laws 
 and political customs.” 
 
 3 vouteruxot Adyou, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 21. 
 
 4 oi meéev paBdSor 
 Quaest. Rom. p. 283. 
 
 5 Luther. 
 
 ® Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Menochius, 
 Estius, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosen- 
 miiller, Bisping, and others, including Holz- 
 hausen, who, however, takes cup. of God. 
 
 7 Matthies. 
 
 ® Comp. Soph. Hlectr. 835: amavra yap cor 
 Tawa vousteTipata Keivys SidakTa, Kovdev ék 
 cauris A€yets, “For all the admonitions given 
 
 TOV év Tatdelats K. 
 
 Plut. 
 
 voutveTovot k.T.A., 
 
 by you to me are of her teaching; you 
 speak nothing of yourself.” 
 
 ® Comp. Ignat. ad Polyc. 4 ; Constitt. Apost. 
 vel 2s svilsdd)s) ville eae de 
 
 10 The reforming efficacy of the gospel ad- 
 dresses itself to knowledge and feeling, 
 out of which, and so out of the inner life of 
 faith, the alterations of the outward forms 
 and relations of life gradually take shape 
 with moral necessity by way of conse- 
 quence ; as history, too, has shown, which. 
 when it has developed itself ina revolution- 
 ary manner, has either violently precipi- 
 tated, or forsaken, or inverted that course, 
 or else in its necessary development has 
 encountered such hindrances as disowned 
 the influence of this necessary develop- 
 ment, and yet could not arrest it. ‘* Civi- 
 
GHA Palit, sets 533 
 relation are your rulers, 7.e., your human masters, whose slaves you are as re- 
 gards outward temporal position in life, by way of distinction from the 
 higher divine master, Christ ; hence also roic¢ kup. x. o, stands without repe- 
 tition of the article, combined into one idea ; comp. on ii. 11. As Paul im- 
 mediately after makes mention of the higher master Christ (é¢ 7@ Xpior@), 
 it was very natural for him, in view of the twofold and very diverse rela- 
 tion of masters which was now present to his mind, to add xara capxa, in 
 the use of which any special set purpose cannot be made good. This in op- 
 position to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, who find in it a 
 consolatory allusion to the decroreia tpdoxarpoc, ‘* temporary mastership ;” in 
 opposition to Calvin, who supposes a softening of the relation to be con- 
 veyed in this expression, as being one that leaves the spiritual freedom un- 
 touched ;* and in opposition to Harless, who finds in the predicate the 
 thought that, although in another domain they are free, yet in earthly re- 
 lations they had masters. — wera @dBov x. tpdu.] t.e., with that zeal, which is 
 ever keenly apprehensive of not doing enough. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 
 2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 12. —év arddryte tH¢ Kapd. iu.| State of heart, in 
 which the obedience with fear and trembling is to take place ; it is to be no 
 hypocritical one, in which we are otherwise minded than we outwardly seem, 
 but an upright, inwardly true one, without duplicity of disposition and act. 
 Comp. Rom. xii. 8 ; 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11; Jas.i.5. In Philo joined with 
 axakia.” Oecumenius well observes : 
 GAN ovk é& evvoiac a2Aa Kaxovpywc, ‘for it is possible to serve with fear and 
 trembling, and yet not with good will, but malevolently.” —d¢ 76 Xpiord} 
 as to Christ, so that you regard your obedience to your masters as rendered 
 to Christ (comp. v. 22).° See ver. 6. An allusion to reward * is imported. 
 Vv. 6, 7. The év arddryt . . . XpiovH just spoken of is now more pre- 
 cisely described. — u7 kar od8aAu. d¢ avOp.| not after an eye-serving manner as 
 men-pleasers. The word 60@a2uodovAeia occurs nowhere else than here and 
 Col. iii. 3, but its meaning is, from its composition, clear.° It is the service 
 which is rendered to the eyes of the master, but in which the aim is merely 
 to acquire the semblance of fidelity, inasmuch as one makes himself thus 
 noticeable when seen by the master, but is in reality not such, acting, on 
 the contrary, otherwise when his back is turned.® — av6purdpecxor] Comp. 
 Ps. lili. 5; Psalt. Sal. iv. 8. 10, in Fabric.;7 and see Lobeck,* The men 
 
 évl yap Kai weTa O63ov kK. Tpduov dovAEberv, 
 
 1 Comp. Beza, Zanchius, Grotius, Flatt, 
 and others. 
 
 tates malis studiis malisque doctrinis re- 
 pente evertuntur,” “States are suddenly 
 
 overthrown by wicked desires and wicked 
 doctrines,”’ Cic. Zeg. ii. 15.39. It is not, 
 however, to be overlooked that by the 
 apostle’s mode of regarding the relation of 
 freedom and slavery which he found ewist- 
 ing, the slavery introduced by Christians, 
 the enslaving of free men, the slave trade, 
 etc., are byno means justified—rather are 
 these things impossible, where the knowl- 
 edge and feeling, that spring from evan- 
 gelical faith, are the principles which shape 
 the life and the forms assumed by it. 
 
 2 See Loesner, Odss. p. 262. 
 
 3 [@s tumw @cov, Teaching of the Twelve 
 Apostles, line 104. ] 
 
 4 Theodoret. 
 
 5 Comp. ofdadpodovaos 
 Apost. iv. 12. 2. 
 
 ® Theodoret : thy ovK €& etAukpivods kapdias 
 mpoopepomevnv depametav, aAAA TW OXNMATL KeE- 
 xpwopevnv,”’ *‘the service rendered not from 
 a pure heart, but adopting the semblance.” 
 
 7 Cod. Pseud. i. p. 929. 
 
 8 Ad Phryn. p. 621. 
 
 in the Constitt. 
 
534 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 whom such slaves endeavor to please are just their masters, and the fault of 
 this behavior lies in the fact that such endeavor is not conditioned by the 
 higher point of view of serving Christ and doing the will of God, but has as 
 its aim simply Awman approbation. Even of slaves Matt. vi. 24 holds good. 
 Comp. Gal. i. 10.—a2/’ dg dovdoe Xpiotod, twosovvtec TO HéAnua Tov Oeod ex 
 wuync| but as slaves of Christ, in that ye do the will of God from the heart. 
 The contrast lies in dovAo: Xpiorov (comp. ver. 7), and rovodvrec «.7.A. 18° a 
 modal definition of this their service, whereupon there follows in ver. 7 
 yet a second modal definition. Now to be a slave of Christ and not to do 
 the will of God, and that indeed ex animo (from a genuine impulse of the 
 soul), would be a contradiction, seeing that God is the Father of Christ, 
 has sent Christ, and is the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3, ili. 23). According 
 to Riickert, &¢ dovAo: Xpiorov is subordinate, and rovovytec tr. 0éA. Tr. Oeod Ek 
 weyne forms the ‘contrast : ‘‘but doing as Christ’s servants the will of God 
 from the heart.” But after avOpwrdpecko:, comp. with ver. 5, this subordina- 
 tion of dc dovao: Xp. is altogether arbitrary and opposed to the context. é« 
 wvy7e¢ isno doubt attached to what follows by Syriac, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Bengel, Koppe, Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette ; but per’ ebvoiac," 
 since it expresses the well-meaning disposition, already in fact includes in 
 itself the sense of é« yvy7e ;? and it is arbitrary to assume, with Harless, that 
 éx w. expresses the relation of the true servant to his service, and er’ evvoiac 
 his relation to his master. — é¢ TO Kupiw] 8.¢. dovAebovtec, as to the Lord, the 
 true mode of regarding his service as rendered to Christ. —kai ov av6p. | 
 Comp. on Gal. 1. 1. 
 
 Ver. 8. Eidérec] Incitement to the mode of service demanded, vv. 5-7 : 
 since ye know that whatever good thing each one shall have done, he shall bear off 
 this (the good done) from the Lord, whether he be slave or free. —6 éav te 
 éxaoroc| éav in the relative clause with the subjunctive instead of dayv,* and ré 
 separated from é¢.4—rovro Kou. | Expression of entirely adequate recompense. 
 See on 2 Cor. v. 10.— rapa kvpiov] from Christ, at the judgment. — eite 
 Jovdoc, eite EAetd.] ederZe TO TapovTe Biw TeTwpiouévyy THY Jovdeiay Kai deoroTEiar, 
 peta O& ye Thy évtevdev Exdnuiav ovK éte Sovaeiacg Kat deororeiac, GAN apeTyc Kat 
 kaklac écouévyy diadopav, ‘‘ He showed the servitude and mastership obtaining 
 in the present life, but after the departure hence, the difference to be no 
 longer between servitude and mastership, but between virtue and wicked- 
 ness,” Theodoret. It is evident, we may add, from our passage that Paul 
 did not think of a ceasing of slavery among Christians before the Parousia, 
 —a view which was very naturally connected with the conception of the 
 nearness of the latter, which did not admit of his looking forth upon the 
 development of centuries. 
 
 Ver. 9. Kat oi xipzoc] like kai of rarépec, ver. 4. —ra aita] the same. The 
 master, namely, who treats his servants jer’ evvoiac, does essentially (meas- 
 
 1 Comp. Xen. Oec. xii. 5. 7. 3 Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 638 [E. T. 
 2 He animi sententia, Col. iii. 23; Mark xii. Wile 
 30, 33; Luke x. 27; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 6. 3; 4 Asin Plato, Zegg. ix. p. 864 E: fv av twa 
 Xen. Anab. vii. 7.48; Nicarch. epigr. 2; karaBAawy, Lys. p. 160: ds av tis vpas ed 
 
 Theocr. Jdyll. iii. 35. TOL. 
 
CHAP. VI., 10. 539 
 
 ured by the disposition as the inner essence of the act) the same thing 
 towards the slaves as the slave serving er’ eivoiac does towards his master. — 
 aviévteg THY areca.| Negative modal definition of the ra aira roveite mpo¢ 
 avrobc, especially to be laid to heart in the circumstances by the masters. 
 By avcévtec may be denoted either the abating, or the entire leaving off, 
 giving up, of the threatening. In the former sense (Wisd. xvi. 24) it has 
 ‘been taken by Erasmus,’ Vatablus, Zeger ; but certainly the latter sense 
 alone? is appropriate to the ra aira roceire ; especially astyv anrecany (with 
 the article) denotes not threatening in general, but the threatening, namely, 
 ‘‘quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet,” ‘‘as the common crowd of 
 masters is wont.” *— eiddrec| specifying a motive, as in ver. 8. Comp. Col. 
 iv. 1; Barnab. 19 ; Constitt. ap. vii. 13. Inasmuch, namely, as they know 
 that He, who is Lord as well of the slaves as of the masters (kai ait@v Kai 
 juav, see the critical remarks), is in heaven (the exalted Christ), and with 
 Him is no partiality, so that He gives to the master as such no preference 
 over the slave as such : how should they not cease to comport themselves 
 with their threatening, as though Christ were not the Lord of both in 
 heaven—in heaven, whence at the judgment He will, without partiality, 
 alike sustain the injured rights of the slaves, and punish the unchristian 
 threatening of the masters, which, instead of operating by moral means, 
 only terrifies by rude authority. Comp. Seneca, Thyest. 607 : 
 
 “Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae 
 Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae 
 Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus. 
 Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, 
 Major hoc vobis dominus minatur ; 
 Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.”’ 
 
 ““Ye, to whom the ruler of sea and earth has entrusted the great right of 
 life and death, dismiss your elated and arrogant looks. Whatever an in- 
 ferior dreads from you, that a master greater than you threatens. Every 
 sovereignty is beneath a sovereignty still more severe.” As to the notion of 
 mpocwroanwia, see on Gal. ii. 6. 
 
 Ver. 10.4 After this special table of domestic duties laid down since v. 21, 
 now follows, in a full energetic effusion down to ver. 20, a general final ex- 
 hortation, winding up the whole paraenetic portion of the Epistle (iv. 1 
 ff.). — 70 Aourév] as concerns the rest, namely, what you have still to do in 
 addition to what has been hitherto mentioned. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 
 Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1. — évdvvanotade év xvpio) 
 denotes the Christian strengthening, which cannot subsist outside of Christ, 
 but only in Him as the life-element of the Christian (Phil. iv. 13). As to 
 évdvvapovatar, to become strong, gain strength, which is not a middle,® 
 see on Rom. iv. 20. — kat év t¢ Kpdtet tHe iayboc avtov] and by means of the 
 might of His strength, which might, namely, must produce the strengthening 
 
 1“* Minus feroces minusque minabundi,”’ 4On vy. 10-17, see Winzer, Leipz. Pfingst- 
 “less fierce and less threatening.” programm, 1840, 
 2 Comp. Thucyd. iii. 10.2: €x@pav aveévras. 5 ** Corroborate vos,” “ strengthen your- 
 
 3 Erasmus, Paraph?. selves,”’ Piscator. 
 
536 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 in you. As to the respective notions, see oni. 19. The «ai is not explica- 
 tive, but annexes to the element, in which the strengthening is to take 
 place, the effective principle of it (2 Cor. xii. 9). ‘‘ Domini virtus nostra 
 est,” ‘The Lord’s power is ours,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 11. What they are to do in order to become thus strong, in connec- 
 tion with which the figurative discourse represents the readers as warriors 
 (comp. 2. Cor. x. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8; Rom. vi. 13, 28, xiii. 12; 1 Tim, 1 18,4 
 vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7). The more familiar, however, this figure was to the 
 apostle, the more freely and independently is it here carried out, although! 
 a reminiscence of Isa. lix. 17? underlies it.?—rjv ravordiav tov Ooi] ty 
 mavor’. has the emphasis. In the very fact that not merely single pieces of 
 the armor,* but the whole armor of God is put on,° resides the capacity of 
 resistance to the devil. If tov Ocov had the emphasis,® there must have 
 been a contrast to other spiritual weapons (for that no material, actual 
 weapons were meant, was self-evident). Rightly, therefore, have most 
 expositors kept by the literal meaning of tavorAia, complete suit of armor 
 of the heavy-armed soldier, éAiryc ;7 and the assertion® that it here is equiy- 
 alent generally to armatura [i.e., the armor, but not the arms],° is arbitrary 
 and contrary to linguistic usage ; even in Judith xiv. 3, 2 Mace. iii. 25, the 
 notion of the complete equipment is to be adhered to.’ According to 
 Polybius, vi. 23, 2 ff., there belong to the Roman ravordia shield, sword, 
 greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet. But the circumstance that in the de- 
 tailed carrying out of the figure, ver. 13 ff., not add these parts are mentioned 
 (the spear is wanting), and withal some portions are brought in (girdle, 
 military sandals) which did not belong exclusively to the equipment of the 
 heavy-armed soldier, but to military equipment in general, can, least of all 
 in the case of Paul, occasion surprise or betray a special set purpose. 
 Whether, we may add, the apostle thought of a Jewish or a Roman warrior 
 is, doubtless, substantially in itself a matter of indifference, since the kinds 
 of armor in the two cases were in general the same;'! but the latter supposi- 
 tion is the most natural, inasmuch as the Roman soldiery wielded the power 
 in all the provinces, Paul himself was surrounded by Roman soldiery, and 
 for most Gentile readers in a non-Jewish province the term zavordia could 
 
 1 Comp. On Tov owrTnpiov, ver. 17. 
 
 2Comp. Wisd. vy. 17 ff., and thereon 
 Grimm, Handb. p. 119 f. 
 
