ΦΡΑ τες ΑΣΕῊ 
 CES. 
 
 Sesstiie Sat 
 
 ἜΣ Ξ το τς τον τ eres bs notres tect eres ete 
 
 στ στον 
 
 sry a tesatihianeiee ines 
 oes ASH ease eat on feoe eter tebe 
 Senet eareten τεντετεῖτ τε σεέξεεε 
 
CERRY OF PRINCE 
 
 BS2695 .E46 
 
 Ellicott, Charles J. 
 
 A commentary, critical and 
 grammatical, on St. Paul's 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/commentarycrit00elll 
 
ἮΝ i i 
 
 Phuket 
 Th ae ἍΝ 
 Ai ἡ" 
 
 ᾿ 
 
 =, 
 
 Ξ- 
 a ςυ 
 Ὡ. νυ — 
 ᾿ a i 
 ine 
 a 
 ane a 
 ——~ - —- 
 = 
 ii han ee 
 = aa 
 «αὐ ae 
 ee 
 a 
 
 ᾿ i] iy ' 
 he) Qe 
 ΤῊΝ ty Ne ; Wh ᾿ 4 
 1 ae) he 
 
 ν΄ ᾿- 
 
 ᾿ ha ᾿ ᾿ 
 "8 it ‘7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
 ᾿ oy ᾿ . 
 A a AAS 
 ᾿ T ἽΝ 
 AT 
 πὴ 
 Ι 
 fj 
 ᾿ Ϊ 
 j ᾿ 
 i} ἱ 
 a 
 ae Ἰ 
 a ' 
 
 Ν i ea 
 . PAT AKL. |. Cher hie 
 ὃ ιν "7. ' af Ἃ Ry 
 
 ay . | 
 
CRY OF Ρἢν 
 
 MAR 161910: 
 a; 
 
 COMMENTARY, 
 
 GChili¢“l AND GRAMMATICAL, 
 
 ON ST. PAUL'S 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 WITH A 
 
 REVISED TRANSLATION. 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, B.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON, AND LATE FELLOW 
 OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 ANDOVER: 
 
 WARE EN DRAPER. 
 
 BOS LON] - G Oi Dp, ANID IotN CORN. 
 NEW YORK: JOHN WILEY. 
 PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH & CO. 
 
 18638. 
 
i Ὁ- 
 
 oT, a parietln ot) 
 ¥ ἴω τοῦ ae! 
 Tae De Ἢ aly 
 s 24h 
 τ: ry vam a 
 wrong, τ Fo warnltee 
 
 Andover: ἊΨ ν aa Ἢ va 
 Ww i Cor sie ee 
 Bick protuped and Printed by W. F. Draper. > pe 
 
 Ὁ ΒΟ acy 
 ἐξ ΜΡ 
 
 ὩΣ pil εὐπαδ αβϑ, 
 ENN eee add 
 ae 
 
 1 VER eee agit! 
 
 nibs 2sbaeisl ede bhe 
 btn <li ψάρι ποσῶι, 
 ὗν γάδο ἡ Bek KANDI ὁ 
 
 ὌΠ ΤῊΝ εὖ οἷα 
 
 Te abos ag: weikiae τὴ ro 
 
 Le! 
 
 ΔΜ ιν ὦ 47 hate = fecareyei Sere πὴ ᾿ 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 Tue following pages form the second part of a commentary on St. Paul’s 
 Epistles, founded on the same principles and constructed on the same plan as 
 that of the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 As I explained, somewhat at length, in the preface to that Epistle, the 
 general principles, critical, grammatical, and exegetical, upon which this 
 commentary has been attempted, I will now only make a few special obser- 
 vations on this present portion of the work, and record my obligations to 
 those expositors who have more particularly devoted themselves to this 
 Epistle. “" 
 
 With regard to the present commentary, I will only remind the reader, 
 that as in style, matter, and logical connection, this sublime Epistle differs 
 considerably from that to the Galatians, so the commentary must necessarily, 
 in many respects, reflect these differences and distinctions. Several points 
 of grammatical interest which particularly characterized the former Epistle 
 are scarcely perceptible in the present ; while difficulties which made them- 
 selves but slightly felt in the vivid, argumentative, expostulatory language of 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, are here, amidst the earnest hortatory comments, 
 the deeper doctrinal expositions, and the more profound enarrations of the 
 primal counsels of God, ever maintaining a distinct and visible prominence. 
 In the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, the explanation of the uses of 
 the cases did not commonly involve many points of interest: in this Epistle, 
 the cases, especially the genitive, present almost every phase and form of diffi- 
 culty ; the uses are most various, the combinations most subtle and significant. 
 In the Epistle to the Galatians, again, the particles, causal, illative, or adver- 
 sative, which connected the clauses were constantly claiming the reader’s 
 attention, while the subordination or codrdination of the clauses themselves 
 and the inter-dependence of the different members and factors of the sen- 
 tence were generally simple and perspicuous. In the present Epistle these 
 difficulties are exactly reversed; the use of the particles is more simple, 
 while the intertexture of sentences and the connection of clauses, especially 
 in the earlier portions of the Epistle, try the powers and principles of gram- 
 matical and logical analysis to the very uttermost. 
 
ἵν PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 In the first chapter more particularly, when we are permitted, as it were, 
 to gaze upon the evolution of the archetypal dispensation of God, amidst 
 those linked and blended clauses that, like the enwreathed smoke of some 
 sweet-smelling sacrifice, mount and mount upwards to the very heaven of 
 heavens, in that group of sentences of rarest harmony and more than mortal 
 eloquence, these difficulties are so great and so deep, that the most exact 
 language and the most discriminating analysis seem, as they truly are, too 
 poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so 
 august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound. 
 
 It is in this part that I have been deeply conscious that the system of ex- 
 position which I have adopted has passed through its sorest and severest trial, 
 and though I have labored with anxious and unremitting industry, though I 
 have spared neither toil nor time, but with fear and trembling, and not with- 
 out many prayers have devoted every power to the endeavor to develop the 
 outward meaning and connection of this stupendous revelation, I yet feel, 
 from my very heart, how feeble that effort has been, how inexpressive my 
 words, how powerless my grasp, how imperfect my delineation. 
 
 Still, in other portions of this Epistle, I trust I am not presumptuous in 
 saying that I have been more cheered and hopeful, and that I have felt 
 increased confidence in the system of exposition I was enabled to pursue in 
 the commentary on the preceding Epistle. I have thus (especially after the 
 kind notices my former work has received) studiously maintained in the 
 present notes the same critical and grammatical characteristics which marked 
 the former commentary. The only difference that I am aware of will be 
 found in the still greater attention I have paid to the Greek Expositors, a 
 slight decrease in the references to some modern commentators in whom I 
 have felt a diminishing confidence, a slight increase in the references to our 
 best English Divines which the nature of this profound Epistle has seemed to 
 require. I deeply regret that the limits which I have prescribed to myself in 
 this commentary have prevented my embodying the substance of these refer- 
 ences in the notes, as I well know the disinclination to pause and consult 
 other authors which every reader, save the most earnest and truth-seeking, is 
 certain to feel. Yet this I will say, that I think the student will not often 
 regret the trouble he may have to take in reading those few portions of our 
 great English Divines to which I have directed his attention, and which, for 
 his sake, I could wish had been more numerous. Such as they are, they are 
 the results of my own private reading and observation. 
 
 In the grammatical portion of the commentary I must entreat the reader 
 to bear with me, if for the sake of brevity, and, I might even say, perspicuity, 
 I have been forced to avail myself of the current forms of expression adopted 
 by modern grammatical writers. They will all be found elucidated in the 
 treatises to which I have referred, and of these, every one, to the best of my 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. iV 
 
 belief, is well known and accessible, and will probably occupy a place in the 
 library of most scholars. 
 
 I must now briefly notice the authors to whom, in addition to those men- 
 tioned in the preface to the Galatians, I am indebted in the present Epistle. 
 