 7 According to de Wette, we have here ‘‘a 
 playful imitation in detail of 1 Thess. v. 8, 
 in which use is made of Isa. lix. 17 (perhaps 
 also of Wisd. v. 17 ff.).””. An unwarranted 
 judgment, inasmuch as Paul himself could 
 here carry out more comprehensively his 
 figure elsewhere thrown out in only afew 
 outlines, and this he has done worthily and 
 without attempt at play. An imitator, on 
 the other hand, would here have assigned 
 no other signification to the pieces of 
 armor mentioned 1 Thess. y. 8 than they 
 bear in that place. 
 
 ‘Luther : harness. 
 
 5 **Ne quid nobis desit,” ‘* that nothing 
 may be lacking to us,”’ Calvin. 
 
 ® Harless. 
 
 7 See Herod. i. 60; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 796 
 B; Bos, Huwercitt. p. 192; Ottii Spicileg. 
 p. 409. 
 
 § Recently by Harless. 
 
 ® Vulgate, which was justly censured by 
 Beza. 
 
 10 Of the manner in which Paul himself 
 wore and wielded the mavorAta tod @eod, 
 his whole labors and each one of his 
 Epistles afford the most brilliant evidence ; 
 the latter especially in such outbursts as 
 Rom. viii. “81 ff; 2 Cory vi. 4dtmieeonae 
 Comp. also 2 Cor. x. 4 f. 
 
 11 See Keil, Arch. § 158. 
 
 . 
 
CHAP. VI., 12. 537 
 
 not but call up the thought of the Roman soldier. Even though Paul had, 
 as we must suppose, the recollection of Isa. lix. 17 when he was employing 
 such figurative language, this did not prevent his transferring the prophetic 
 reminiscence to the conception of a Roman warrior (in opposition to 
 Harless). — tov Ocov] genitivus auctoris, ‘genitive of the author:” the 
 xavoriia, which comes from God, which God furnishes. Sense without the 
 figure : ‘‘ appropriate to yourselves all the means of defence and offence which 
 God bestows, in order to be in a position to withstand the machinations of the 
 devil.” —orjvac rpéc] stand one’s ground against ; a military expression in 
 keeping with the figure.' The same thing is implied by orjva: with the 
 dative, Hom. //. xxi. 600. Comp. avrictyte tO diaBorw, Jas. iv. 7. — Tac 
 yefod.| See on iv. 14. The plural denotes the concrete manifestations, 
 Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 11. Luther aptly renders : the wily assaults.— 
 zov diaBdaov| ‘principis hostium, qui ver. 12 ostenduntur,” ‘‘ the chief of 
 the enemies indicated in ver. 12,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 12. I am warranted in saying zpdc¢ rac pedod. tov dia3ddov ; for we 
 have not the wrestling with feeble men, but we have to contend with the 
 diabolic powers. This contrast Paul expresses descriptively, and with what 
 rhetorical power and swelling fulness! Observe, moreover, that the con- 
 flict to which Paul here refers is, according to ver. 13, still futwre ; but it 
 is by éorw realized as present. — ov . . . dada] The negation is not non tam, 
 or non tantum, ‘‘not so,” or ‘* not so much,” ? but absolute ;* since the con- 
 flict on the part of our opponents is one excited and waged not by men, but 
 by the devilish powers (though these make use of men too as organs of 
 their hostility to the kingdom of God).4 — 7 7427] The article denotes gener- 
 ically the kind of conflict, which does not take place in the case of the 
 Christians (juiv) ; they have not the wrestling with blood and flesh. Nothing 
 else, namely, than lucta, a wrestling, is the meaning of the 7a27,° a word 
 occurring only here in the N. T., and evidently one specially chosen by the 
 apostle (who elsewhere employs ayév or wayy), With the view of bringing out 
 the more strongly in connection with zpdc aiva kai cap. the contrast between 
 this less perilous form of contest and that which follows. Now, as the 
 notion of the 7427 is not appropriate to the actual conflict of the Christians 
 mpoc Tac apydc x.7.2., because it is not in keeping either with the ravoriia in 
 general or with its several constituent parts afterwards mentioned ver. 14 ff., 
 but serves only to express what the Christian conflict is not; after aA/a 
 we have not mentally to supply again 7 7a2%7, but rather the general notion 
 of kindred signification 7 udyn, ‘‘ the battle,” or wayeréov, ‘‘one must fight,” ° 
 
 1 See Kypke, IL. p. 301. Comp. Thucyd. git,” ‘‘ Our struggle is not against flesh and 
 
 vy. 104, and Poppo’s note thereon. blood, i.e., against men. They are vessels ; 
 2 Cajetanus, Vatablus, Grotius, and another uses them; they are organs, 
 others. another touches them.”’ 
 3 Winer, p. 439 ff. 5 Hom. 7. xxiii. 635, 700 ff. ; Xen. Wem. iv. 
 
 4 Comp. already Augustine, De verbo 8. 27; Plat. Legg. vii. 795 D; and Ast, ad 
 Dom. 8: ‘* Non est nobis colluctatio adver- Legg. p. 378. 
 sus carnem et sanguinem, i.e., adversus 6 Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 249 C: mpos ye 
 homines, quos videtis saevire innos. Vasa TOUTOV TavTiAdyw waxeTeor, ‘against this one 
 sunt, alius utitur; organa sunt, alius tan- must fight with every argument.” 
 
538 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 as frequently with Greek writers, and in the N. T.? we have to derive from 
 a preceding special notion an analogous more general one. What we have 
 to sustain, Paul would say, is not the (less perilous) wrestling contest with 
 blood and flesh, but we have to contend with the powers and authorities, 
 etc. We have accordingly neither to say that with ra‘, Paul only lighted 
 in passing on another metaphor (my own former view), nor to suppose (the 
 usual opinion) that he employed 74/7 in the general sense of certamen, which, 
 however, is only done in isolated poetic passages,® and hence we have the 
 less reason to overlook the designed choice of the expression in our passage, 
 or to depart from its proper signification. — rpdc¢ aiua kai capKa] 7.€., against 
 feeble men, just as Gal. i, 16. Only here and Heb. ii. 144 does aiva stand 
 first, which, however, is to be regarded as accidental. Matthies ® under- 
 stands the lusts and desires having their root in one’s own sensuous individuality ; 
 but this idea must have been expressed by zpo¢ t7Hv capxa alone without aipya 
 (Gal. v. 17, 24, a/.), and is, moreover, at variance with the context, since 
 the contrast is not with enemies outside of us, but with superhuman superter- 
 restrial enemies. — pic tac apxac] This, as well as the following mpdc¢ rac 
 é£ovolac, designates the demons, and that according to their classes (analogous 
 to the classes of angels),° of which the apyai seem to be of higher rank than 
 the é£ovciac (see on i. 21), in which designation there is at the same time 
 given the token of their power, and this their power is then in the two 
 following clauses (mpd¢ Tod¢ . . . éxovpaviowg) characterized with regard to 
 its sphere and to its ethical quality." The exploded views, according to 
 which human potentates of different kinds were supposed to be denoted by 
 apx., &£ovo. x.7.2., may be seen in Wolf. — pic rove koopoKpar. Tov oxét. TobTov] 
 i.e., against the rulers of the world, whose domain is the present darkness. The 
 oxétoc Tovro is the evisting, present AQarkness, which, namely, is charac- 
 teristic of the aiév oitoc, and from which only believers are delivered, inas- 
 much as they have become ¢é¢ év kupiw, téxva Tod dwrdc (iv. 8, 9), being 
 translated out of the domain opposed to divine truth into the possession of 
 the same, and thus becoming themselves d¢ @worypec év Kécpm (Phil. ii. 15). 
 The reading roi cxérove tov aidvoe tobrov is a correct gloss. This pre-Mes- 
 sianic darkness is the element adverse to God, in which the sway of the world- 
 ruling demons has its essence and operation, and without which their 
 dominion would not take place. The devils are called kocwokparopes,” 
 because their dominion extends over the whole world, inasmuch as all men 
 (the believers alone excepted, ii. 2) are subject to them. Thus Satan is 
 
 1 See Déderlein, de brachyl. in his Reden 
 u. Aufs. ii. p. 269 ff. Kriiger, Regist. zu 
 Thucyd., p. 318. 
 
 * Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 336 [E. T. 
 392]. 
 
 3 Lycophr. 124, 1358. 
 
 4 Lachmann, Tischendorf. 
 
 5 So already Prudentius, Jerome, Caje- 
 tanus. : 
 
 8 ** As every kingdom as such is inwardly 
 organized, so also is the kingdom of the evil 
 spirits,’ Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 347. 
 
 7 Observe how in our passage every word 
 rises up as a witness against all attempts to 
 make of the devil a mere abstraction, a 
 personified cosmic principle, and the like. 
 Beyschlag too, Christol. d. N. T, p. 244 f. 
 contests, without, however, at the time 
 entering into a detailed argument, the per- 
 sonality of Satan, as of the world of angels 
 and spirits in general, and regards him as 
 the vital principle of matter, the self-seek- 
 ing of nature, etc. 
 
 8 Comp. Orph. H. viii. 11, xi. 11. 
 
CHAP. TVIL., We. 539 
 
 Called 6 Aed¢ tov aldvoc TovTov, 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6 dpyev Tov Kéopov TovTov, John xii. 
 31, xvi. 11 (comp. John xiv. 30), and of the world itis said that 6 kdécuo¢ 
 dog év TO Movypw. keira, 1 John v. 19. The Rabbins, too, adopted the word 
 NO IpNIP, and employed it sometimes of kings, while they also say of the 
 angel of death that God has made him xocyoxpdtwp.' Later also the Gnos- 
 tics called the devil by this name,’ and in the Testamentum Salomonis? the 
 demons say to Solomon : jweic éowev Ta Aeyoueva oToryeia, of KOoWOKpaTOpES TOU 
 Kéojov TovTov, ‘* we are the so-called principles of this world.” The opinion 
 that the compound has been weakened into the general signification rulers * 
 is not susceptible of proof, and not to be supported by such Rabbinical 
 passages as Bresh. rabba, sect. 58 f., 57. 1: ‘‘ Abrahamus persecutus quatuor, 
 ‘Abraham having persecuted the four,’ xoooxpatopac,” where koopoxpar. de- 
 notes the category of the kings, and this chosen designation has the aim of 
 glorifying. See also, in opposition to this alleged weakening, Shir. R. 3, 
 4: ‘*The kocpoxparopec are three kings : dominates ab extremitate mundi ad 
 extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnezar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar,” ‘‘ ruling from 
 one extremity of the world to the other, Nebuchadnezar, Evilmerodach, 
 Belsazar.” —po¢ ta mvevuatixa tH¢ Trovnpiac] against the spirit-hosts of wich- 
 edness. 'The adjective neuter, singular or plural, is collective, compre- 
 hending the beings in question according to their qualitative category as a 
 corporate body, like 76 ro/utikév, the burgess-body ; * rd immxdv, the cavalry ;° ra 
 Anotpixa, the robbers,’ ra dovia, ta aixyuddwra x.7.2.° Winer, p. 213, correctly 
 compares ra daiwéva according to its original adjectival nature. — tH¢ rovypiac | 
 genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘of quality,” characterizing the spirit-hosts meant; 
 émeloy yap elo Kal oi ayyeAor TvEebuata, tpocéOnKe THE TOoVHpiac, ‘‘for since 
 the angels also are spirits, he added rie rovypiac,” Theodoret. Moral wicked- 
 ness is their essential quality ; hence the devil is pre-eminently 6 rovypdéc. 
 The explanation spirituales nequitias, ‘spiritual wickedness,” ° is impossible, 
 since, if ra mvevwatixa expressed the quality substantively and raised it to 
 the position of subject,'!? we should have to analyze it as: the spiritual 
 nature, or the spiritual part, the spiritual side of wickedness, all of which 
 are unsuitable to the context. — év roi¢ érovpavioiwe] Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Photius, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Castalio, Camerarius, Heinsius, Clarius, 
 Calovius, Glass, Witsius, Wolf, Morus, Flatt, and others incorrectly render: 
 Jor the heavenly possessions, so that it would indicate the object of the con- 
 flict, and év would stand for izép or 6:4. Against this view we may urge not’ 
 the order of the words, since in fact this element pushed on to theend would 
 be brought out with emphasis,’ but certainly the év, which does not mean on 
 account of ,"* and ra éxovpavia, which in our Epistle is always meant in a local 
 
 1 See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 790; Buxtorf, 9 Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Clarius, Zeger, 
 Lex. Talmud. p. 2006 f.; Wetstein, p. 259. Cornelius 4 Lapide, Wolf, and others. 
 