 Of the patristic commentators I have derived great benefit from some 
 exceedingly valuable annotations of Origen, which are to be found in Cramer’s 
 Catene, and which have hitherto scarcely received any notice from recent 
 expositors, though they most eminently deserve it. 
 
 Of modern commentators on this Epistle, 1 am deeply indebted to the 
 admirable exposition of Harless, which, for accurate scholarship, learning, 
 candor, and ability, may be pronounced one of the best, if not the very best 
 commentary that has ever yet appeared on any single portion of Holy Scrip- 
 ture. A second edition has long been promised, but, as far as I could learn 
 from catalogues, and the foreign booksellers in this country, it had not made 
 its appearance when I commenced this Epistle, nor, up to the present time, 
 have I seen any notice of its publication. 
 
 The exposition of this Epistle by Dr. Stier, under the title of Die Gemeinde 
 in Christo Jesu, is very complete and comprehensive, but so depressingly 
 voluminous as to weary out the patience of the most devoted reader. When 
 I mention that it extends to upwards of 1050 closely printed pages, and that 
 some single verses (e. g. ch. 1. 28, il. 15) are commented on to the extent of 
 nearly thirty pages, I may be excused if I express my regret that a writer so 
 earnest, so reverential, and so favorably known to the world as Dr. Rudolph 
 Stier, should not have endeavored to have confined his commentary to some- 
 what more moderate dimensions. The chief fault I venture to find with Dr. 
 Stier’s system of interpretation is his constant and (in this work) charac- 
 teristic endeavor to blend together two or more explanations, and, in his 
 earnest and most praiseworthy attempt to exhibit the many deeper meanings 
 which a passage may involve, to unite what is often dissimilar and inharmo- 
 nious. Still his commentary is the production of a learned and devout mind, 
 and no reader will consult it in vain. A review of it may be found in the 
 seventy-ninth volume of Reuter’s Repertorium. 
 
 The third special commentary I desire to mention, is the full and laborious 
 commentary of Professor Eadie. I have derived from it little directly, as it 
 is, to a great degree, confessedly a compilation from existing materials, and 
 these I have, in all cases, thought it my duty to examine and to use for 
 myself; still I have never failed to give Professor Eadie’s decisions my best 
 consideration, and have in many cases felt myself edified by the devoutness, 
 and, not unfrequently, the eloquence of his expositions. I trust, however, 
 the learned author will excuse me when I say that I do not think the gram- 
 matical portion of the commentary is by any means so well executed as the 
 exegetical, and that I cannot but regard this otherwise able work, as, to a 
 
VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 certain extent, an example of the truth of an opinion which I ventured to 
 express in the preface to the Galatians, viz., that theological as well as 
 grammatical learning is now so much increased, that it is hard to find a com- 
 mentator who is able satisfactorily to undertake, at one and the same time, a 
 critical, grammatical, exegetical, and dogmatical exposition of any portion of 
 the New Testament. In his cumulative representation of the opinions of 
 other commentators, as my notes will occasionally testify, Professor Eadie is 
 also not always exact: with these abatements, however, which candor compels 
 me to make, I can heartily and conscientiously recommend this commentary 
 as both judicious and comprehensive, and as a great and important addition 
 to the exegetical labors of this country. 
 
 I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, 
 and learned commentary of Dr. Meyer, has been most carefully consulted 
 throughout, and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my 
 great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor. In 
 many doctrinal questions I differ widely from Dr. Meyer, but, as a critical 
 and grammatical expositor, I entertain for him a very great respect. 
 
 I have now only to commit my work to the reader, with the humble prayer 
 to Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, that it may receive a blessing from 
 above, and, though feebly and imperfectly, may still be permitted to minister 
 somewhat to the more accurate knowledge of His blessed Word, and to the 
 clearer perception of the outward forms and expressions of His everlasting 
 
 Truth. 
 C. J. ELLICOTT. 
 CAMBRIDGE, JUNE 1855. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Tue second edition of the present Epistle is in all respects similar to the . 
 second edition of the Epistle to the Galatians, which appeared a few months 
 since, and is brought up, I sincerely hope, fully to the same standard. 
 
 It is perhaps right to say that little has been substantially altered, and that 
 the reader of the first edition will scarcely find more than half a dozen pas- 
 sages! where the opinions formerly maintained are either retracted or modi- 
 fied; still the additions are great, and the number of notes that have been 
 recast or re-written by no means inconsiderable. By this means space has 
 been obtained for the introduction of new matter; weaker arguments in con- 
 tested passages have been made to give place to what might seem to put ina 
 clearer light the stronger argument ; logical and grammatical observations 
 have been more grouped, and the links of thought that connect clause with 
 clause or sentence with sentence, more studiously exhibited. In this last 
 respect the additions will be found great, and will, I trust, by the blessing of 
 God, be of no little use to the reader in properly pursuing the train of sub- 
 lime thought that runs through this transcendent Epistle. This, alas! is the 
 point most commonly neglected in our general study of Scripture: we trust 
 to general impressions, and carry away general ideas, but the exact sequence 
 of thought in the mind of the inspired writer is what, I fear, is only too fre- 
 quently neglected. It is useless to disguise that this close analysis of the 
 sacred text is very difficult,—that it requires a calm judgment, and a dis- 
 ciplined mind no less than a loving and teachable heart,—that it is not a 
 power we can acquire in a week or in a month,— yet if Scripture be, what 
 I for one believe it to be, the writing of men inspired by the third Person of 
 the adorable Trinity, then we may well conceive no labor in this direction 
 can be too severe, no exercise of thought too close or persistent. Let it also 
 be not forgotten that no intelligent reader can now fairly say that he is with- 
 out proper assistance ; that the well is deep and he has nothing to draw with. 
 
 Setting aside all mention of the general improvement in the Commentaries 
 of the day, and supposing the tacit objector to be either unable or unwilling 
 
 11 may specify for the sake of those who have the first edition, ch. i. 10, 12, 22; ii. 15; 
 iy. 6; iv. 23 (amplified view); v. 25 (critical note). 
 
Vill PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 to face the labor of reading the great patristic expositors, let him still re- 
 member that the science of grammar is now so much advanced,’ that syntax 
 and logic are now so well and so happily combined, that no one who is really 
 in earnest, and to whom God has given a fair measure of ability, can for a 
 moment justly plead that an accurate knowledge of the Greek of the New 
 Testament is beyond his grasp, and a power of analyzing the connection of 
 its weighty sentences not abundantly ministered to him. I studiously limit 
 myself to saying the Greek of the New Testament: individual industry, how- 
 ever steadily exercised, may sometimes fail in making a student a good general 
 Greek scholar ; he may have no natural power of appreciating those felicities 
 of expression, no ready ability for discriminating between those subtle uses 
 of particles which mark the best age of Attic Greek ; but the language of the 
 New Testament, its plain, hearty, truly simple, but truly Greek diction, is, I 
 am confident, above the reach of no one who will soundly study the general 
 rules of thought and language, as they are now put before us by the gram- 
 marians of our own time. And this I say, partly to encourage the humbler 
 reader who might have thought such acquirements decidedly out of his reach, 
 partly for the sake of augmenting that kind and considerate company of stu- 
 dents that have given these commentaries a hearing, and have borne patiently 
 with the constant notice and repetition of grammatical details. I venture 
 thus to dwell upon this topic, —a topic in part alluded to in the preface to 
 the first edition, as four years of hard study since that was written, and, 
 what is more valuable for testing opinions, one year of responsible teaching 
 have convinced me that a really accurate knowledge of the language of the 
 Greek Testament may be acquired far more easily than might at first have 
 been imagined; and have further confirmed me in the belief that it is by 
 these accurate investigations of the language of the Inspired Volume that 
 we are enabled really to penetrate into its deeper mysteries, and thence to 
 learn to appreciate the more convincing certainty of our highest hopes, and 
 the more assured reality of our truest consolations. 
 
 But to return to the present volume. The student will find a great, and, 
 I trust, a weleome addition in the constant citations from nine ancient ver- 
 sions, viz., the Old Latin, the two Syriac Versions, the Vulgate, the Coptic, 
 the Gothic, the two Ethiopie Versions, and the Armenian.* All these have 
 
 1 I may here remark that the Greek Grammar of Dr. Donaldson, noticed in the Preface 
 to the Galatians, has now reached a second and enlarged edition, and is so complete in all 
 its parts, and so felicitous in its combination of logic with grammar, as to form a most im- 
 portant contribution to the accurate study of the Greek language. 
 
 21 may take this opportunity of noticing, for the benefit of those who may be disposed 
 to study this interesting and not very difficult language, that I have derived much useful 
 assistance from the Brevis Lingue Armeniace Grammatica (Ber). 1841) of J. H. Petermann. 
 It is furnished with a good Chrestomathy and a useful glossary, and has the great ad- 
 vantage of being perspicuous and brief. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ΙΧ 
 
 been carefully studied, their opmions maturely considered, and their views 
 of debated passages exhibited in brief and unpretending, but (if labor may 
 be allowed to make me hopeful) in correct and trustworthy enumerations. 
 
 Considerable additions have been made in the way of short critical notes, 
 especially in those cases in which the Received Text differs from the reading 
 which I have thought it right to follow. Here I have received some welcome 
 assistance from the last, the so-called seventh edition of Dr. Tischendorf’s 
 New Testament,’ though I regret to say I am still obliged to reiterate the 
 opinion which I have formerly expressed, that at any rate in the citations 
 from the Ancient Versions, Dr. Tischendorf is not always to be depended 
 upon. Huis own preface, though marked by great assumption of tone, will 
 indeed itself confirm this; as he has, by his own admissions, depended nearly 
 entirely on Leusden and Schaaf for the Peshito-Syriac, — on the incorrect 
 edition of Wilkins for the Coptic Version of the Epistles, to the complete 
 neglect of the more recent edition of Botticher,—on a collator for Platt’s 
 Ethiopic, — and for the Armenian, on the edition of a man whose general 
 inaccuracies he has unsparinely denounced, Dr. Scholz. The subjective 
 criticisms mixed up in the notes, cannot be pronounced as either very useful 
 or very satisfactory, and will serve to show how hard it is to find in one and 
 the same person the patient and laborious paleographer and the sound and 
 sagacious. critic. Still we owe much to Dr. Tischendorf, and it is probable 
 shall have to owe much more ;? his unwearied labors command our highest 
 respect, and may only the more make us regret that they are not set off by a 
 greater Christian courtesy in his general tone, and by more forbearance 
 towards those who feel it their duty to differ from him. 
 
 The last addition to the present edition which it is here necessary to specify 
 is, perhaps, the most: important, — systematic reference to the sermons and 
 treatises of our best English divines. This, it will be remembered, appeared 
 to some extent in the first edition, and has always formed a feature of these 
 commentaries ; still Iam now enabled to give to the reader the results of a 
 wider reading, and to entertain the hope that he will find but few really 
 valuable illustrations from our best divines overlooked in the present volume. 
 All I have done, however, is only in the way of reference. Much I regret 
 that neither space, nor the general character of the commentary, enable me to 
 make long quotations: I will repeat, however, what I have said elsewhere, that, 
 as the references have been made with great care and consideration, I venture 
 to think that the reader who will take the trouble of consulting the writers in 
 the places referred to, will find himself abundantly rewarded for his labor. 
 
 1 In deference to the opinion and present usage of this critic, I now designate the MS. of 
 St. Paul’s Epp. formerly marked J. in the critical editions, by the new mark L. 
 
 2 For a brief notice of the discovery by Dr. Tischendorf of a MS. of the whole New Test. 
 of an antiquity said to be as great as that of B, see the Literary Churchman for July 16, 1859, 
 Ρ. 258; Bib. Sacra, vol. xvi. 639. 2 
 
Χ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 I have already received many kind recognitions of the use which this class 
 of references has proved to students in Theology ; and I now continue them 
 with renewed interest, feeling day by day more assured that in these latter 
 times it is to our own great divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
 we must go for our Theology; and that it is from them alone that we can 
 provide ourselves with preservatives against the unsound, vaunting, and 
 humanitarian theosophy that is such a melancholy and yet such a popular 
 characteristic of our own times. 
 
 Nothing now remains for me, except to notice briefly the works of fellow- 
 laborers that have appeared since the publication of the first edition. 
 
 A new edition has recently appeared by Harless, but, as the author him- 
 self apprizes us, too little changed to need any further notice than what has 
 already appeared in the original Preface to this work. A very useful edition 
 for the general reader has also appeared in America, from the pen of the 
 estimable Dr. Turner, but is too different in its principles of interpretation 
 to have been of much use to me in a critical and grammatical commentary 
 such as the present. To two commentaries, however, which have appeared 
 in this country, during the interval I have alluded to, I have paid very great 
 attention. The first is the Third Volume of my friend Dean Alford’s Com- 
 mentary; the second is the Third Part of Canon Wordsworth’s Commentary, 
 — works which both deserve and have received the high approbation of all 
 biblical students ; the former for its able and attractive exegesis, the latter 
 for its valuable citations from Patristic and English Divinity, and both for 
 their accurate scholarship, and sound and intelligent criticism. 
 
 I now commend myself to the kind judgment of my readers ; and with the 
 hope, that some time in the course of the following year, if God be pleased 
 to give me health and strength, I may be able to complete another portion of 
 my laborious undertaking, I here bring to its close a work that has claimed 
 my incessant attention for some months. 
 
 May the blessing of God rest on this reiippearance of a lowly tribute to His 
 Honor and Glory; — may its errors and shortcomings be forgiven, and its 
 broken and partial glimpses of Divine Truth be permitted to excite in others 
 a deeper reverence for the Eternal Word, and a more earnest longing for 
 the full and perfect Day. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, AUGUST, 1859. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE sublime epistle to the Ephesians was written by St. Paul during his 
 first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), and stands second or more probably 
 third in the third of the four groups into which the Epistles of St. Paul may 
 be conveniently divided. The Ep. to the Colossians (Meyer Linleit. p. 18, 
 Wieseler, Chronol. p. 450 sq.), and also that to Philemon, appear to have 
 immediately preceded, while that to the Philippians seems to have succeeded 
 after an interval of perhaps a year, when the Apostle’s confinement assumed 
 a harsher character, and his prospects seemed in some measure more cheerless 
 (Phil. i. 20). 
 
 It was thus written about the year A. Ρ. 62, and was conveyed to the 
 Church of Ephesus by Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21), either while on his way to 
 deliver the Epistles addressed respectively to the Colossians and to Philemon, 
 or, as has been thought more probable (Meyer LEinleit. p. 17), on his return 
 after having performed that duty. 
 
 That the Epistle was addressed to the Christians of the important city of 
 Ephesus seems scarcely open to serious doubt. Both the critical arguments 
 (see note on ch. i. 1) and the nearly unanimous consent of the early Church 
 (Iren. Her. v. 2, 3, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 8, Vol. I. p. 592, ed. Pott., Orig. 
 Cels. Vol. I. p. 458, ed. Bened.) are so decidedly in favor of such a destina- 
 tion, that we scarcely seem warranted in calling in question a statement so 
 strongly supported. Still the omission of greetings and personal notices in 
 an Epistle sent from the founder of the Church of Ephesus (Acts xix. i. sq., 
 comp. xviii. 19) to converts with whom he had abode nearly three years 
 (Acts xx. 31) seems so very striking and noticeable, that we may perhaps 
 so far adopt the opinion of Usher (Annal. ann. 4068) and of several recent 
 expositors, that this Epistle, though addressed to the Christians at Ephesus, 
 was still designed for circulation in all the churches conterminous to or de- 
 pendent on that city, and was thus left studiously general in form, and free 
 
XI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 from distinctive notices. Individual greetings and other messages of affec- 
 tion might well have been entrusted to a bearer who was specially commis- 
 sioned to inform the receivers of the Epistle upon all points connected with 
 the personal state of the Apostle (ch. vi. 21). 
 