 2 Tren. i. 1. 10 See Matthiae, p. 994; Kiihner, II. 
 3 Fabricius, Pseudepigr. i. p. 1047. p. 122. 
 
 4 Harless. 11 Kiihner, IT. p. 625. 
 
 6 Herod. vii. 103. 12 Where it is rendered so according to the 
 6 Rev. ix. 16. approximate sense, the analysis follows 
 7 Polyaen. v. 14, 141. another course. See on Matt. vi. 7; John 
 
 8 See Bernhardy, p. 326. xvi. 80; Acts vii. 29; 2 Cor. ix. 4. 
 
540 | THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 sense (see oni. 3). The view of Matthies is also incorrect, that it denotes 
 the place where of the conflict : ‘‘in the kingdom of heaven, in which the 
 Christians, as received into that kingdom, are also constantly contending 
 against the enemies of God.” a érovpdwa does not signify the kingdom of 
 heaven in the sense of Matthies, but the heavenly regions, heaven. Riickert, 
 too, is incorrect, who likewise understands the place where of the conflict, 
 holding that the contest is to be sustained, as not with flesh and blood, so 
 also not upon the same solid ground, but away in the air, and is thus most 
 strictly mars iniquus, ‘‘an unequal war.” Apart from the oddness of this 
 thought, according to it the contrast would in fact be one not of terrestrial 
 and superterrestrial locality, but ef solid ground and baseless air, so that Paul in 
 employing év roic érovpav. would have selected a quite inappropriate designa- 
 tion, and must have said év7@aépr. Baumgarten-Crusius gives us the choice 
 between two incorrect interpretations : the kingdom of spirits, to which the 
 kingdom of Christ too.belongs, or the affairs of that kingdom. The correct 
 connection is with ta rvevwatixa tic Tovypiac, so that it expresses the seat of 
 the evil spirits.! This ‘‘in the heavenly regions” is not, however, in accord- 
 ance with the context, to be understood of the abode of God, of Christ, and 
 of the angels (iii. 10) ;* but, according to the popular view (comp. Matt. vi. 
 26)—in virtue of the flexible character of the conception ‘‘ heaven,” which 
 embraces very different degrees of height (compare the conception of the 
 seven heavens, 2 Cor. xii. 2)—of the superterrestrial regions, which, although 
 still pertaining to the domain of the earth’s atmosphere, yet relatively appear 
 as heaven, so that in substance ta érovpavia here denotes the same as 6 agp, 
 by which at ii. 2 the domain of the Satanic kingdom is accurately and prop- 
 erly designated.* This passage serves as a guide to the import of ours, 
 which is wrongly denied by Hahn * on the basis of an erroneous interpreta- 
 tion of afp, ii. 2. According to the Rabbins, too, the lower of the seven 
 heavens still fall within the region of the atmosphere.® And the reason why 
 Paul does not here say év 76 aépu is, that he wishes to bring out as strongly 
 as possible the superhuman and superterrestrial nature of the hostile spirits, 
 for which purpose to name the air, as the place of their dwelling might be 
 less appropriate than to speak of the heavenly regions, an expression which 
 
 1 So Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Beza, 
 Calvin, Vatablus, Estius, Grotius, Erasmus 
 Schmid, Bengel, Koppe, and many, includ- 
 ing Usteri, Meier, Holzhausen, Harless, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek. 
 
 2%n opposition to Hahn, Zheol. d. N. T. 
 I. p. 345. 
 
 3 Comp. Philippi, Glawbenst. IIT. p. 309 f. 
 Prudentius has already, Hamartigenia, 513 
 ff.,in a poetic paraphrase of our passage, 
 correctly apprehended the meaning: 
 
 “Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte 
 dieque 
 
 Congredimur, quorum dominatibus humi- 
 dus iste 
 
 Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aér. 
 
 Scilicet hoe medium coelum inter et infima 
 terrae, 
 Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit 
 hiatu, 
 Frena potestatum variarum sustinet ac 
 sub 
 Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis. 
 His conluctamur praedonibus, ut sacra 
 nobis : 
 Oris apostolici testis sententia prodit.” 
 Comp. Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 144, — Ac- 
 cording to Ascens. Isa. 10, it is the jirma- 
 mentum, in which the devil dwells. 
 4 Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 336 f. 
 5 See Wetstein, ad 2 Cor. xii. 2. 
 
CHAP Lag, LSs 541 
 entirely accords with the lively coloring of his picture.!’ Semler and Storr, 
 ignoring this significant bearing and suitableness of the expression, have 
 arbitrarily imported a formerly, as though the previous abode of the demons 
 had any connection with the matter !_ Schenkel has even imported the irony 
 of a paradox, which has the design of making the assumption of divine 
 power and glory on the part of the demons ridiculous, as though anything 
 of the sort were at all in keeping with the whole profound seriousness of 
 our passage, or could have been recognized by any reader whatever! Hof- 
 mann finally? has, after a rationalizing fashion, transformed the simple 
 direct statement of place into the thought : ‘‘not limited to this or that 
 locality of the earthly world, but overruling the same, as the heavens encir- 
 cle the earth.” The thought of this turn so easily made, Paul would have 
 known how to express—even though he had but said : ra évta ce év Toi¢ éxov- 
 paviowc, or more Clearly : ra éyta ravtayow bro Tov-oipavév. The absence of a 
 connective article is not at all opposed to our interpretation, since ra mvev- 
 patika tHe Tovypiac év Toic Erovpaviorg Might the more be combined into one 
 idea, as it was the counterpart of such spirits upon earth. Comp. roic¢ 
 mAovotore év TH vov aidvi, 1 Tim. vi. 17, and see onii. 11, iii. 10. [See Note LIX., 
 p. 557 seq.|— The zpéc, four times occurring after 424, has rhetorical em- 
 phasis, as it needed to be used but once.*— As at ii. 2, so here also, Ginos- 
 ticism is found by Baur in expression and conception, because, forsooth, 
 Marcion and the Valentinians designated the devil as the kxoooxpdrwp, and 
 the demoniac powers as ra mvevyatixad tH¢ movnpiac.4 
 method of critical procedure. 
 
 Ver. 13. Ara rovro] because we have to fight against these powers. — 
 avaAaBere| the usual word for the taking up of armor.’ The opposite : kara- 
 TiS nL. —avtiat7va| namely, the assaults of the demons. —év tj juépa TH 
 
 This is the inverting 
 
 movnpa| The evil day means here, according to the context, neither the 
 present life,* nor the day of death,’ nor the day of judgment ;* nor yet, as 
 most expositors suppose, in general, the day of conflict and of peril, which the 
 devil prepares for us,’ for every day was such, whereas the evil day here man- 
 ifestly appears as a peculiar and still future day, for the conflict of which the 
 readers were to arm themselves. Hence also not: every day, on which the 
 
 devil has special power ;’? but the emphatic designation 7 juépa 7 rovypa 
 
 1 Entirely uncalled for, therefore, and 3Comp. Dem. 842, 7: mpds maidwv, mpos 
 
 less in keeping with the coloring of the 
 passage, would be the alteration already 
 discussed in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch, 94, 
 whereby, namely, téves had changed the 
 émovpaviots into Umovpavio.s—a conject- 
 ure approved by Erasmus, Beza, and 
 Grundling (in Wolf). Luther, who trans- 
 lates ** wnder the heaven,” probably did so, 
 not as taking év for t70,—like Alting subse- 
 quently (in Wolf),—but by way of explana- 
 tion. Already in Homer ovpavos is, as is 
 well known, employed of the higher region 
 of air (under the firmament). See Nagels- 
 bach, Hom. Theol. p. 19. 
 2 Schriftbeweis, I. p. 455. 
 
 YUVALK@Y, Tpos T@V OI'TwWY Vly ayadov, Winer, 
 p. 874; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 341 
 [B. T. 398). 
 
 4 Tren. i. 5. 4, i. 28. 2. 
 
 § See Kypke and Wetstein. 
 
 6 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, who at the 
 same time believed Bpaxiv tov tod moAcnovd 
 katpov, ‘‘ the brief time of the battle,”’ to be 
 hinted at. 
 
 7 Erasmus Schmid. 
 
 8 Jerome. | 
 
 *So also Rtickert, Harless, Matthies, 
 Meier, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette, Bleek. 
 
 10 Bengel, Zachariae, Olshausen. 
 
542 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 could suggest to the reader only a single, car’ é£oy4v, ‘pre-eminently,” morally 
 evil, day well known to him, and that is the day in which the Satanic power 
 (6 Hovnpdc) puts forth its last and greatest outbreak, which last outbreak of 
 the anti-Christian kingdom Paul expected shortly before the Parousia.’* 
 [See Note LX., p. 558.] Comp. also the éveorae¢ aidv rovnpdc, Gal. i. 4, and 
 the remark thereon. —xai dravta katepyacdpuevoe oryvac] This orqvat corre- 
 sponds to the preceding avtiorqvar, of which it is the result ; and in the » 
 midst, between davriorqvac and orjva, lies dravta Katepyac. : ‘‘ to withstand in 
 the evil day, and, after you shall have accomplished all things, to stand.” The 
 latter expression is the designation of the victor, who, after the fight is fin- 
 ished, is not laid prostrate, or put to flight, but stands.? What is meant by 
 amravrta, is necessarily yielded by the connection, namely, everything which 
 belongs to the conflict in question, the whole work of the combat in all its parts 
 and actions. The eatepydafeo@ar retainsits ordinary signification peragere, 
 conficere consummare, ‘* to achieve, accomplish, complete,” * and is not, with 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Camerarius, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Kypke, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, and 
 others, to be taken in the sense of debellare, overpower, in which sense it is, 
 like the German abthun and niedermachen and the Latin conficere, usual 
 enough,‘ but is never so employed by Paul—frequently as the word occurs 
 with him—or elsewhere in the N. T., and here would only be required by 
 the text, if dtavrac were the reading.® De Wette objects to our interpreta- 
 tion as being tame. This, however, it is not, and the less so, because xarep- 
 yalecba is the characteristic word fora great and difficult work,® and a@ravra 
 also is purposely chosen." To be rejected also is the construction of Erasmus, 
 Beza,* Calixtus, Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others : ‘‘ omnibus rebus probe com- 
 paratis ad pugnam,” ‘all things being well prepared for the battle.” ° This 
 would be rapaockevacdyevo. (1 Cor. xiv. 8), and what a redundant thought 
 would thus result, especially since orjvac would then be not at all different 
 from dvriorqvac! Lastly, the translation of the Vulgate, which is best at- 
 tested critically ; in omnibus perfecti, ‘‘in all things perfect,” is not to be re- 
 garded, with Estius, as the sense of our reading, but expresses the reading 
 katecpyaouévot, Which is, moreover, to be found in a vitiated form (kxarepyac- 
 Hévoc) incodex A. Erasmus conjectured a corruption of the Latin codices. 
 Ver. 14. In what manner they accordingly, clad conformably to the preced- 
 ing requirement in the ravorAia tov Ocov, are to stand forth. —orfre] is not 
 again, like the preceding orjva, the standing of the victor, but the standing 
 
 1 See Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 348 ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 10. 1. 
 
 3 Comp. van Hengel, ad. Rom. I. p. 205. 
 
 # See Kypke, IT. p. 301. 
 
 5 Koppe felt this, hence he viewed amavra 
 as masculine, in accordance with Kypke’s 
 proposal! Even in those passages which 
 Kypke adduces for catepyageottar mavta, in- 
 stead of katepy. ravras, mavra is to be left in 
 the neuter sense, and xatepy. is to complete, to 
 execute. Freely, but correctly in accord- 
 ance with the sense, Luther renders: 
 
 “that ye may perform all well, and keep 
 the field.” 
 
 6 Herod. v. 24; Plato, Legg. iii. p. 686 E, 
 al. ; and see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107. 
 
 7 All without exception; see Valckenaer, 
 Schol. I. p. 889. 
 
 8 Who proposes this explanation along- 
 side of the rendering prostratis, *‘ over- 
 thrown,”’ and is inclined to regard it as the 
 better one. 
 
 ® Bengel. 
 
 10 Comp. Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius. 
 
CHAP. VI., 15. 543 
 
 Sorth of the man ready for the combat. Besides Isa, lix. 17, Wisd. v. 17 ff., 
 see also Rabbinical passages for the figurative reference of particular 
 weapons to the means of spiritual conflict, in Schoettgen, Horae, p. 791 f. — 
 repilwoduevor THY dodvv| having your loins girt about. Comp. Isa, xi. 5. For 
 the singular-r. dc¢., comp. Eur, Hlectr. 454 : tayurdpoc xéda [quick of foot], 
 and see Elmsley, ad Hur. Med. 1077. The girdle or belt’ is first mentioned by 
 the apostle, because to have put on this was the first and most essential re- 
 quirement of the warrior standing armed ready for the fight ; to speak of a 
 well-equipped warrior without a girdle is a contradictio in adjecto, for it was 
 just the girdle which produced the free bearing and movement and the nec- 
 essary attitude of the warrior. Hence it is not to be assumed, with Harless, 
 that Paul thought of the girdle as an ornament. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. — év ady- 
 Gcia|instrumental: With truth they are tobe girt about, @.e., truth is to be their 
 girdle. Comp. Isa. xi. 5. As for the actual warrior the whole aptus habitus, 
 ‘¢ prepared state,” for the combat (this is the tertiwm comparationis, ‘* point of 
 comparison”), would be wanting in the absence of the girdle ; so also for the 
 spiritual warrior, if he is not furnished with truth. From this it is at once 
 clear that aA/jfeca is not to be taken objectively, of the gospel, which, on the con- 
 trary, is only designated later, ver. 17, by pywa Geov ; but subjectively, of truth 
 as inward property, 7.¢., harmony of knowledge with the objectivetruth given in 
 the gospel. The explanation sincerity? is, as expressive only of a single virtue, 
 according to the context too narrow (compare the following dicavocivy, riati¢ 
 k.T.A.), and the notion, moreover, would merge into that of the following 
 Otkacoovvy, an Objection which applies likewise to the explanation Christian in- 
 tegrity.*— tiv Vapaxa tHe Oikatos.| Genitivus appositionis, ‘‘appositive geni- 
 tive.”* As the actual warrior has protected the breast, when he ‘‘ @épyKxa repi 
 otnbecow édvvev,” ‘‘ has put the plate about the breast,” so with you dixaocbyvy 
 is to be that, which renders your breast (heart and will) inaccessible to the 
 hostile influences of the demons. dcxacoctiyvy is here Christian moral rec- 
 titude (Rom. vi. 13), inasmuch as, justified through faith, we are dead to sin 
 and liveév kavvétyre CwH ¢(Rom. vi. 4). Harless and Winzer understand 
 the righteousness by faith, by which, however, inasmuch as this righteousness is 
 given with faith, the @upedc r7¢ rictewc, Subsequently singled out quite spe- 
 cially, isanticipated. [See Note LXI., p. 558.] As previously the intellect- 
 ual rectitude of the Christian was denoted by aA76eva, so here his moral rec- 
 titude by dicaocivn. 
 