 The Epistle does not appear to have been called forth by any particular 
 circumstances, nor to have involved any warning against the peculiarities of 
 Jewish or Eastern Philosophy, but was designed to set forth the origin and 
 development of the Church of Christ, and to display to the Christian dweller 
 under the shadow of the great temple of Diana the unity and beauty of that 
 transcendently more glorious spiritual temple (ch. ii. 20) of which Christ 
 Himself was the head corner-stone, and the saints portions of the superstrue- 
 ture. That it should also contain many thoughts nearly identical with those 
 expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians is readily accounted for by the 
 fact that both were written nearly at the same time, and both addressed to 
 Churches which were sufficiently near to each other to have had many things 
 in common, especially in the relations of social and domestic life. 
 
 The genuineness and authenticity admit of no reasonable doubt. The tes- 
 timonies of the Early Church are unusually strong and persistent (see reff. 
 above, and add Tertull. de Prescr. ch. xxxvi., Hippol. Refut. Her. p. 198, 
 ed. Oxf.), and have never been called in question till comparatively recent 
 times. The objections are purely of a subjective character, being mainly 
 founded on imaginary weaknesses in style or equally imaginary references 
 to early Gnosticism, and have been so fairly and fully confuted that they 
 can no longer be considered to deserve any serious attention; see esp. 
 Meyer, Einleit. p. 19 sq., Davidson, Introd. Vol. II. p. 352 sq., Alford, Pro- 
 legom. p. 8. 
 
 The arguments in favor of the Epistle having been written at Caesarea 
 will be found in Meyer, Einlcit. § 2, but are far from convincing. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I.1. 
 
 Apostolic 
 salutation. 
 
 ioe ον hegeneteen ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ 
 
 δελήματος Θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς 
 
 1. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] Tisch. and A/f. have enclosed these words in brackets, but scarcely 
 with sufficient reason. Without entering into detailed arguments, it may be suffi- 
 cient to remark, that the facts about which all now seem agreed are as follows : — 
 (1) As far as our present collations can be depended upon, all the MSS., mss,, and 
 Vv., are unanimous in favor of the insertion, except B, where the words are sup- 
 plied on the margin by a second hand (Tisch.), and 67, where they appear in the 
 text, but with diacritical marks indicative of suspicion: — (2) Basil of Cappad. 
 certainly did not find the words ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν, Hunom. τι. 19. 
 Bp. Middleton supposes Basil only appeals to the ancient MSS. as containing 
 τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν E®., not simply τοῖς ἐν ἜΦ. ; comp. Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1841, 
 p- 423: this opinion, however, has no diplomatic support of any kind, and cannot 
 fairly and logically be deduced from the words of Basil; see Meyer, Hinleit. p. 2, 
 note :— (3) Tertullian (Mare. v. 11.17) possibly was not aware of their existence ; 
 it is uncritical to say more. His words, ‘veritas Ecclesix,’ do not necessarily 
 imply an absence of diplomatic evidence, nor can ‘interpolare’ (comp. JJare. rv, 
 1, v. 21) be pressed : —(4) Origen (Caten. Vol. 11. p. 102) appears to have ac- 
 cepted the omission, as he comments on the peculiarity of the expression τοῖς ἁγίοις 
 τοῖς οὖσι; see Tisch. (ed. 7). The internal evidence, such as absence of greetings 
 and personal notices, is of more importance. Still, both combined cannot be con- 
 sidered sufficient to overthrow the vast preponderance of external authority, and 
 the appy. unanimous tradition of the early Church, that this Ep. was addressed to 
 
 Crap. I. 1. δοῦλος X.1.] ‘a servant 
 of Jesus Christ:’ gen. not of ablation 
 (the source from which his commission 
 
 Acts xxvii. 23, οὗ εἰμί, Rom. i. 1, δοῦλος 
 *I. X., and comp. notes on Phil.i.1. The 
 distinction between these forms of the 
 
 proceeded ; comp. Stier zn /oc.), but sim- 
 ply of possession, in ref. to the Master 
 whose servant and minister he was ; see 
 
 gen. (which Eadie appears not to have 
 fully felt) is often faintly marked (com- 
 pare Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 16, 17); still 
 
EPHESIANS. Cuap. I. 1. 
 
 14 
 
 οὖν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστος ἐν Χριστῷ Inood. 
 the Ephesians (Iren. Her, ν. 2, 8, Clem. Al. Strom. τν. 8, Tertull. J. c., Origen, 
 Cels. 111. p. 458, ed. Ben.). We therefore retain the words as genuine, and ascribe 
 their omission in B to an early exercise of criticism founded on supposed internal 
 evidence, traces of which are found in Theodoret, Praf. in Eph.: comp. Wieseler, 
 Chronol. p. 442 sq. The different theories and attempts to reconcile conflicting 
 evidence will be found in Meyer, Finleit. § 1, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 432 sq., and 
 Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 328 sq. Of the many hypotheses, that of Harless 
 (Linleit. p. 57) —that the Ep. was designed not only for the Ephesians, but for the 
 
 Churches dependent on Ephesus, or the Christians who had already been converted 
 
 there — is perhaps the most plausible. 
 
 Harless seems quite correct in saying 
 that the idea of authorization does not 
 depend simply on the gen., but on the 
 modal clauses κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, 1 Tim. i. 1, 
 which are commonly attached: comp, 
 Gal. i. 1, where the nature of the rela- 
 tions between the Apostle and his con- 
 verts suggests language of unusual pre- 
 cision. διὰ ϑελήματο»κ) ‘by 
 the will of God ;’ modal clause appended 
 to the preceding words, not so much to 
 enhance his apostolic authority (comp. 
 Alf.), as in that thankful remembrance 
 of God’s power and grace, which any 
 allusion to his ministerial office was sure 
 to awaken in the Apostle’s heart: comp. 
 1 Cor. xv. 10, Gal. i. 15. These and 
 the preceding words occur in the same 
 order and connection in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. 
 ioe 2) Dima le compare i) Corie: 
 Though it is not possible to doubt that 
 the Apostle, in addressing different 
 Churches or individuals, designedly 
 adopted the same or different modes of 
 salutation, still it is not in all cases easy 
 to trace, from external considerations, 
 the reasons for the choice ; comp. notes 
 on’ Col. i. 1. Riickert, who has slightly 
 touched on the subject (on Gal. i. 1), 
 refers the Apostle’s present specification 
 of his authority, διὰ ded. ©., to the en- 
 cyclical character of the Epistle. As 
 this character, though probable (see crit. 
 note), is merely hypothetical, it will be 
 safer, and perhaps more natural, to 
 adopt the more general explanation 
 
 above alluded to; see Meyer on 1 Cor. 
 AMINE τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘to the 
 Saints.’ Christians are appy. called 
 ἅγιοι in the N. T. in three senses; (a) 
 generally, as members of a visible and 
 local community devoted to God’s ser- 
 vice (Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10, Rom. xv. 
 20), and, as such,.united in a common 
 outward profession of faith (1 Cor. i. 2; 
 see Chrys. on Rom. i. 7); (b) more spe- 
 cifically, as members of a spiritual com- 
 munity (Col. iii. 12,1 Pet. ii. 9); and 
 (c) as also in many cases having per- 
 sonal and individual sanctity; comp. 
 ver. 4, see Fell, in/oc. The context will 
 generally show which of these ideas pre- 
 dominates. In salutations like the pres- 
 ent, ἅγιος appears used in its most com- 
 prehensive sense, as involving the idea 
 of a visible (hence the local predicate), 
 and also (as the complementary clause 
 καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Xp. Ἴ. suggests) that of a 
 spiritual and holy community ; see Col. 
 i. 1, and esp. 1 Cor. i. 2, where defining 
 clauses involving these different ideas 
 are grouped round κλητοῖς ἁγίοις : comp. 
 Thorndike, Review, 1. 33, Vol. 1. p. 656 
 (A. C. Libr.), and Davenant on Col. i. 2. 
 πιστοῖς ἐν X. Ἴ.] ‘faithful, sc. believing, 
 in Jesus Christ.’ Πιστός is not here in 
 its general and classical sense, ‘qui 
 fidem prestat’ (Grot., Alf.), but its par- 
 ticular and theological sense, ‘ qui fidem 
 habet’ comp. Syr.), a meaning which it 
 indisputably bears in several passages in 
 the N. T.; e.g. John’ xx. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 
 
Cuap. I. 2, 8. 
 
 * χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
 
 Blessed be God who has 
 predestinated us to the 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 15 
 
 see aee XN a \ e ~ \ ͵ 
 εὑρηνή ΟἼΤΟῸ Θεοῦ TAT pos μων Kal Κυρίου 
 
 ὃ Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου 
 
 adoption of sons, redeemed us by Christ’s blood, revealed to us His eternal purpose of uniting all in Him, and 
 has commenced its fulfilment by sealing with his Spirit both Jew and Gentile. 
 
 15, Gal. iii. 9, 1 Tim. iv. 3 (not 1 Tim. 
 i. 12, Eadie), Titus i. 6, etc.; compare 
 Wisdom i. 14, Psalm ec. 6, and see Sui- 
 cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 741. 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ implies union, fellowship, 
 with Christ (see notes on Gal. ii. 17), and 
 qualifies only the more restricted term, 
 πιστός, not ἅγιος (Phil. i. 1.) and πιστός 
 (Harl., Meier). The clause is not, how- 
 ever, on the one hand, a mere epexegesis 
 of aylos (Beza), nor, on the other, a 
 specification of anether and separate 
 class (Stier), but completes the descrip- 
 tion of the ἅγιοι, by the addition of a 
 second and more distinctive predication ; 
 see Meyer in loc. Πιστὸς ἐν Xp. thus 
 approximates in meaning to πιστεύων εἰς 
 Xp. (Gal. ii. 16), except that the latter 
 involves a closer connection of the verb 
 and the prep. (mor. εἰς --- Xp.), and 
 points rather to an act of the will, while 
 the former involves a closer connection 
 of the prep. and the noun (mor. — ἐν 
 Xp.), and marks a state and condition : 
 see Fritz. Marc. p. 175, and Eadie zn loc , 
 where the full force of the preposition is 
 eloquently expanded. 
 
 2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] ‘Grace 
 to you and peace;’ scil. εἴη not ἔστω 
 (Meier, Holzh.), which, though not un- 
 tenable (Bernhardy, Synt. xi. 5, p. 392: 
 comp. 2 Chron. ix. 8), is far less suitable 
 and even less usual than the optative ; 
 see 1 Pet. i..2,2 Pet. i. 2; Jude 2, and 
 comp. 2 John 3, where, however, ἔσται 
 gives the wish the character of a definite 
 expectation. The suggestion of Stier 
 that χάρις and εἰρήνη refer respectively to 
 the ἅγιοι and πιστοί does not seem tena- 
 ble, as the formula is so common with- 
 out any such antecedents (Rom. i. 7, 1 
 Cor. i. 3, 2 Cor. i. 2, al.); still they 
 must not be diluted into mere equiva- 
 
 lents of the ordinary forms of salutation 
 (Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. 1. p. 98): Xapis 
 expresses God’s love toward man; εἰ- 
 ρήνη, the state of peace and blessedness 
 which results from it; εἰρηνεύει yap πρὸς 
 τὸν Θεὸν ὃ Thy εὐαγγελικὴν ἀσπασάμενος 
 πολιτείαν, Theodoret, Rom. i. 8: sce 
 notes on Gal. i. 3. It may be observed 
 that as this form is regularly maintained 
 in all St. Paul’s Epp. to Churches (Phi- 
 lem. 3 is no exception, being addressed 
 also τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον ἐκκλησίᾳ), while in 1 
 Rima ἂς 25 ΘΟ Time 1.9. ὙΠ}: ε1.} 45 (eck 
 Lachm.), the more personal term ἔλεος is 
 added, the latter might seem the form 
 addressed to individuals, the former to 
 communities ; comp. too Rev. i. 4, 2 John 
 3, but consider Jude 2, Gal. vi. 16, and 
 observe that in Tit. /. c. the longer read- 
 ing is more than doubtful. St. James 
 alone adopts the usual formula, χαίρειν : 
 in 3 John i. 2 the salutation passes into 
 a prayer. καὶ Κυρίου] Scil. 
 καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου k. τ. A., SO expressly Syr., 
 Arm., both of which repeat the preposi- 
 tion. The Socinian interpretation, καὶ 
 (πατρὸς) Kup., is grammatically admissi- 
 ble, but m a high degree forced and 
 improbable: see esp. Tit. i. 4, and com- 
 pare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. il. 16. 
 
 3. εὐλογητ 46s) ‘Blessed,—scil. ἔστω 
 (2 Chron. ix. 8), or εἴη (Job i. 21, Psalm 
 exii. 2): the verb is, however, commonly 
 omitted in this and similar forms of dox- 
 ology ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 3. In this sol- 
 emn ascription of praise εὐλογητός (ἐπαι- 
 νεῖσϑαι καὶ ϑαυμάζεσϑαι ἄξιος, Theod.- 
 Mops.), as its position shows, has the 
 principal emphasis, the rule of Fritz. 
 (Mom. ix. 5, Vol. 11. 274) being appy. 
 reasonable — that εὐλογητός or εὐλογη- 
 μένος will occupy the first or some suc- 
 ceeding place in the sentence, according 
 
10 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. 3. 
 
 5 A ἘΠ lol xX lal € ὖλ, ς a ’ , A, ΄ 
 ἡμῶν ]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ εὐλογῆσας ἡμᾶς εν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευ- 
 
 as the emphasis rests on the predicate 
 (as it commonly does), or on the substan- 
 tive; comp. 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ἰ. ¢., 
 Job /. c., and esp. Psalm /. ¢., which are 
 thus more satisfactorily explained than 
 by a supposed limitation of position in 
 consequence of the inserted copula (Alf. 
 on Rom. ix. 5). It has been re- 
 marked by Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 3 (comp. 
 Harless), that in the N. T. εὐλογητός is 
 only applied to God, εὐλογημένος to 
 man: it may be added that in the LXX, 
 the latter is occasionally applied to God, 
 but never the former to man. For a 
 good analysis of the present paragraph, 
 in which the relations of the Church to 
 the three persons of the blessed Trinity 
 ‘are distinctly unfolded, see Alford in oc. 
 Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘God and 
 the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ It 
 is doubtful whether in this formula (which 
 Riick. needlessly terms ‘paulinisch,’ see 
 1 Pet. i. 3) the gen. depends (a) on both 
 (Theoph.), or (b) only on the latter 
 (Syr., 4eth., Theod.-Mops. 1, Theodoret) 
 of the two nominatives. 
 it undecided. 
 