 Ver. 15. And the service which the irodjuara, the military sandals,* ren- 
 der to the actual warrior, enabling him, namely, to advance against the 
 enemy with agile and sure step, the érocuacia tov evayyedhiov tie eiphyyc is to 
 render to you spiritual warriors, inasmuch as by virtue of it you march 
 briskly and firmly against the Satanic powers.—érodyoduevor k.7.A.] having 
 
 1 Gwortyp, covering the loins and the part 3 Morus, Winzer. 
 of the body below the breastplate, also 4 Comp. 1 Thess. v. 8; Wisd. v. 19; Soph. 
 called Gan, Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIIL. p..177, — O. BR. 170: ppovridos €yxos. 
 not to be confounded with gana, the lower 5 Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 14 [Josephus, B. J, vi. 
 part of the coat of mail. 1. 8] (caligae, compare the Heb. PND, Isa. 
 
 2 Calvin, Boyd, Estius, Olshausen, Bis- ix. 4; see Gesenius, Thes. II. 932; Bynaeus, 
 ping, and others. de calc. Hebr. p. 83 f. 
 
544 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 your feet underbound with the preparedness of the gospel of peace. év does not 
 stand for cic,’ but is instrumental, as in ver. 14, so that the éro.uacia is con- 
 ceived of as the foot-clothing itself. Beza well remarks: ‘‘non enim vult nos 
 docere dumtaxat, oportere nos esse calceatos, sed calceos etiam, ut ita 
 loquar, nobis praebet,” ‘‘ For he does not wish only to teach us that we 
 ought to be shod, but, so to say, offers us the very sandals.” — érotpacia® 
 is preparedness,* whether it be an outward standing ready,* or an inward. 
 being ready, promptitudo animi, ‘‘readiness of mind.” So LXX. Ps. x. 17, 
 comp. éroiuy 7 kapdia, Ps. lvil. 7, exil. 7, where the LXX. indicate the notion 
 of a prepared mind, which is expressed in Hebrew by forms of the stem }}3, 
 by the use of érowacia and éroipoc, following the signification of making 
 ready, adjusting, which {}2 has in all the conjugations of it which occur 
 (Deut. xxxii. 6; Ps. vill. 4; Gen. xliii. 16 ; Prov. xix. 29);) Neleavaieet 
 Ps. lix. 5), alongside of the signification of laying down, establishing, from 
 which the former one is derived. Hence the LXX. translate {139 too ® by 
 éroyuacia ; not as though in their usage éroiwacia signified foundation, which 
 it never does, but because they wnderstood })3') in the sense of éroyacia. So 
 Hizra ii. 68, where the house of God is to be erected upon ry éroumaciav 
 avtov, upon the preparation thereof, i.e., upon the foundation already lying 
 prepared. So also Ezra iii. 3; Ps. Ixxxix. 15 ; Dan. xi. 20, 21.. Wrongly, 
 therefore, have Wolf (after the older expositors), Bengel, Zachariae, Morus, 
 Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Bleek, and others, explained ¢roiuasia by fun- 
 damentum or jirmitas, ‘‘ foundation or firmness ;” so that Paul is supposed 
 to indicate ‘‘vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem 
 adeo ipsam, certam illam quidem et fundamento, cui insistere possis, simi- 
 lem,” ‘‘ either constancy in keeping the religion of Christ, or that very relig- 
 ion itself, like a foundation whereon you can stand,” Koppe. This is not 
 only contrary to linguistic usage (see above), but also opposed to the con- 
 text, since the notion does not suit the figurative conception of putting on 
 shoes (iodyoau.). It is the readiness, the ready mind ; not, however, for 
 the proclamation of the gospel,* —since, in fact, Paul is speaking to fellow- 
 Christians, not to fellow-teachers,—but the promptitudo, ‘‘ readiness ’—and 
 that for the conflict in question—which the gospel bestows, which is produced 
 by means of it. So Oecumenius (who has this interpretation alongside the 
 former one), Calvin, Castalio, and others, including Matthies, Holzhausen, 
 Harless, Olshausen, Winzer, de Wette, Schenkel. The explanation of 
 Schleusner : ‘‘instar pedum armaturae sit vobis doctrina salutaris. . . quae 
 
 1 Vulgate, Erasmus, Vatablus, and two thousand cavalry of that of mine pres- 
 
 others. 
 
 2 With classical writers érouudrys, Dem. 
 1268, 7, but see also Hippocr. p. 24, 47. 
 
 * In Wisd. xiii. 12 it means making ready 
 
 (food). The Vulg. translates it in our pas- 
 sage in praeparatione (comp. <Artemid. 
 iin Da): 
 
 4 Josephus, Ant. x. 1.2: SuaxAlous &x THs 
 ELOl Tapovans immous eis ETOLLaciay Yuiy mapeE- 
 Xetv ETousos eiur, “Tam ready to afford you 
 
 ent.” 
 
 5 Foundation, as Ps, 1xxxix. 15. 
 
 ® So, in some instances with a reference 
 to Isa. lii. 7, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Pe- 
 lagius, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Clarius, 
 Cornelius & Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, Es- 
 tius, Grotius, Calovius, Calixtus, Michaelis, 
 and others, including Riickert, Meier, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
CHAP. VI., 16; d45 
 vobis semper in promptu sit,” ‘‘Let the saving doctrine be to you like an 
 equipment of the feet which may always be in readiness,” is to be rejected on 
 account of ver. 17, according to which the gospel is the sword. — rie eiphvnc] 
 Subject-matter of the gospel, and that purposely designated in harmony with 
 the context. For the gospel proclaims peace kar’ éZoyqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” .e., 
 the inner peace with God, Rom. v. 1, Phil. i. 20, and produces precisely there- 
 by consecration of courageous readiness for the conflict in question (Rom. viii. 
 31, 38, 39). At variance with the context, Erasmus, Paraphr., makes it : 
 *‘evangelium, quod non tumultu, sed tolerantia tranquillitateque defenditur,” 
 ‘the gospel which is defended, not by tumult, but by tolerance and tran- 
 quillity ;” and Michaelis holds: the peace between Jews and Gentiles is 
 meant. If, however, it is taken, with Koppe and Morus, in accordance 
 with the more extended sense of 09% (comp. Rom. x. 15), the salvation- 
 bringing (rather : the salvation-proclaiming, comp. i. 
 done without any justification from the text, and to the injury of the special 
 coloring of the several particulars. Winzer, finally, contrary to the unity 
 of the sense, combines peace with God and everlasting salvation. 
 
 Ver. 16. Eri zaow] not: before all things,’ but : in addition to all.2 By 
 the three pieces previously mentioned, vv. 14, 15 (which were all made fast 
 to the body), the body is clothed upon for warlike purposes ; what is still 
 wanting, and must be added to all that has preceded, is shield, helmet, 
 sword, vv. 16, 17. —rdv Yupedv] Yupedc, Which Polybius mentions and more 
 fully describes as the first part of the Roman ravorAia (vi. 23. 2 ff.), is, with 
 Homer, that which is placed in front of the doorway and blocks the entrance,? 
 and only with later writers * is the shield,° and that the sewtwm, the large 
 shield, 4 feet in length and 2} feet in width, as distinguished from the 
 small round buckler, elypeus,aoric.© Paul does not say aonic, because he is rep- 
 resenting the Christian warrior as heavy-armed, — ri¢ riczewe | Genitivus appo- 
 sitionis, ‘‘ appositive genitive,” as rH dixaioobvyc, ver. 14. The faith, however, 
 is not the faith of miracles,” but the jides salvifica, ‘‘saving faith” (ii. 8), by 
 which the Christian is assured of the forgiveness of his sins on account of the 
 sacrificial death of Christ, and at the same time is assured of the Messianic 
 blessedness (i. 7, ii. 5 ff., iii. 12), has the Holy Spirit as the earnest of ever- 
 lasting life (i. 13, 14), and consequently has Christ in the heart (ii. 17; Gal. 
 li. 20), and as child of God (i. 5; Rom. viii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 5 ff.) under the 
 government of grace (Rom. vili. 14) belongs so wholly to God (Rom. vi. 
 11 ; comp. 1 John iii. 7 ff.), that he cannot be separated by anything from 
 the love of God towards him (Rom. viii. 38) ; and on his part is consecrated 
 only to the service of God (i. 4 ; Rom. vii. 4, 6, vi. 22), and hence through 
 God carries off the victory over the power of Satan opposed to God (Rom. 
 
 13) gospel, this is 
 
 1 Luther, Castalio, Michaclis, and others. 
 
 2 Comp. Luke iii. 20; Polyb. vi. 28. 12: émi 
 S€ mage ToVTOLs TpogETLKOTMODYTAL TTEpPiVH 
 atebdavw, ‘In addition to all these, they are 
 adorned with a feather garland.” See 
 Wetstein, ad Luc. xvi. 26; Matthiae, p. 1371. 
 
 3 Od. ix. 240, 313. 
 
 4 Plutarch, Strabo, ete. 
 
 30 
 
 5 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 336, and Wet- 
 stein, ad loc. 
 
 ® See Lipsius, de milit. Rom. iii. 2, ed. 
 Plant. 1614, p. 106 ff.; Alberti and Kypke 
 in loc. ; Ottii Spiciley. p. 409 f. Comp. the 
 Homeric cakos and the Hebrew 3¥. 
 
 7 Chrysostom. 
 
d46 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 xvi. 20; 2 Thess. iii. 8). Only wavering faith is accessible to the devil (2 
 Cor. xi. 3; comp. 1 Pet. v. 8, 9). — év @] by means of which, i.e., by holding 
 it in front. — dvvgocode] for the conflict in question is future. See on vv. 
 12, 13. — rod rovypov] of the morally evil one kav’ éfoyjv, ‘* pre-eminently,” 
 i.e., the devil; 2 Thess. iii. 3; Matt. v. 87, vi. 13, xiii. 19, 38 ; John xvii. 
 15; 1 John v. 19. —7a! rervpwpéva] those set on fire, the burning ones.* The 
 malleoli are meant, i.¢., arrows tipped with inflammable material (tow, pitch) 
 and shot off after being kindled, which, known also to the Hebrews (see 
 expositors on Ps. vii. 14), were in use among the Greeks and Romans, and 
 are to be distinguished from the javelins of the same kind.* For the de- 
 scription of the malleoli, see Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 4 ; and see, in gen- 
 eral, Lydius, Agonist. p. 45, de re mil. p. 119, 315 ; Spanheim, ad Julian. 
 Orat. p. 198. Poisoned arrows * are not meant,” since these ave not on fire 
 (rexvpoyéva), but excite a fire (inflammation). The aim of the predicate, we 
 may add, is to present in strong colors the hostile and destructive character 
 ef the Satanic assaults ; but more special explanations of its import, such 
 as of the burning desires excited by Satan,° or of doubts and of the anguish of 
 despair’ are inappropriate ; and the more so, inasmuch as in the whole con- 
 text the apostle is speaking of diabolic assaults in general, not of particular 
 kinds thereof. — cféca:] The shields of the Greeks and Romans were as a 
 rule of wood, with a thick coating of leather.* So Paul conceives of faith 
 under the figure of such a shield, which not only prevents the missiles from 
 injuring the warrior, but also by reason of its coating brings it about that 
 these do not set on fire the wood of the shield, but must needs be themselves 
 extinguished, so that thus the warrior, by holding the shield in front of him, 
 can quench the fiery arrows. 
 
 Ver. 17. We have to prefix not a full stop, as is done by Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf, seeing that ver. 18 has reference to the whole from orjre on- 
 ward, vv. 14-17 (see on ver. 18), but only a comma. Paul, namely, passes over 
 from the participial construction into that of the verbum sinitwm, ‘*finite verb,” 
 as at i. 20,—a change to which he was drawn by the increasing vivacity of 
 his figurative conception, which, moreover, induced him now to prefix the 
 object (xepixegadaiay and payatpay, ver. 17). —In natural sequence he brings 
 forward jist the taking of the helmet, and then that of the sword ; because 
 the left hand already grasps the shield (ver. 16), and thus after the taking 
 of the sword there is no hand free. —rov cwrnpiov] again genitive ef apposi- 
 tion. The salvation, i.e., the salvation kar’ éFoyxAv, ‘* pre-eminently,” the sal- 
 vation of the Messianic kingdom, of which the Christian is partaker (before the 
 
 1 The article implies that Satan discharges 
 other avrows besides burning ones. See 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. iv. 6. 1. 
 
 2 Comp. Apollod. Bibl. ii. 5.2; Leo, Tact. 
 Xv. 27, ed. Heyn.; also mvpopor diarot in 
 Thuycd. ii. 75. 4; BédAn mupdopa, Diod. xx. 
 96; Zosim. Hist. p. 256, 2. 
 
 3 Falaricae, see Vegetius, iv. 8. 
 
 4 Ods 15 2604.5. Mire eden: ix ine Ps: 
 XxXxviii. 3; Jobyi. 4; and see Lyd. de re mit. 
 
 p. 118. 
 
 5 As supposed by Boyd, Hammond, Bo- 
 chart. 
 
 6 Chrysostom, Theophylact ; comp. Oecu- 
 menius. D 
 
 7 Boyd. 
 
 8 Hom. Zl. v. 452; Herod. vii. 91; Polyb. 
 lc. Plin. viii. 89; and see, in general, 
 Lipsius, @e milit. Rom. iii. 2, p. 109 ff. 
 
 . 
 