 Chrys. leaves 
 Grammatical considera- 
 tions do not assist us; for, on the one 
 hand, the position of the article before 
 Θεὸς rather than Πατὴρ (Olsh.) does not 
 invalidate the latter interpretation (com- 
 pare Winer. Gr. § 19. 3, p. 115 note), 
 nor the omission of τέ before καὶ (Har- 
 less) the former; the usual ‘ preparative 
 force of τὲ (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 
 98, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 730) being 
 here obviously out of place. To the 
 former interpretation, Θεὸς μέν, ὧς capKw- 
 ϑέντος, πατὴρ δέ, ws Θεοῦ λόγου, there 
 ean be no doctrinal objections (see verse 
 17, John xx. 17, and compare Olsh. on 
 Matth. xxi. 31, 32), but from the consid- 
 erations suggested on Gal. 1. 4, as well 
 as from the fact that, except in ver. 17, 
 St. Paul has not elsewhere so designated 
 the Father, the latter construction seems 
 
 decidedly preferable. On the 
 most suitable translation, see notes on 
 Gal. i. 4. (Transl.). 
 σας nuas| ‘who blessed us;’ ‘antanac- 
 lasis ; aliter nobis benedixit Deus, aliter 
 nos benedicimus Illi, Bengel. The 
 aorist participle (where the aoristic force 
 is always least obscure, Bernhardy, Synt. 
 x. 9, p. 383) refers to the counsels of the 
 Father as graciously completed in the 
 Redemption, and is thus neither used (a) 
 for a pres. (Holzh.) — an untenable posi- 
 tion, except in a sense and under limita- 
 tions (Scheuerl. Syntax, § 32. 2, p. 331) 
 which would here be doctrinally unsuita- 
 ble; nor (δ) as marking ‘a customary 
 or repeated act’ (Eadie) —a meaning 
 which the aorist never appears to bear in 
 the N. T.; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 40. 4. 1. p. 
 248. The reference of ἡμᾶς can scarcely 
 be doubtful: it cannot refer to St. Paul 
 (Koppe), — for comp. κἀγώ, ver. 15, — 
 but, as the inclusive nature of the con- 
 text (ver. 14, 11, 12) distinctly implies, 
 must be extended to Christians gener- 
 rally. No fixed rules can be laid down 
 as to the reference of the plural pro- 
 snoun: this must always be determined 
 by the context. 
 
 ὁ evAoyn- 
 
 ἐν πάσῃ εὖλο- 
 γίᾳ πνευματικῇ] ‘with every blessing 
 of the Spirit ; agency by which the bless- 
 ing was imparted, ἐν here being appy-. 
 instrumental (see notes on 1 Thess, iv. 
 18), and perhaps not without some par- 
 allelism to the Hebrew 2 5-2; comp. the 
 analogous construction, Tobit viii. 15, 
 and James iii. 9, where, however, the 
 instrumental sense is much more dis- 
 tinct. The meaning and force of πνεὺ- 
 ματικῇ is slightly doubtful. Chrys. and 
 Theod.-Mops. find in it an antithesis to 
 the blessings of the Old Covenant (τὴν 
 ᾿Ιουδαϊκὴν ἐνταῦϑα αἰνίττεται: εὐλογία μὲν 
 γὰρ ἣν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πνευματική; Chrys. ; 
 comp. Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 756) ; so 
 distinctly Syr., Eth., and with a detailed 
 
Υ, 
 
 Cuap. I. 4. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 17 
 
 ματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, * καὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν 
 
 enumeration of the blessings, Theodoret, 
 in loc. It seems, however, much 
 more in accordance both with the pres- 
 ent context and with the prevailing 
 usage of the N. T. (see Rom. i. 11, 
 χάρισμα πνευματικόν, and 1 Cor. xii. 1 
 τῶν πνευματικῶν, compared with ver. 
 11), to refer the epithet directly to the 
 Holy Spirit (Joel iii. 1 sq., Acts ii. 16). 
 Bengel has not failed to notice the allu- 
 sion to the Trinity, which, as Stier (Vol. 
 τ. p. 57) has clearly shown, pervades the 
 whole of this sublime Epistle. ἐν 
 τοῖς ἐπουρανίοι 9] ‘inheavenly regions ; 
 
 ony, LA oe > H 
 Ladoms [in colo], Syr., ‘in ceelis,’ 
 
 ‘Eth. The exact meaning of these 
 words is doubtful. Many of the ancient, 
 and several modern expositors, explain 
 τὰ ἐπουράνια, as ‘heavenly blessings ἡ 
 (ἐπουράνια yap τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα, Theo- 
 doret), ‘heavenly institutions’ (J. John- 
 son, Unbl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 198, A. C. 
 Libr.), and thus, as in ethical contrast to 
 τὰ ἐπίγεια (Chrys.); see John iii. 12, but 
 comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40, where the same 
 words are in physical contrast. This is 
 not grammatically untenable, and would 
 not require the omission of τοῖς (Riick., 
 Eadie, al.), as the article would thus 
 only correctly designate the class; see 
 Middleton, Greek Art. m1. 2. 2, p. 40, 
 and comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 3, p. 99. 
 As, however, such a specification of the 
 sphere, and thence of the spiritual char- 
 acter of the action would seem superflu- 
 ous after the definite words immediately 
 preceding, —as in the four other pas- 
 sages in this Ep. (i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, and 
 vi. 12, but contr. Chrys.) the expression 
 seems obviously local, and lastly, —as 
 throughout St. Paul’s Epp. (even 2 Tim. 
 iv. 18) ἐπουράνιος has that local or phys- 
 ical force which the preposition ἐπὶ (Har- 
 less) would also seem further to suggest, 
 it will be best, both from contextual and 
 
 lexical reasons to retain that meaning in 
 the present case. Ἔν τοῖς ἐπουρ. must 
 then here be referred as a local predica- 
 tion to εὐλογ. mvevu., defining, broadly 
 and comprehensively the region and 
 sphere where our true home is (Phil. iii. 
 20), where our hope is laid up (Col. i. 
 5), and whence the blessings of the 
 Spirit, the δωρεὰ ἣ ἐπουράνιος (Heb. vi. 
 4), truly come: see notes to Transl. 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ) Not for διὰ Xp. (Chrys., 
 Hamm.), but, as in ver. 1, ‘in Christ ;’ 
 “in quo uno spirituali et sanctifica bene- 
 dictione donamur,’ Beza. Thus εὐλογή- 
 σας contains the predication of time 
 (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 574 sq), ἐν εὐλογ. 
 πνευμ. the predication of manner, more 
 exactly defined by the local predication 
 ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., while ἐν Xp. is that mys- 
 tical predication which, as Stier well ob- 
 serves, ‘is the very soul of this Epistle,’ 
 and involves all other conceptions in 
 itself. For a good example of this spe- 
 cies of analysis of clauses and sentences, 
 see Donalds. Crat. § 304. 
 
 4. kadds] ‘even as,’ ‘sicut’ Clarom, 
 Vulg., Copt., al.; explanation and ex- 
 pansion of the preceding εὐλογήσας κ. τ. 
 A., the particle καϑώς, which in most 
 cases has a purely modal, appearing here 
 to have also a slightly explanatory or 
 even casual force (‘inasmuch as’), and 
 to mark not only the accordance, but 
 the necessary connection of the εὐλογία 
 with the ἐκλογή ; see Rom. i. 28, 1 Cor. 
 i. 6, and compare καϑότε (used only by 
 St. Luke), which has both a modal 
 (Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) and a causal (Acts 
 ii. 24) meaning. The form καϑώς is not 
 found in the older Attic writers, or in 
 Lucian ; see Lobeck, Phyrn. p. 426, and 
 notes on Gal. ili. 6. ἐξελέξατο 
 ἡ μᾷᾶ 9] ‘chose us out for Himself;’ ‘ele- 
 git, Clarom., Vulg., al., — but with some 
 sacrifice of the fullest meaning. With- 
 out entering into the profound dogmat- 
 
18 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. 4. 
 