CHAP. VI., 17. 547 
 Parousia, as an ideal possession, Rom. viii. 24'), serves, appropriated in his 
 consciousness, to protect him against the assaults of the devil aimed at his 
 everlasting life, like the helmet, which defends the warrior from deadly 
 wounds onthe head.? For the use of cwr4#pcrov as a substantive, comp. 
 Luke ii. 20, iii. 6 ; Acts xxviii. 28 ; frequently met with in the classics and 
 the LXX.;sce Schleusner, Thes. sub voce. Neither Christ Himself * nor the gos- 
 pel‘ is meant. It is true that the word cwrjpiov is not elsewhere used by 
 Paul ; but here it is explained as a reminiscence from the LXX. Isa. lix. 17. 
 — déEache] receive, namely, from God (ver. 13), who offers you this helmet.— 
 THY waxatpav Tov Tvebuatoc] The genitive cannot here be appositional,® since 
 there follows the explanation 6 éo71 jjya Ocov, from which it is clear that the 
 sword of the Spirit is not the Spirit itself, but something distinct there- 
 from, namely, the word of God (comp. Heb. iv. 12).° If Paul had wished to 
 designate the Spirit itself as sword, the explanation 6 éor: pjua Ocot would 
 have deen inappropriate, inasmuch as the word of God and the Holy Spirit 
 are different things ;’ in Romans, too, zvevua means nothing else than the 
 
 ‘Holy Spirit. The pd yarpa tov rveiy. is the sword, which the Holy Spirit fur- 
 nishes (comp. tiv TavorAiay Tov Ocov, VV. 11, 13), and this sword is the word 
 of God, the gospel (comp. on v. 26), the contents of which the Spirit brings 
 vividly to the consciousness of the Christian, in order that he may defend 
 himself by the divine power of the gospel (Rom. i. 16) against the assaults 
 of the diabolic powers, and may vanquish them, as the warrior wards off 
 and vanquishes the enemy with the sword. Limitations of the pijua Ocod, 
 either to the commandments of God,* or to the divine threatenings against the 
 enemies of the Christians,® are as arbitrary and inappropriate as is the ex- 
 plaining tov tvetuarog of the human spirit, or by zvevparixgv, which, accord- 
 ing to Grotius, is to serve ‘‘ molliendis translationibus,” ‘‘for rendering the 
 transfers less abrupt,” but yet would have again to be explained by row 
 mvevuaroc in the sense of the Holy Spirit. — 6 éo7] applying, according to 
 the ordinary attraction, to rv wayacpav. Olshausen, in accordance with his 
 erroneous conception of rov zvebiuatoc, refers it to the latter. So already 
 Basil, contr. Hunom. 11, who proves from our passage that not only the 
 Son, but also the Spirit is the Word ! 
 
 Remark on vv. 14-17.—In the exposition of these several portions of the ar- 
 mor of the spiritual warrior, it is just as unwarrantable to press the compari- 
 
 1 Hence Paul in 1 Thess. v. 8 says: mepuxe- 
 paratav €Awida owrtypias, Which, however, 
 does not justify in our passage the expla- 
 nation hope of salvation, given to it by Caje- 
 tanus, Calvin, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, 
 Grotius, Calixtus, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, 
 Meier, Winzer, and others. 
 
 2 As to the Roman helmets, see Lipsius, de 
 milit. Rom. iii. 5, p. 122 ff. 
 
 3’ Theodoret, Bengel. 
 
 4 Holzhausen. 
 
 5In opposition to ‘/Harless, Olshausen, 
 Schenkel, and older expositors. 
 
 ® Comp. also Bleek. 
 
 7Itis true Olshausen observes that the 
 Word as to its inner essence is Spirit, as the 
 efflux of God the Spirit. But that is a gaid 
 pro quo ; for the word would not here be 
 termed Spirit (as John vi. 63), but the Spirit, 
 i.€., the Holy Spirit Himself. A like quid pro 
 quo is made by Schenkel, namely, that the 
 word of God is the most adequate expression 
 of the absolute Spirit (John iv. 24). 
 § Flatt. 
 ®° Koppe. 
 10 Morus, Rosenmiiller. 
 11 Grotius, Michaelis, and others; comp. 
 already Chrysostom and Erasmus. 
 
548 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 sons, by pursuing the points of comparison into such particular details as it may 
 please us to select from the various uses of the pieces of armor in question 
 (an error which several of the older expositors committed),—whereby free room 
 is given for the play of subjectivity, and the vivid objective delineation of the 
 apostle’s figure is arbitrarily broken up,—as it is, on the other hand, arbitrary 
 to disregard the differences in the figures derived from military equipment, 
 and to say : *‘ universa potius armorum notio tenenda est,” ‘‘rather the entire 
 notion of arms must be retained ” (Winzer, l.c. p. 14; comp. Morus, Rosen- 
 miiller, and others). The esential characteristic—the specific main point— 
 whereby the pieces named are distinguished from each other in respect of that 
 for which they serve, must be furnished by the nature of the comparison with 
 the respective means of spiritual conflict ; so that Paul must have been con- 
 scious why he here designated, e.g., d:xacocvvy as the breastplate, faith as the 
 shield, ete., namely, inasmuch as he looked at the former really from the point 
 of view of the essential destination of the breastplate, the latter from that of 
 the essential destination of the shield, etc. Otherwise his representation would 
 be a play of figures, of which the separate images, so different in themselves, 
 would have no basis in the conceplion of what is represented. To this there is 
 nothing opposed in the fact that here d:cacoovvy appears as the breastplate, 
 while at 1 Thess. v. 8 it is faith and love which so appear ; for the figurative 
 mode of regarding the subject can by no means, with a mind so many-sided, 
 rich, and versatile as that of St. Paul, be so stereotyped that the very same 
 thing which he has here viewed under the figure of the protecting breastplate, 
 must have presented itself another time under this very same figure. Thus, 
 e.g., there appears to him, as an offering well-pleasing to God, at one time 
 Christ (Eph. v. 2), at another the gifts of love received (Phil. iv. 18), at another 
 time the bodies of Christians (Rom. xii. 1) ; under the figure of the seed-corn, 
 at one time the body becoming buried (1 Cor. xy. 36 f.), at another time the 
 moral conduct (Gal. vi. 7) ; under the figure of the leaven, once moral corrup- 
 tion (1 Cor, v. 6), another time doctrinal corruption (Gal. v. 9) ; under the fig- 
 ure of clothing which is put on, once the new man (iv. 24), another time Christ 
 (Gal. iii. 27), at another time the body (2 Cor. v. 3), and other similar in- 
 stances. 
 
 Ver. 18. After Paul has, vv. 14-17, placed before his readers in what 
 armor they are to stand forth, he shows yet further how this standing 
 ready for the combat must be combined with prayer: ‘‘ with prayer and 
 entreaty of every kind, praying at each moment in virtue of the Spirit.” 
 These are two parallel specifications of mode, whereof the second more pre- 
 cisely defines the first, and which stand in grammatical and logical connec- 
 tion with or7re obv, ver. 14 ; not with the intervening désaofe, ver. 17, which 
 rather is itself subordinate to the arjre, and only by a deviation from the 
 construction has come to be expressed in the imperative instead of the par- 
 ticiple, wherefore orjre oiv remains the precept ruling the whole descrip- 
 tion, vv. 14-17. Should we join them to déZao6re, neither raon¢ nor év wavti 
 xaip@ would be appropriate to this momentary act ; for we would, in fact, 
 be told not how the sword of the Spirit should be handled,’ but how it 
 
 1 Olshausen ; comp. Harless: ‘the temper in which they are fo wield such weapons.’’ 
 
GHAP Vi, Le: o49 
 
 should be taken! An imperative signification * the participle has not. — dua 
 xaone mpocevy. Kk. dexo.] is to be taken by itself, not to be joined to the fol- 
 lowing rpocevyou.,? since otherwise a tautological redundancy of expression 
 would arise (not to be confounded with the mode of expression zpocevyi 
 mpocevyecbar, Jas. v. 17),—arbitrarily conjectured by de Wette to have 
 been occasioned by Phil. iv. 6,—and because it is an impossibility to pray 
 dua TaOnNE Tpocevy_c év TavTi Kaipo.* dca here denotes ‘‘ conditionem, in 
 qua locatus aliquid vel facias vel patiaris,” ‘‘a condition, fixed in which 
 you either do, or suffer something,” * 7.e., while ye employ every kind of prayer 
 and entreaty, omit no sort of prayer and entreaty. Those who join with 
 mpocevyou. take dia as by means of. But see above. The expression raa7c¢ 
 mpooevy. receives its elucidation from the following év ravi xaip@, Inasmuch 
 as to different circumstances of the time different kinds of prayer, as 
 respects contents and form, are appropriate. tpocevyH and dénace are 
 distinguished not so, that the former applies to the obtaining of a blessing, 
 the latter to the averting of an evil’—a meaning which, quite without proof 
 from the linguistic usage of the single words, is derived merely from the 
 combination of the two ; but rather as prayer and entreaty, of which only 
 the former has the sacred character and may be of anytenor ; the latter, on 
 the other hand, may be addressed not merely to God, as here, but also to men, 
 and is supplicatory in tenor.*—év rari xaipo| at every season, not merely 
 under special circumstances and on particular occasions. Comp. Luke xxi. 
 36. It is the advateitrwe rpocetyecba, 1 Thess. v. 17, ii. 13, 1. 38; Rom. i. 9. 
 — év rvebmate| understood of the human spirit (Rom. vill. 10), would denote 
 the heartfelt prayer in contrast to the mere utterance of the lips.” But this 
 contrast was so obvious of itself, that such a description of prayer would be 
 quite out of place in the flow of the passage before us, accumulating, as it 
 does, simply elements that are specifically Christian. Je Holy Spirit is 
 meant (ver. 17), by virtue of whom the Christian is to pray. See Rom. 
 vili. 15, 26 ; Gal. iv. 6. [See Note LXIL., p. 558.] — kai eic avt6 aypurv. k.7.A. | 
 attaches to the general zpocevyduevon év wr. x. év wv. something special, 
 namely, dntercession, and that for all Christians, and in particular for the 
 apostle himself : and in that ye on this behalf are watchful in every kind of 
 perseverance and entreaty for all saints and for me, ete. According to de 
 Wette, sic av7d apy. is to be held as still belonging to the general exhorta- 
 tion to prayer, and év 7. rpooxapr. x.7.A2. to be the addition of a special ele- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ment, like év ei yap., Col. iv. 2. But how idly would x. ei¢ ait ayp. then be 
 used, seeing that the continual praying is already before so urgently ex- 
 pressed ! Moreover, xai betrays the transition to a new element of prayer. 
 —eic airé| in reference thereto, on behalf of this, namely, of the zpocebyeotar 
 
 1 Bleek. 4 Fritzsche, ad@ Rom. I. p. 188; Winer, 
 2 So usually, as also by Riickert, Matthies, p. 339. 
 Harless, Bleek ; not Meier and Baumgar- 5 Grotius and many. 
 ten-Crusius. 6 See Harless on the passage, and 
 3 The case would be otherwise, and this Fritzsche, ad Rom. U1. p. 372 f. 
 impossibility would not exist, if it were 7 Castalio, Zanchius, Erasmus Schmid, 
 said: dca maons mpogevyns x. Seno, Kal ev 7. Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and 
 
 Kap, others. 
 
550 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 év ravtl xaip év rvevpate just required. By airé, namely, is denoted that 
 which is just being spoken of, and it is distinguished from airé rovro (the 
 Recepta) only in this respect, that the latter (comp. on Rom. ix. 17) desig- 
 nates the subject in question at the same time demonstratively, and so still 
 more definitely.’ According to Holzhausen,’ it has reference to iva ox dof. 
 But in that case eic tovro must have been written ; and, moreover, epi 
 révtov Tov dyiov Would be from a logical point of view opposed to it. — éy 
 don TpockapT. Kk. dejoet TEpi ~. T. dy.| denotes the domain, wherein, etc. On 
 behalf of the required zpocetyeoba: they are to be watchful in every kind of 
 perseverance and entreaty for alt saints. The xpockaprépyoic is, according to 
 the context (and comp. Col. iv. 2), the perseverance in prayer, so that év r. 
 rpoox. corresponds to the dia rac. spocev xi at the beginning of the verse, 
 and then with xai (év racy) defoe:, as there, the entreaty attaches itself, but 
 now with the more precise definition : repi r4.Twv tov dylwv, Which hence 
 belongs not to zpooxapr., but only to dejoe, as, indeed, accordingly the lat- 
 ter may not be amalgamated with zpooxapr. into a év did dvoiv. According 
 to Riickert, év wdoy rpookaor. x. de#oec is added, in order to be able to annex 
 repi ravt. T. dy. But in that case could not Paul have written merely eic 
 avr aypuTv. epi wav7. Tt. dy., and that without risk of being misunderstood ? 
 No, the év rdoy mpock. x. defo., in itself not essential, gives to his discourse 
 the emphasis of earnestness and solemnity.? — don] as previously done. 
 Ver. 19. Kai izép éuov] cai: and in particular. The special point 
 which, in connection with the intercession embracing all Christians, he 
 would have to be made matter of supplication for himself, is stated in what 
 follows. &t7zép expresses, as previously the epi in current use, the sense in 
 commodum, ‘‘for the advantage of ; ” ° and only the form of sensuous pereep- 
 tion, which underlies the two prepositions, is different, as in the case of the 
 Germ. iiber and um; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18. It is wrongly assumed by 
 Harless that only i ép expresses -in itself the relation of care for, and not 
 xepi. The notion of the latter—that of encircling—in fact sensuously em- 
 bodies such care ; hence with classical writers too, especially with Demos- 
 thenes, repi and iép are interchanged without any difference of sense, e.g.° 
 — iva por Jo) x.t.A.| Aimof the kai brép ~Euod, and consequently contenis 
 of the intercession for the apostle (comp. on iii. 16) : in order that utterance 
 may be given to me on the opening of my mouth, i.e., that there may not be 
 withheld from me by God, but may on the contrary be conferred, that 
 which I ought to speak when I open my mouth. That Paul means the 
 speaking with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, is from the context (see 
 év Tappyo. yvop. k.T.A.) clear. The emphasis, however, is upon dof 4, to 
 which, in the sequel, év rappyoia significantly corresponds ; for this freedom 
 
 1 See on ver. 22; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 6 Phil. ii. p. 74, 35: wh wept Tor dixatov 
 iii. 10. 14; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. ii. p. 362 D. pnd’ barép tov ¢£w mpayparwr elvar THv Bov- 
 2 Comp. Koppe. Ajv, aAN Vrép tovév TH xWpa, 10. 16: ov weEpe 
 3Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. dcéns 005’ dmép wéepovs Xwpas ToAemovor, Xen. 
 XXXViii. f. Mem.i.1.17:07ép tovtTwv wept avtov mapay- 
 4 See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11, 713. vevar, Thucyd, vi. 78. 1: vrép ye THs Ems Kev- 
 
 5 See Schaefer, App. ad Dem. I. p. 150; Svveverv, evOvpynditwé ov wept THs EAs MAAAOV. 
 Buttmann, Jnd. ad Mid. p. 158. 
 
CHAP. Vis, 19: dol 
 of speech is the consequence wished for by Paul from that bestowal. Comp. 
 Luke xxi. 15. As to avoiyerv td oréma, which in itself represents 
 nothing else than the opening of the mouth to speak, comp. on Matt. v. 2 ; 
 2 Cor. vi. 11 ; on the substantive a@vocfcc, comp. Thuc. iv. 67. 3. The 
 expression is graphic, and has here something of a pathetic nature, without, 
 however, containing a qualitative feature of the discourse itself, not even the 
 character of wnpremeditated utterance,’ which would have been expressed by 
 év avTh TH avoife: Tov o7., OY in asimilar significant way. This at the same 
 time in opposition to Calvin, Boyd, Zanchius, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
 others, including Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 de Wette, Bleek, Schenkel, who explain: wnreservedly, frankly, which 
 would have to be attached not to what follows (see below), but closely to 
 26yoc, and thereby, again, the év rappycia yrwp. would be unwarrantably antic- 
 ipated. Following Bullinger, Calovius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others,’ 
 Harless and Olshausen understand the dvorEve tot oréuaroc as the act of God,* 
 holding it to denote : f 
 bound state of the tongue. 
 ance may be given unto me through my mouth being opened.” 
 
 the bestowed capacity of speaking in contrast to an earlier 
 Paul would thus have said : ‘‘in order that utter- 
 But what 
 needless diffuseness of expression, since do37 Adyoc and avoeic Tov ordmarog 
 -would be just the same thing! 
 to what follows ; in which case Kypke regards év zappyoia as epexegesis of 
 avotéet T. of. ., and Koppe, following Grotius,‘ refers év zapp. to the outward 
 frecdom : ‘‘non vinculis constrictus in carcere latens,” ‘‘not bound by 
 chains, concealed in prison.” The latter explanation is logically erroneous, 
 since, thus understood, év zappyo. would be something quite other than the 
 avoieic Tov otéuatoc, and thus could not be added by way of apposition, with- 
 out «ai ; and linguistically erroneous, since zappycia never denotes outward 
 freedom, and here especially its signification of boldness is rendered clear by 
 the rappyoidowua of ver. 20.° 
 
 Kypke and Koppe attach év avoigerrod or. yu. 
 