 > A ἣν Β λῆ , - « - e / \ BJ , 
 αὐτῷ “Προ καταβολῆς κοσμου, ELVAL ἡμᾶς AYLOUS καὶ ἀμωμοὺῦυς 
 
 ical questions connected with the mean- 
 ing of this verb (only used by St. Paul, 
 here and 1 Cor. i. 27), it may be simply 
 observed that in ἐξελέξατο three ideas 
 are suggested ; — (a) selection (not ne- 
 cessarily of individuals; see Ebrard, 
 Dogm. ὃ 560), from, out of, others not 
 chosen (ἐκ tod κόσμου, John xv. 19; 
 contr. Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 198), 
 suggested by the plain meaning of the 
 word ; — (Ὁ) simple unrestricted preteri- 
 tion of the act (alike irrespective of du- 
 ration or relation, Bernhardy, Syntax, x. 
 8, p. 380, and esp. Fritz. de Aor. p. 17 
 sq.), conveyed by the tense, and further 
 heightened by the ‘timelessness ’ (Olsh.) 
 of the quasi-temporal predication πρὸ 
 καταβολῆς; compare 2 Thess. ii. 13, 
 εἵλατο am ἀρχῆς: God is 6 καλῶν (1 
 Thess. ii. 2), as well as 6 καλέσας (Gal. 
 i. 6), but not ὁ ἐκλεγόμενοπ; —(c) re- 
 flexive action (for Himself; comp. Eph. 
 v. 27, Rev. xxi. 2), implied by the 
 voice. While the primary mean- 
 ing of ἐκλέγ. and similar words is un- 
 doubtedly to be looked for in their gen- 
 eral and national references in the O. T. 
 (Usteri Lehrbegr. 11. 2. 2, p. 271, Knapp, 
 Script. Var. Arg. p. 556), the modal 
 clauses with which they are combined 
 show the deeper and more distinctive 
 sense in which they are used in the New 
 Testament. On this profound subject, 
 and on the estates of man (the estate of 
 wrath, of reconciliation, and of election) 
 see esp. Jackson, Creed, x. 37, 11 56.» 
 Vol. 1x. p. 312 sq., and comp. Ham- 
 mond on God’s Grace, Vol. τ. p. 667 sq. 
 (Lond. 1674), and Laurence, Bampt. 
 Lect. for 1804. ἐν αὐτῷ] Not 
 for δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, scil. διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίσ- 
 tews (Chrys., Hamm.), nor for εἰς αὐτὸν 
 (comp. A®th.), nor yet with an instru- 
 mental foree (Arm.), but, as Olsh. cor- 
 rectly and profoundly explains it, ‘in 
 Him, —in Christ, as the head and repre- 
 
 sentative of spiritual, as Adam was the 
 representative of natural humanity ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22. πρό 
 καταβολῆς κόσμου] This expres- 
 sion, used three times in the N. T. (John 
 Xvii, 24, 1 Pet. i. 20), here serves to de- 
 fine the archetypal character of the New 
 Dispensation, and the wide gulf that 
 separated the πρόϑεσις πρὸ χρόνων aiw- 
 νίων (2 Tim. i. 9) of God with respect to 
 Christians, from His temporal ἐκλογὴ of 
 the Jews; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 
 Ρ. 522 (Bohn). εἶναι ἡμᾶς kK. 
 τ. A.| ‘that we should be holy and blame- 
 less ;’ object contemplated by God in 
 His gracious éxAoyh, the infin. being 
 that of intention; scil. ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἵνα 
 ἅγιοι ὦμεν καὶ ἄμωμοι, Chrys.; comp. 2 
 Cor. xi. 2, Col. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr. 
 § 45.1, p. 284, Donalds. Gr. § 607. a, 
 p. 598. ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους 
 ‘holy and blameless ;’ positive and nega- 
 tive aspects of true Christian life. The 
 meaning of ἄμωμος (ἄμεμπτος: καϑαρόΞ" 
 ἄψεκτος, Hesych.) is slightly doubtful ; 
 it may be (a) ‘inculpatus,’ ὁ ἀνεπίληπτον 
 βίον ἔχων, Chrys., in accordance with its 
 derivation (μῶμος μέμφομαι), or (b) “πι- 
 maculatus’ (Vulg., Clarom., Arm. ; 
 comp. Syr., Goth.), with possible refer- 
 ence to its application in the LXX to 
 victims, Lev. i. 10, xxii. 19; comp. 1 
 Mace. iv. 42, ἱερεῖς ἀμώμους, and see 
 Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The latter mean- 
 ing is strongly supported by 1 Pet. i. 19, 
 ἀμνοῦ ἂμώμου και ἀσπίλου, and Heb. ix. 
 14: still, as there is here no sacrificial 
 allusion directly or indirectly (comp. ch. 
 y. 27), it seems best to retain the simple 
 etymological meaning; see Col. i. 22, 
 ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους, and compare 
 Wisd χ. 15, λαὸν ὅσιον καὶ σπέρμα ἄμεμπ- 
 τον. It is more doubtful whether 
 these epithets point to a moral condition, 
 i. e. to the righteousness of sanctification 
 (Chrys, Hamm.), or to the imputed 
 
Cnap. I. 5. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 19 
 
 , > a 2 Ske? Be / enean > ¢ ΄, Ὗ 
 κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ " προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς vioSeciav διὰ 
 
 righteousness of Christ, (Olsh., Mey.) 
 The former reference seems most conso- 
 nant both with St. Paul's general teach- 
 ing (1 Thess. iv. 7) and the obvious 
 inferences that may be drawn from other 
 passages in the N. T., 1 Pet. i. 16, Rey. 
 xxii. 11; see Stier zn loc., and on the 
 distinction between sanctifying and justi- 
 fying righteousness, the excellent re- 
 marks of Hooker, Serm. 11. 6. Vol. 111. 
 p- 611. 
 ‘before Him;’ ‘id est vere, sincere,’ 
 Beza; not what men, but what God 
 esteems as such. 
 
 κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] 
 
 ἁγιωσύνην ζητεῖ ἣν 6 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ ὕφϑαλμος ὁρᾷ Chrys. The form 
 αὐτοῦ is here to be preferred, as the refer- 
 ence to the subject is obviously remote 
 and unemphatic; comp. Bremi, Jahrb. 
 der Philol. ix. p. 171 (Winer). The dis- 
 tinction, however, between the proper 
 use of these two forms cannot be rigor- 
 ously defined ; see Buttm. Mid. (Excurs. 
 x) p. 140, and Tisch. Prolegom. p. 
 LVIII. ἐν ἀγάπῃ may be joined with 
 ἐξελέξατο ; more probably with ay. καὶ 
 ἀμώμ. (Vulg., Copt.); but appy. most 
 probably with προορίσας (Syr., Chrys., 
 Theod.), as St Paul’s object seems here 
 not so much to define the nature of the 
 required ἁγιωσύνη and dueudia on the 
 part of man, as to reveal the transcen- 
 dent principle of Love which informed 
 the προορισμὸς of God; καὶ προεῖδεν ἡμᾶς 
 καὶ ἠγάπησε, Theod., compare Theod.- 
 Mops. The arguments derived from 
 the collocation of the words are not deci- 
 sive, for ἐν ἀγάπῃ could as well be joined 
 with Gy. καὶ du. here, as ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ with 
 ἀμέμπτους, 1 Thess. iii. 13; and again 
 could as easily precede (emphatically) 
 mpoopicas here, as it does ἐῤῥιζωμένοι ch. 
 iii. 18. Lastly, it cannot be said that 
 the second modal clause, κατὰ τὴν εὐδ. 
 is thus superfluous (Meier): the two 
 clauses point to two different attributes ; 
 ἐν ἀγάπῃ to the loving Mercy, κατὰ τὴν 
 
 evs. to the sovereign Power of God. 
 For a good defence of the second form 
 of connection see Alford in loc. 
 