 In opposition to Kypke, it may be urged 
 that an addition of so purely exegetical a character, as év rapp. would be to 
 év avolg. tT. ord. u., WOuld not be in keeping with the elevated style of the 
 discourse, which is not couched in anything like a didactic tone. Kdster,° 
 with whom, in the main, Bleek agrees, attaches év dvoig. tr. oréu. wu. to what 
 follows, and takes dofj Aéyoc in the well-known classical sense : to allow one 
 to come to speech, to let him speak ;" so that Paul is supposed to say : ‘‘ that 
 
 1 Oecumenius: €v ait@ T@ avot~ar Oo Adyos 
 mpoyet, “* in the very opening, the word went 
 forth.” 
 
 2 Grotius also regards the avovéts tod ard- 
 patos as the act of God: ‘‘sic Deus labia 
 aperire dicitur, ubi materiam suppeditat 
 sibi gratias agendi, ‘Thus God is said to 
 open the lips when he supplies the matter 
 for thanksgiving,’ Ps. li. 15,’ yet makes out 
 of it, after the Rabbinical 7D pnns (see 
 Capell. Spicileg. p. 112; Buxtorf, Lea. Tal. 
 p. 1872), occastone (loquendi) data, ‘* the op- 
 portunity to speak being given.’’ But the 
 sense, ‘opportunity io speak,” could only 
 
 so be brought out in the event of the words 
 running thus: tva jot doy) avoréts Tov oroma- 
 TOS MOV. 
 
 3'Comp: Hzek. ili. 27; xxix! 31) xxxiie 22 
 Jee bealis 
 
 4“ Ut ab hac custodia militari liber per 
 omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem 
 evang.,” ‘‘That free from this military 
 guard, Imay carry the tidings of the gos- 
 pel throughout the entire city,” ete. 
 
 5 Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. IT. in 2 Cor. p.99 £. 
 
 ® In the Stud. u. Arit. 1854, p. 317. 
 
 TDeme 265 1515127, 9s b08, olGis 1220 e0r 
 comp. Aoyou tuxetv, 229, 13. 
 
a2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 opportunity to speak may be given to me, namely, at the opening of my 
 mouth (that is, when I wish to speak) frankly to proclaim,” ete. But even 
 in this way év avoiger Tov or6u. pov. Would be only a needless and cumbrous 
 addition. — év rappyoia yvopica: k.t.A.| with frankness to make known the 
 mystery of the gospel, t.e., the mystery (see on i. 9) which forms the contents 
 of the gospel. The opportunity of preaching was not taken from the 
 apostle in his captivity at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), nor yet afterwards at 
 Rome (Acts xxviii. 30 f.). Shouid we attach év zapj. to what precedes,’ 
 yvwpicae Would be without a necessary modal definition. 
 
 Remark.—If the Recepta dofein were genuine, the statement of aim, intro- 
 duced by iva, would be adduced from the mind of the persons praying, thus in 
 the character of the oratio obliqua. See oni. 17. 
 
 Ver. 20. For which (to conduct its cause) I discharge the office of am- 
 bassador in a chain. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 20. It is to be explained neither 
 as though izép ob rpecBebwv év ddboer eiui, ‘for which discharging the office 
 of ambassador, I am in a chain,” ? were written, nor as though irép ob xai 
 iv ddtioer rpecBevw, ‘*for which and in a chain, I am discharging the office 
 of ambassador,” were the reading ;° nor is ov to be referred, as is wsually 
 the case, merely to tov evayyeA, but to 7d pvotHpcov Tov evayy., seeing 
 that this was the object of yvopica, and to this yrwpica the mpecBetw 
 significantly corresponds. Comp. Col. iv. 3: Zadjoa Td prothpiov Tov 
 Xpicrov, 0’ 6 Kai dédenat. — zpecBeiw] whose ambassador he is, was at once 
 understood by the reader, namely, Christ’s,; and equally so to whom his 
 embassy was addressed, namely, to all peoples, specially the Gentiles 
 (Acts ix. 15, xxii. 15; Rom. 1. 14, x1. 13; Gal. 1. “9)>” “ihevopames 
 of Michaelis, that Paul designates himself as delegate of Christ to the 
 Roman court, would, even if he had written the Epistle in Rome, be im- 
 ported, since no reader could find anything else than the apostle denoted by 
 mpeoBevw without more precise definition. — év diicec] On év, comp. phrases 
 like eic tiv dAvaw éutixtew, Polyb. xxi. 3. 3. Wetstein, we may add, aptly 
 observes: ‘‘alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis 
 haberi non poterant,” ‘‘in other relations ambassadors sacred and inviolable 
 by the law of nations, could not be held in bonds.” To infer, however, 
 from the use of the singular * the eustodia militaris, ‘‘ the military custody,” 
 in which Paul was at Rome (Acts xxviii. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 16), is too hasty ; 
 partly for the general reason that the singular must by no means be urged, 
 but may be taken collectively,® and partly for the special reason that we have 
 to think of Paul at Caesarea too, and that from the very beginning of his 
 captivity there (see on Acts xxiv. 23), as in the custodia militaris, ‘‘ mili- 
 tary custody ;” Acts xxiv. 27, xxvi. 29.° The significant bearing of the addi- 
 
 1Vatablus: ‘‘ut detur mihi aperto ore gationem,” “now also I do not cease my 
 loqui libere, ut notum faciam,” “that it embassy,”’ ete. 
 
 may be given me to speak freely with open 4 Baumgarten, Paley, Flatt, Steiger. 
 mouth, that I may make known,” etc. 5 Bernhardy, p. 58 f. 
 2 Zachariae, Riickert, Matthies. ® In the latter passage the plural ta@v dep. 
 
 3 Grotius: ‘“‘nune quoque non desino le- TovTwv is not at variance with this view, as 
 
CHAP. VI., 21. 
 
 tion év dice: is to make palpable the so much greater need of the rappyaia, 
 and so the more fully to justify the longing for the intercessory prayer of 
 the readers. — iva év abté rappyo. we dei we Aad.) Parallel to the iva por dob « 
 
 ebayyediov, ver. 19, and indeed not tautological,’ but, by means of ac dei pe 
 hadjoa, more precisely defining the thought already expressed. As similar 
 parallels by means of a second iva, comp. Rom. vii. 13 ; Gal. ill. 14 ; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 20 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8. Harless regards this second iva as subordinate to the 
 first. Thus the words would express not the aim on account of which Paul 
 summons his readers to prayer, as stated by Harless, but the aim of the dol 
 But this would be inappropriate, since dof) Adyoc x.7.A. has 
 already the definition of aim appropriate to it, namely, in év rapp. yvup. 
 Bengel and Meier make iva dependent on xpeoBeiw év adtoer (in which 
 case Meier imports the sense, as if the words were iva kai év ai7q rapp.) ; but 
 the clause expressive of the aim: ‘‘in order that I may therein speak as 
 boldly as I am bound to speak,”’ does not logically correspond to the zpecBeiw 
 év dAvoez, because without any reference to év ddicer. 
 written 
 
 Adyocg K.T.A. 
 
 KeT.A. 
 
 Had Paul merely 
 : wa rappyoiicopa év ait (without we dei we AaAjoa), by which the 
 xappyo. would have become emphatic,’ or : iva 7oAAG wahhov Tappyo. év aiTo, 
 the logical relation would be satisfied. — év aito] namely, in the mystery of 
 the gospel, i.e., occupied therewith, in the proclamation thereof.* Comp. 
 Acts ix. 27. Harless understands év of the source or ground of the rappyoia, 
 which has its basis in the message itself [rather : in the mystery of the 
 gospel ; see on ixép ov]. But the context represents the yvorjpiov tov evayy. 
 as the object of the bold discourse (ver. 19); and the sowrce of the rappyoia is 
 in God (see 1 Thess. ii. 2), which is not indeed here expressed, but is implied 
 in the fact that it is to be obtained for the apostle by prayer on the part of 
 the readers. — dc dei we Aaajoa| to be taken together (comp. Col. iv. 4); and 
 after we there is not to be put any comma, by which Aaja: would be con- 
 nected with zappyc.,s—a course, which is impossible just because cappyc. 
 already expresses the bold speaking ; and thus AaAjoa, if it were to be more 
 precisely defining, could not but of necessity have with it a modal definition 
 (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2).° 
 
 Ver. 21. Aé] Serving to make the transition to another subject. — cai ieic | 
 ye also, not merely the Colossians, Col. iv. 8, 9.° While most of the older 
 expositors pass over this «a/ in silence,’ Riickert and Matthies strangely 
 enough think that it stands in contradistinetion to the apostle himself. From 
 this there would in fact result the absurd thought : ‘‘in order that not only 
 I, but also ye may know how it fares with me.” — ra kav’ éué] my circum- 
 stances, my position, Phil. i. 22 ; Col. iv. 7.°— ti mpacow| more precise defini- 
 tion of ra Kar’ éué : what I experience. i.e., how it fares with me, how I find my- 
 
 
 
 itis rather the categoric plural, and leaves 3 Matthiae, p. 1342. 
 
 the question entirely undecided, whether 
 Paul was bound with one or more chains. 
 
 1 In opposition to Harless. 
 
 2 This seems also to have been felt by 
 Bengel, who connected ws ée¢ we Aad. with 
 yvepioar, Which certainly could not occur 
 to any reader. 
 
 4 Koppe. 
 
 5 See Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 100 f. 
 
 6 See Introd. § 2. 
 
 7 Rightly, however, explained in a gener- 
 al sense by Bengel: ‘‘perinde ut alii,” 
 ““just as others.” 
 
 8 See Kiihner, II. p. 119. 
 
bod THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 self! So often also in classical writers, “ de statu et rebus, in quibus quis 
 constitutus est et versatur,” ‘‘of the condition and affairs wherein any one 
 is placed and is occupied,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. 629. — Tiyixoc] See Acts 
 xx.4; Col. iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 12. Beyond these passages unknown, — 6 
 ayaryric adehod¢ Kai maT. ded. év Kup.] SO Paul characterizes Tychicus by way 
 of commendation,* and that (a) as his beloved fellow-Christian, and (}) as his 
 faithful official servant. As the latter, he was employed by Paul for just 
 such journeys as the present. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 12. Mark likewise, accord- 
 ing to 2 Tim. iv. 11, receives from the apostle the testimony that he is for 
 him eiypyoroc ete diaxoviav. Others, like Grotius (comp. Calvin), do uot re- 
 fer didxovoc to the relation to the apostle, but explain it : servant of the gospel 
 [minister evangelii], while Estius and many understand specially the ecclesi- 
 astical office of the deacon. But Col. iv. 7, where dsaxovog Kai otvdovdog are 
 united (the latter word softening the relation of service towards the apostle 
 expressed by d:dxovoc), speaks in favor of our view. — év xupiv] belongs only 
 to didxovoc, not to dadeAgd¢ as well (in opposition to Meier and Harless), since 
 only the former had need of a specific definition (comp. on Phil. i. 14), in 
 order to be brought out in its true relation (and not to bear the semblance 
 of harshness). Not beyond the pale of Christian relations was Tychicus ser- 
 vant of the apostle, but in Christ his service was carried on, Christ was the 
 sphere of the same, inasmuch as Tychicus was official diaxovog of the apostle. 
 év kupiw is attached without an article, because combined with dcaéxovog so as 
 to form one idea. 
 
 Ver. 22. "Exeuwa mpoc tuac] namely, that he should travel from Colossae 
 to you, Col. iv. 7-9.4—eic¢ airé tovro]| in this very design.’ — iva yvere Ta repi 
 jjuov] must on account of cic av7d rovTo necessarily convey the same thing as 
 was said by iva eid7te Ta Kar’ éué, Ti Tpacow, Ver. 21 ; hence the conjecture of 
 Riickert, iva yr@ te ta epi duov, is entirely baseless ; and at Col. iv. 8 also 
 we have, in accordance with preponderant evidence, to read iva yvare Ta repi 
 jjuav. — By juov Paul means himself and those that are with him (see Col. iv. 
 10 ff. ; Philem. 10 f., 23 {f.), concerning whom information was likewise 
 reserved for the report of Tychicus. — rapaxaréon] might comfort. For Ty- 
 chicus had to tell of sufferings and afflictions which Paul must needs endure 
 (comp. ver. 20), and on account of them the readers were called 7 éxxaxeiv, 
 iii. 13. Amplifications of the notion ° are arbitrary. 
 
 Ver. 23 f. Twofold wish of blessing at the close, in which, however, Paul 
 does not, as in the closing formulae of the other Epistles, directly address 
 
 1 Others, like Wolf: what I am doing. 
 But ‘hai the reader knew. He was doing 
 the one thing, which always occupied him. 
 See vv. 19, 20. 
 
 * Comp. Ael. V. 7. ii. 35, where the sick 
 Gorgias is asked ti wpatror. Plato, Theaet. 
 p. 174 B; Soph. Qed. R. 74; and see Wet- 
 stein and Kypke. 
 
 °The assumption of a more special de- 
 sign as regards motos, namely, that it is 
 meant to represent Tychicusasa trustworthy 
 reporter (Grotius), is inadmissible, because 
 
 Tychicus without doubt was known to the 
 readers (Acts xx. 4), It was otherwise in 
 relation to the Colossians. See on Col. 
 iv. 7. 
 
 4 See Introd. § 2. 
 
 5 See on ver. 18, and Bornemann, @d Xen. 
 Mem. iii. 12.2; Pflugk, a@ Hur. Androm., 41. 
 
 6 Riickert: ‘to elevate by address to 
 them of every kind ;’ Baumgarten-Crusius : 
 to strengthen ; comp. Estius, who proposes 
 exhortetur, ‘* to exhort.” 
 
CHAP. VI., 23. 555 
 This vari- 
 ation is to be regarded as merely accidental, and the more so, seeing that he 
 has in fact been just addressing his readers directly, and seeing that a we’ 
 duav or the like would simply address the readers, as has so often been done 
 in the Epistle itself, leaving, we may add, the question, who these readers 
 are, in itself wholly undetermined. For what is asserted by Grotius on ver. 
 24: ‘* Non Ephesios tantum salutat, sed et omnes in Asia Christianos,” ‘* He 
 saiutes not only the Ephesians, but also all Christians in Asia,” is not implied 
 in toi¢ adeAgoic—which, on the contrary, represents quite the simple iuiv, in- 
 asmuch as Paul conceives of the recipients of the Epistle in the third person. 
 According to Wieseler, p. 444 f., the apostle in ver. 23 salutes the Jewish 
 Christians (adeA¢.), and in ver. 24 the Gentile Christians (7davtwv) in Ephesus. 
 Improbable in itself, more particularly in this Epistle, which so carefully 
 brings into prominence the unity of the two ; and the alleged distinguish- 
 ing reference would neither be recognizable, nor in keeping with the apos- 
 tolic wisdom. — eipijrvy] not concordia, ‘* harmony,” as recommended by Cal- 
 
 the readers (ue? tuav, werd TavTwv budv, peTa TOV TvebuaToc iuov). 
 
 vin,' but, as Calvin himself explains : welfare, blessing, DI Iwi, without more 
 precise definition, because it takes the place of the valete (éppwofe, Acts xv. 
 29) at the close of our Epistle,? and because that special sense is not at all 
 suggested from the contents of the Epistle (comp. on the other hand, 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 11). — ayary wera riorewc| is one object of the wish for blessing, not 
 two. After the general fare well! namely, Paul singles out further the 
 highest moral element, which he wishes for his readers. He does not, how- 
 ever, write cai ayarn Kai riot1c, because with good reason he presupposes faith 
 (in the atonement achieved by Christ) as already present, but has doubtless 
 to wish for them that which, as the constant life of faith, is to be combined 
 with it (1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. v. 6), Christian brotherly love, consequently dove 
 with faith (@yad77 has the emphasis, not pera rior.).2  Bengel and Meicr 
 understand the divine love, to which, however, pera wior. is unsuitable, 
 although Meier explains it : in conformity with their own faith, partly at vari- 
 ance with linguistic usage,* partly importing a thought (their own). The 
 reading éi4eo¢ (instead of ayary) is to be regarded simply as a glossematic 
 consequence of the explaining it of the divine love, and yet, though found 
 only in codex A, it is held by Riickert to be the true one (comp. Gal. vi. 
 16) ; Paul, he says, wishes to the readers eipfvy x. éAeoe for the reward (2) of 
 faith. —a7d Ocov ratpoc x. Kup. I. X.] See on Rom. i. 7. Grotius, we may 
 add, rightly observes : ‘‘conjungit causam principem cum causa secunda,” 
 
 1“ Quia mox fit dilectionis mentio,”’ ‘‘ be- 
 cause afterwards there is mention of love ;” 
 comp. also Theodore and Oecumenius. 
 
 2 Hence also not to be explained of the, 
 peace of veconeciliation (Bengel, Matthies, 
 Schenkel, and others), any more here than 
 in the opening salutations of the Epistle, 
 where it takes the place of the epistolary 
 salutem, eb mpatrevy, 
 
 3 Comp. Plato, Phaed. p. 253 E: «addos 
 meTa Vytelas AawBavery, 
 
 4 weva may, it is true, sometimes be ap- 
 proximately as to sense rendered by con- 
 
 Jormably to, but the analysis in those cases 
 
 issuch as does not suit our passage. See 
 e.g. Dem. Lept. p. 490; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 
 B, where peta tov vopwy and peta Tov Adyou 
 is to be explained, in connection with the 
 laws, ete., i.¢., with the aid of the same. 
 Comp. also Thucyd. iii. 82. 5, and Kriger in 
 loc. See in general, Bernhardy, p. 255. 
 
556 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 ‘(He joins the first with the second cause.”? For Christ is exalted on the 
 part of God to the government of the world, and particularly to the Lord- 
 ship of the church (i. 22 ; Phil. ii. 9) ; and His dominion has in God, the 
 Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), not merely its ground (comp. also Eph. 417), 
 but also its goal (1 Cor. ili. 23, xv. 28). 
 
 Ver. 24. While Paul has in ver. 23 expressed his wish of blessing for the 
 readers (roic adeAgoic), he now annexes thereto a further such general wish, 
 namely, for all who love Christ imperishably, just as at 1 Cor, xvi. 22 he takes 
 up into the closing wish an avdGeva upon all those who do not love Christ. 
 —1 yapic] the grace kar’ éox4v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 7.e., the grace of God 
 in Christ. (Comp. Col. iy. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 21; 2 Tim: iv. 22:5) Eipoene 
 15. In the conclusion of other Epistles: the grace of Christ, Rom. xvi. 
 20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 235; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Gal. vi. 18 “ERieeeaos 
 Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 18; Phil. 25. —év ad@apoia] belongs neither 
 1 to "Ijcoty Xprordv,2 nor to 7 yapuc,? nor yet to the sé, ‘‘be,” to be 
 supplied after 7 yapic, as is held, after Beza (who, however, took év 
 for eic) and Bengel, recently by Matthies,‘ Harless,° Bleek, and Ols- 
 hausen, which last supposes a breviloquentia, ‘‘an abbreviated expression,” 
 But, in opposition to 
 Matthies, it may be urged that the purely temporal notion eternity (eic 
 rov aiava) is foisted upon the word imperishableness ; and in opposition to 
 Harless, that the abstract notion imperishableness is transmuted into the con- 
 crete notion of imperishable being, which is not the meaning of agéapc., 
 even in 2 Tim. i. 10 (but imperishableness in abstracto, ‘*in the abstract”), 
 and that év d@@apoia, instead of adding, in accordance with its emphatic 
 
 for wa Cayv étywow év adfapoia, 1.€., Cwyy aidvior. 
 
 position, a very weighty and important element, would express something 
 which is self-evident, namely, that according to the wish of the apostle the 
 grace might display itself not év gaproice (1 Pet. i. 18), but év ag#apracg 5 the 
 breviloguentia, ‘‘abbreviated expression,” lastly, assumed by Olshausen is, 
 although ag@apc. in itself might be equivalent to Cw aidévioc,® a pure inven- 
 tion, the sense of which Paul would have expressed by eic¢ a¢@apaiav. The 
 right connection is the uswal one, namely, with ayazovrwr. And in ac- 
 cordance with this, we have to explain it : who love the Lord in imperishable- 
 ness, i.e., so that their love does not pass away, in which case év expresses the 
 manner. Comp. the concluding wish Tit. iii. 15, where éy ziore: is in like 
 manner to be combined with @Aovvtac. Others, following the same connec- 
 tion, have understood the sinceritas, ‘‘ sincerity,” either of the love itself’ 
 
 1 The order inthe combination of the two 
 causes is inverted in Gal. l.c.; dca "Incod Xp. 
 kal @cov Tatpos. 
 
 2 Wetstein: ‘‘Christum immortalem et 
 gloriosum, non humilem,” ‘‘ Christ immortal 
 and glorious, not humble,” ete.; see also 
 
 Reiners in Wolf and Semler. 
 
 3 “Favor immortalis,” ‘immortal favor,” 
 Castalio, Drusius; comp. Piseator and Mi- 
 chaelis, who take év as equivalent to ovr, 
 while the latter supposes a reference to 
 
 deniers of the resurrection ! 
 
 4“ That grace with all. . . may be in eter- 
 nity ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius.” 
 
 5 According to whom év denotes the ele- 
 ment in which the yapis manifests itself, 
 and adtapo. is all imperishable being, 
 whether appearing in this life or in eter- 
 nity. 
 
 ® See Grimm, Handbd. p. 60. 
 
 7 Pelagius, Anselm, Calyin, Calovius, and 
 others, 
 
NOTES. 557 
 
 or of the disposition and the life in general,’ but against this Beza has 
 already with reason urged the linguistic usage ; for wneorruptedness is not 
 agPapsia (not even in Wisd. vi. 18, 19), but adOopia (Tit. ii. 7) and adiagbopia 
 (Wetstein, Il. p. 373). Onag@apoia, imperishableness (at 1 Cor. xv. 42, 
 52, it is in accordance with the context specially dncorruptibility), comp. 
 Pieper. 6); Rom. ai..7 ;.1-Cor. ix. 25; 1, Tim, i. 17; 2 Tim. 1. 10; 
 Wiad.wu0e 23, vi. 18 f. ;.4 Macc. ix. 22, xvii. 12. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 LVII. Ver. 1. Ta réxva x.7.A. 
 
 Stier, Braune and Philippi agree here with Hofmann, over against Meyer ; 
 but emphasis cannot be thrown on either side. Attention, however, to 
 another point, noted by Eadie and Braune, is important, viz., the clear implica- 
 tion of the presence of children at the public worship, where this epistle was 
 to be read. 
 
 LVIII. Ver. 4. év raWeia kai vovPecia. 
 
 The Revised version translates : ‘‘In the chastening and admonition of the 
 Lord.” Trench, following Grotius, and followed by most English writers, 
 rejects the distinction advocated by Meyer, and defines the former as ‘‘ train- 
 ing by act and discipline,’ and the latter as ‘training by word.” ‘For the 
 Greeks, radeia was simply ‘education ;’ nor in all the many definitions of 
 maideia, which are to be found in Plato, is there so much as the slightest pro- 
 phetic anticipation of the new force which the word should obtain. But the 
 deeper apprehension of those who had learned that ‘foolishness is bound in 
 the heart’ alike ‘ of a child’ and of a man, while yet the ‘rod of correction 
 may drive it far from him’ (Proy. xxii. 15), led them, in assuming the word, to 
 bring into it a further thought, they felt and understood that all effectual in- 
 struction for the sinful children of men includes and implies chastening, or, as 
 we are accustomed to say, out of asense of the same truth ‘ correction.’’’ 
 Yet, as Barry suggests, the authority of the father in this, as allowed under the 
 Roman law, is here softened by the addition of the xvpiov. In the discipline, 
 the fact must be remembered that they belong to Christ, ‘‘ taken into His arms, 
 and sealed as His little ones.”’ This intensifies infinitely ‘‘ the greatest reverence 
 due a child,’’ of which Juvenal wrote. 
 
 Cremer defines vovfecia by ‘‘ well-intentioned, but serious correction,” and 
 adds: ‘This putting right, or correction, just as the Lord uses it, is opposed to 
 wrath, Wisd. xvi. 5, 6, xi. 11 ; and the admonition answers to what precedes 
 fy wapopyicete K.7.A., for mapopyicerv, to imitate, to provoke to wrath, implies and 
 presupposes one’s own anger. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14. Daweia and vovfecia alike 
 have as their end the dv@pwroc réAevoc, Col. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13, but vovfecia is 
 intended to obviate deviations, and to establish the right direction of the 
 matdeia”’ (Lexicon, p. 442). See Martensen’s Social Ethics, pp. 62 sq. 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, abduci, patitur,” “That is indicated which 
 Erasmus, Flacius, Estius, Zeger, Grotius: by no force, no enticements, allows itself to 
 “significatur is, qui nulla vi, nullis preci- be corrupted, z.e., fo be withdrawn from the 
 bus, nullis illecebrisse corrumpi, i.e., a recto right,’ and others, including Wieseler. 
 
Or 
 O51 
 o2) 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 LIX. Ver. 12. év zoi¢ éxovpaviore. 
 
 Again, as in chap. i. 3, ii, 2 (see Notes III., XVII.), we cannot appreciate the 
 argument for a local restriction. The contrast here is between the weakness of 
 man and the strength of his great enemies, and the apostle’s idea is fully ex- 
 pressed by interpreting this as meaning ‘‘ of a sphere higher than that of earth.” 
 The inference from the other constructions that would have been used for this 
 is scarcely in point here. ‘The latent opposition aiua kai capé (on earth) and © 
 7a Tvevu. (in supernal regions), suggests a word of greater antithetical force, 
 which still can include the same lexical meaning. As in chap. ii. 2, there was 
 no reason for limiting the term to the mere physical atmosphere, so here still 
 less need we adopt any more precise specification of locality’’ (Ellicott). 
 Barry adds another element, well worthy of note: It ‘“‘surely points to the 
 power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through physical and human 
 agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher aspect, in which it contemplates 
 heavenly things and ascends to the communion with God.”’ 
 
 LX. Ver. 13. 77 juépa tH Tovnpda. 
 
 These words are not those of a mere man, mistaken in his inference con- 
 cerning an approaching crisis, as Meyer’s interpretation implies, but they are 
 inspired of the Holy Ghost, and refer to a contest through which it was un- 
 erringly foreseen that the readers of this epistle were to pass. 
 
 LXI. Ver. 14. rij¢ ducacocivye. 
 
 Ellicott concurs with Meyer, defining the thought better, viz., ‘ the right- 
 eousness which is the result of the renovation of the heart by the Holy Spirit.” 
 But is there actually a tautology involved by interpreting it as referring to the 
 righteousness of Christ? Faith and its righteousness, however closely united, 
 are nevertheless different things, and thus understood, there is no anticipa- 
 tion. Besides, without tautology, Paul elsewhere speaks of faith as both the 
 means and the fruit of justification. Braune makes ‘the righteousness” refer 
 to both that of faith and of life. We prefer, with Eadie, following Harless, to 
 understand it of ‘‘ justification by the blood of the cross.” ‘‘To every insinu- 
 ation 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.” 
 
 LXII. Ver. 18. év rvedyarte. 
 
 Schmidt inserts in revised Meyer, Hofmann’s explanation, that the expres- 
 sion refers to prayer as such as should be a constant occupation of the spiritual 
 life, and is never a mere outward activity, such as in chap. v. 18, to which 
 the semblance of prayer by the natural man must be limited. év rvevuate is un- 
 derstood then as referring to the Holy Spirit in His relation to the human 
 spirit. 
 
TOPICAL. INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Adoption, 315. 
 
 Age, Present, The, 358. 
 
 Ajasaluk, 287. ; 
 
 Angels, The, and redemption, 326 
 seq., 353 ; classes of, 343 seq.; rec- 
 ognizing God’s wisdom, 414 seq. 
 
 Anger, Warned against, 478 seq.; 
 righteous, 487. 
 
 Application in the Christian calling, 
 503 seq. 
 
 Armor, The Christian’s, 542 seq., 547. 
 
 Artemis, 287. 
 
 Ascension of Christ, The, 449, 485. 
 
 Atonement, The, of Christ, 314, 351 
 seq., 317, 352, 368, 490 seq.; conse- 
 quence of, 357, 384 seq., 387 seq., 
 389 seq. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baptism, 440 ; its cleansing infiuence, 
 513 seq. 
 
 Basil on Ephesians, 288 seq. 
 
 Believers, Christian, alive in Christ, 
 369 ; saved by grace, 370; exalted 
 with Christ, 3871; in God’s king- 
 dom, 392 seq.; as the dwelling of 
 the Holy Spirit, 397 seq.; grounded 
 in love, 424 seq.; knowing Christ’s 
 love, 425 seq., 432 seq.; filled with 
 God, 427 seq.; receiving the gifts of 
 grace, 443 ; progressing in faith and 
 knowledge, 456 seq.; their goal, 459 ; 
 their head in Christ, 463 ; exhorted to 
 a pure walk, 467 seq.; warned against 
 heathen vices, 469 seq., 491 seq.; 
 admonished to spiritual regenera- 
 tion, 475 seq.; exhorted to moral 
 life and conduct, 477 seq.; exhorted 
 to love, 490 seq.; as children of 
 light, 495 ; to redeem the time, 503 
 seq.; warned against debauchery, 
 505; exhorted to social worship, 
 506 seq.; to be sanctified, 512 seq.; 
 members of Christ’s body, 518 seq.; 
 admonished to be strong in the 
 Lord, 535 seq.; to put on God’s ar- 
 mor, 536 seq.; to pray always, 548 
 
 
 
 
 
 seq., 558 ; receive Paul’s benedic- 
 tion, 554 seq. 
 Benediction bestowed, 554 seq. 
 Bitterness reproved, 483. 
 
 | Butfoonery condemned, 492, 524. 
 
 C. 
 
 Children, their obedience to parents, 
 529 seq.; their baptism, 529 ; their 
 presence at public worship, 557 ; 
 their training, 5382, 557. 
 
 Church, The, as Christ’s body, 345 
 seq., 464 seq.; as united in Christ, 
 396 seq., 465 seq.; its holiness, 
 397 seq.; aS one community, 416, 
 431; its progressive development, 
 466 seq.; subject to Christ, 509 seq. ; 
 sanctified by Christ, 512 seq.; to be 
 glorified, 514 seq. 
 
 Christ, His blessings, 312 ; His adop- 
 tion, 315; His grace, 317; His re- 
 demption, 317 seq., 352, 490 seq.; 
 union with Christ, 320; sent by 
 God, 321, 352; His resurrection, 
 341 seq., 369 seq.; His glorified 
 body, 342 seq., 353 seq.; His exal- 
 tation and dominion, 342 seq., 371, 
 452; filling the church, 346 seq.; His 
 divinity, 351 seq.; as our peace, 382 
 seq.; His atonement, 384 seq.; and 
 the law, 385 seq.; reconciling man 
 to God, 387 seq.; preaching peace, 
 390 seq.; as the corner-stone, 394 
 seq.; the ground of salvation, 417 ; 
 dwelling in the believers, 423 seq.; 
 His love, 425 ; overcoming His ene- 
 mies, 448 : His ascension and de- 
 cension, 449 seq.; the head of be- 
 lievers, 463 ; calling the believers, 
 502 seq.: the aim of His death, 512 
 seq.; His love to the church, 516. 
 
 | Circumcision, 377. 
 
 Colossians, Epistle to the, 301 seq. 
 
 Commandment with promise, The, 
 530 seq. 
 
 Communicatio idiomatum, The doc- 
 trine of the, 354. 
 
 Confidence, Spiritual, 417, 
 
560 
 
 Conflict, The Christian’s, 537 seq. 
 
 Conversion, its order, 331; man’s 
 part in, 425 seq., 422 seq.; its ne- 
 cessity, 475 seq. 
 
 Covenants of promise, 379. 
 
 Covetousness, 470; excludes from the 
 kingdom, 493. 
 
 D. 
 
 Debauchery condemned, 505. 
 
 Demons, The, and their habitation, 
 359 seq., 399; their power, 538 
 seq., 507 seq. 
 
 Depravity, Natural, 367 seq. 
 
 Descent into Hades of Christ, 450, 
 485. 
 
 Devil, The, 450, 538 seq. 
 
 Devils, The, and their restoration, 
 326 ; their food and dwelling-place, 
 361, 399 ; their influence and power, 
 538 seq., 557 seq. 
 
 Discourse, Evil, reproved, 481 seq. 
 
 Doxology, A, 429 seq. 
 
 K. 
 
 Edification in speech, 482. 
 
 Hiection, Divine, 313 seq., 351 seq. 
 
 Encouragement, Spiritual, 418 seq., 
 422 seq. 
 
 Endowments, Spiritual, 418 seq., 422. 
 
 Enlightenment, Christian, 337 seq. 
 
 Enmity between Jew and Gentile, 
 383 seq. 
 
 Ephesians, Epistle to the, 287 seq. ; 
 its address, 287 seq. ; place 
 of composition, 299 seq. ; time 
 of composition, 300 seq. ; its gen- 
 nineness, 302 seq. ; its dependence 
 on Colossians, 303 seq. ; its occa- 
 sion, object, and contents, 307 seq. 
 
 Ephesus, 287. 
 
 FP. 
 
 Faith and salvation, 372 seq. ; as in- 
 strumental cause, 417; its unity, 
 440 ; its aim, 456 seq.; saving, 545. 
 
 Fathers, their duty to children, 532 
 seq. 
 
 Forbearance, 437 seq. 
 
 Foreknowledge of God, 313 seq., 351 
 seq. 
 
 Forgiveness of sins, 318, 352; mu- 
 tual, 483. 
 
 G: 
 
 Gentile gods, 380. 
 
 Gentiles, The, in God’s kingdom, 392, 
 410 seq. ; blessed, 406 seq. ; their 
 irreligious condition, 468 seq.; their 
 ignorance, 469, 486; their lasciv- 
 iousness, 470 seq., 496 seq. 
 
 TOPICAL 
 
 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Glory of Messianic salvation, The, 
 340, 379 ; of God, 422 seq. 
 
 Gnosticism, 350. 
 
 Good Works and salvation, 373 seq. ; 
 and justification, 376, 400. 
 
 Gospel, The, and salvation, 330 seq. 
 
 God, the Father, 311 seq., 350 seq.; 
 His foreknowledge and election, 313 
 seq., 351 seq., 416 seq.; His judg- 
 ment, 314; His love, 314 seq., 368 
 seq.; His administration, 321 seq., 
 352 seq.; awakens to spiritual life, 
 356 seq.; his wrath, 364 seq.; as the 
 Creator, 413 seq.; as the universal 
 Father, 419 seq., 431 seq.; His glory, 
 422 seq.; praise to, 429 seq.; unity 
 of, 442 seq.; renews man, 475 seq.; 
 His call to the sleepers, 500. 
 
 Grace, its glory, 317; its saving 
 power, 328 seq., 369, 372 seq. 
 
 Be 
 
 Holiness, 314, 351 seq. 
 
 Hope, Christian, 340 seq. - 
 
 Holy Spirit, The, received. 331, 353 ; 
 His working, 337; dwelling in the 
 believers, 397 seq.; strengthening 
 the inner man, 423; unity in, 439 
 seq.; renewing man, 475 seq. ; griev- 
 ed, 482 seq.; the fruits of, 495 seq.; 
 the sword of, 547. 
 
 Humility, 412. 
 
 Husband and wife, 508 seq.; love of 
 the former, 516 seq.; ground of 
 their union, 519 seq. 
 
 ile 
 
 Immorality, 358. 
 Infant Baptism, 366. seq. 
 Instability, Religious, 460 seq. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jerome on Ephesians, 289. 
 Justification and good works, 376, 
 400. 
 
 KE 
 
 Kingdom, Messianic, The, 327 seq. 
 Knowledge, Christian, 338 seq., 353 ; 
 of Christ, 457 seq. 
 
 L. 
 
 Labor commended, 481. 
 
 Law, The, and Christ, 385 seq. 
 
 Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 294 seq. 
 
 Lord’s Supper, The, 440; an act of 
 preserved unity, 484; reference to, 
 515, 519, 526. 
 
 Love, Divine, 314 seq., 368 seq.; man 
 exhorted to, 490 seq. 
 
TOPICAL 
 
 M. 
 Malice condemned, 483. 
 Man, The Inner, 428. 
 Marcion on Ephesians, 289 seq. 
 Marriage state, 519 seq. 
 Masters, their duty to servants, 534 
 
 seq. 
 Mercy of God, The, 368 seq. 
 Messianic predictions realized, 445 
 
 seq. 
 Metic, Greek, The, 392, 401. 
 Monogamy, 523. 
 Mystery, The Divine, 413; a great, 
 522. 
 O. 
 
 Onesimus, 300. 
 Original Sin, 365 seq., 399 seq. 
 
 Ie 
 
 Parousia, The, 324, 371 seq., 4380; 
 and the believer's goal, 459; the 
 ehurch of Christ in, 515. 
 
 Paul as a prisoner, 299 seq. ; for the 
 Gentiles’ sake, 405 seq. ; as receiv- 
 ing revelations, 406 ; receiving spir- 
 itual gifts, 411 seq. ; supplicates 
 the Father, 419 seq. ; desires the 
 believer’s prayers, 549 seq.; his 
 preaching powers, 551 seq. ; as am- 
 bassador of Christ, 552 seq. ; sends 
 Tychicus, 554; imparts his bless- 
 ing, 554 seq. 
 
 Peace of the Gospel, The, 543 seq. 
 
 Philemon, 301. 
 
 Praise to God, 311 seq., 334 seq. 
 
 Prayer, Intercessory, 335 seq., 549 ; as 
 a Christian habit, 548 seq., 558; 
 the object of, 550 seq. 
 
 Predestination, 313 seq., 351 seq.; | 
 
 through love, 314 seq., 316, 352; 
 its final cause, 328 seq. 
 
 Promises of God, 331 seq. 
 
 Prophecy fulfilled, 443 seq. 
 
 Psalm quoted, 443 seq. 
 
 R. 
 
 Recompense, Spiritual, 534. 
 
 Redemption in Christ, 317 seq., 352, 
 333 ; the eternal plan of, 414. 
 
 Regeneration, 475 seq. 
 
 Restoration, 325 seq. 
 
 Restitution, 324 seq. . 
 
 Resurrection of Christ, The, 341 seq., 
 369 seq. 
 
 Righteousness, Forensic, 314, 352 seq. ; 
 as moral rectitude, 543, 558. 
 
 
 
 INDEX. 56L 
 
 ¢ 
 
 S. 
 
 Salutation, Apostolic, 310 ; the glory 
 of, 340. 
 
 Salvation of God, 328 seq.; by grace, 
 369, 372 seq.; of the Messianic 
 kingdom, 546 seq. 
 
 Sanctification the aim of Christ’s sae- 
 rifice, 512, 525. 
 
 Servants, their duty, 532 seq. 
 
 Sealing with the Spirit, 331, 353. 
 
 Sin, Dead unto, 357; original, 365 
 seq., 399 seq. ; to be exposed, 498. 
 
 Stealing forbidden, 480. 
 
 Subjection of all things to Christ, 344 
 seq. 
 
 T. 
 Tertullian on Ephesians, 289 seq. 
 
 Thanksgiving commended, 507 seq. 
 Theocracy, The, 444. 
 
 | Trinity, The, 442. 
 
 Truth in love, 462; in Christ, 472 
 seq. 
 
 Truthfulness commended, 477 seq. 
 
 Tychicus, 300. 
 
 We 
 
 Ubiquity of Christ’s body, 346 seq., 
 353 seq. 
 
 Unchastity, warned against, 491 ; ex- 
 cludes from the kingdom, 493 ; of 
 the heathen, 496 seq. 
 
 Union in Christ, 320. 
 
 Unity in the Spirit, 438 seq.; of the 
 faith, 440; its aim, 456 seq. 
 
 We 
 
 Wall of partition, 382 seq. 
 
 Wife and husband, 508 seq. ; ground 
 of their union, 519 seq.; their mu- 
 tual love and reverence, 523. 
 
 Wine, its excessive use condemned, 
 505. 
 
 Wisdom, Divine, 319 ; recognized, 414 
 seq.; known through the church, 
 416. 
 
 Word of God, The, 547. 
 
 Works and salvation, 373 seq. ; and 
 justification, 376, 400. 
 
 Worship, Social, 506 seq. 
 
 Wrath of God, The, 364 seq.; visited 
 upon immorality, 494. 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 Date Due 
 
 
 
ES 
 
 
 
4 1012 00012 6856