 5. προορίσας pas] ‘having fore- 
 
 ? 7. 6. not ‘predestinans, 
 
 ordained us: 
 Beng., but ‘quum predestinasset, Syr.- 
 Phil., the participle being most naturally 
 regarded as temporal, not modal, and its 
 action as prior to, not synchronous with 
 (as in ver. 9) that of é&eA.; comp. Rom. 
 viii. 29, 30, and see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 
 9, p. 383, Donalds. Gr. ὃ 574 sq. With 
 regard to the prep. it would certainly 
 seem that πρὸ does not refer to others 
 (Baumg.), nor, appy., to existence be- 
 fore time (Eadie), but simply to the 
 realization of the event: the decree ex- 
 isted before the object of it came into 
 outward manifestation; comp. προηλπι- 
 κότας, ver. 12, and see Olsh. on Rom. ix. 
 1. The distinction between ἐκλογὴ and 
 προορισμὸς is thus drawn by Scherzer 
 (cited by Wolf); ‘differunt tantum ra- 
 tione ordinativa et objectiva,’—the ἐκ of 
 the former referring to the mass from 
 whom the selection was made, the πρὸ 
 of the latter to the preéxistence and pri- 
 ority of the decree. On προορισμός, ete., 
 see Petavius, Theol. Dogm. ix. 1, Vol. 1. 
 p- 565 sq., and Laurence, Bampt. Lect. 
 Vill. p. 169 sq. eis viodsedla| 
 ‘ for adoption,’ scil. ἵνα αὐτοῦ υἱοὶ Aeyol[w] 
 peda καὶ χρηματίζωμεν, Theod.-Mops. ; 
 υἱοϑεσία, however, not being merely son- 
 ship (Ust. Lehrb. 11. 1, 2, p. 186), but as 
 usual, ‘adoptionem filiorum, Vulg.; see 
 notes on Gal. iv. 5, and Neander, Plant- 
 ing, Vol. τ. p. 477 (Bohn). 
 αὐτόν], ‘unto Him;’ comp. Col. i. 20, 
 ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα eis αὐτόν. As 
 the exact meaning of these words is 
 slightly obscure, it will be best to pre- 
 mise the following statements. (a) Eis 
 υἱοῦ. . . . εἰς αὐτὸν must be regarded as a 
 single compound clause expressive of 
 the manner and nature of the mpoopic- 
 
 ᾽ 
 eis 
 
20 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. ὁ. 
 
 ’ a fol \ \ a 
 ]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ δελήματος 
 
 > la 5 al fal fe 7 
 οὐτοῦ, “els ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἣ ἐχαρίτωσεν 
 
 6. ἐν ἡ] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with DEF (om. ἢ) GKL; great majority of mss. ; 
 Clarom., Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Phil., Arm., al.; Bas., Chrys., Theod., al. and rightly ; 
 for ἧς, though found in AB; mss.; Syr., AZth.; Orig. (Cat.), Chrys. (1), al. 
 (Lachm., Mey., Alf.), has weaker external support ; and on internal grounds, as a 
 grammatical correction, seems very suspicious. The statement of Alf, that ‘a 
 relative following a substantive is as often in a different case as the same, certainly 
 cannot be substantiated ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. 1, p. 197. 
 
 μός; δι “Ino. and eis adr. being separate 
 sub-clauses further defining the promi- 
 nent idea eis υἱοϑεσίαν. (ὁ) Αὐτὸν (not 
 αὑτὸν) is not to be referred to Christ (De 
 W.), but, with the Greek expositors, to 
 God. (c) Eis αὐτὸν is not merely equiv- 
 alent to ἐν αὐτῷ (Beza), or 45, scil. 
 jntn:> (Holzh.); nor is the favorite 
 transl. of Meyer, ‘in reference to Him’ 
 (comp. Rick), though, grammatically 
 tenable (Winer, G7. ὃ 49. a, p. 354), by 
 any means sufficient. In these deeper 
 theological passages the prep. seems to 
 bear its primary ( εἰς = evs Donalds. Crat. 
 § 170) and most comprehensive sense of 
 ‘to and znto’ (see Rost u. Palm, Lez. 
 s.v.); the idea of approach (τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν 
 ἀνάγουσαν, Theoph.) being also blended 
 with, and heightened by, that of inward 
 union; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 We may thus paraphrase, ‘ God predes- 
 tinated 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.’ Stier compares what 
 he terms the bold expression, 2 Pet. i. 4. 
 κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν κ. τ. A.] ‘accord- 
 ing to the good pleasure of His will,’ “86- 
 cundum placitum (propositum, Vulg.) 
 voluntatis sus,’ Clarom.; the prep. 
 κατά, as usual, marking ‘rule, measure, 
 accordance to,’ Winer, Gr. ὃ 49 ἃ, p. 
 357. The exact meaning of εὐδοκία is 
 here doubtful. The Greek expositors 
 (not Chrys.) refer it to the benevolentia 
 (ἡ ἐπ᾽ εὐεργεσίᾳ βούλησις Cicum.), the 
 Vulg., Syr, Goth. (‘leikainai’), al. to 
 
 the voluntas liberrima of God. The lIat- 
 ter meaning rarely, if ever (not even 
 Ecclus. i. 27, xxxii. 5), occurs in the 
 EXX; in the N. 7., however, though 
 there are decided instances of the for- 
 mer meaning, 6. g. Luke ii. 14 (not ‘le- 
 titia,’ Fritz.), Phil. i. 15 (δι᾽ €d8. opp. to 
 διὰ φϑόνον), still there is no reason to 
 doubt (Harl.) that the latter occurs in 
 Matth. xi. 26 (ϑέλησις καὶ ἀρέσκεια, 
 Theoph.) Luke x. 21, and, probably, 
 Phil. ii. 13. Thus the context must 
 decide. As here and ver. 9 εὐδοκία 
 seems to refer exclusively to the actor 
 (προορίσας, γνωρίσα5), not to the objects 
 of the action; it seems best with De 
 Wette (mis-cited by Eadie) to adopt the 
 latter meaning, though not in the ex- 
 treme sense, τὸ σφοδρὸν ϑέλημα, as advo- 
 cated by Chrys. In this the idea of good- 
 ness (ἢ ἀρίστη καὶ καλλίστη τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 ἑκούσιος ϑέλησις, Etym. M.) is of course 
 necessarily involved, but it does not 
 form the prominent idea. For further 
 details, see esp. Fritz. on Rom. x. 1, Vol. 
 11. p. 369 sq., and Wordsw. zn loc. 
 
 6. eis ἔπαινον xk. τ. A.| ‘for the 
 praise of the glory of His grace, ‘in or 
 rather ‘ad [Clarom.; see Madvig, Opusc. 
 Acad. p. 167 sq.; comp. Hand, Tursell. 
 Vol. 111. p. 317] laudem glorix gratize 
 sux,’ Vulg.; ἵνα ἣ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ δόξα 
 decx97, Chrys.: divine purpose of the 
 προορισμός ; eis here denoting the ‘finis 
 primarius ’ (Phil, i. 11), not ‘ consequens 
 aliquid’ Grot., as in 1 Pet. i. 7. It is 
 scarcely necessary to say that neither is 
 
 δι 
 
Guar, J. 7: 
 
 EPHESIANS. 91 
 
 ~ 
 
 « “ > A 3 , 5 e ow» \ 9 λύ ὃ Ν “ 
 ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἡγαπημενῳ, ᾿εν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ὠπολυτρωσιν OLA τοῦ 
 
 ἔπαινος δόξης for ἔπαινος évdotos (Grot.), 
 nor δόξα τῆς χάριτος for ἔνδοξος χάρις 
 (Beza),— both of them weak, and, here 
 especially, wholly inadmissible solutions. 
 As Chrys. appears rightly to have felt, 
 δόξης is a pure subst., and serves to 
 specify that peculiar quality or attribute 
 of the χάρις which forms the subject of 
 praise; comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. obs. 
 p. 211. Thus, then, of the three geni- 
 tives, the first is that ‘of the object,’ or, 
 more strictly speaking, ‘of the point of 
 view’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129), 
 while the two last are united (Winer, 
 Gr. ὃ 30. 8.1, p. 172), and form a com- 
 mon possessive genitive. Owing to the 
 defining gen., the article is not indis- 
 pensable ; see Winer, Gir. § 19. 2. ἢ, p. 
 113, and compare Madvig, Synt., § 10. 
 2. ἐν Al ‘inqué,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
 not ‘e qua,’ Beza, or ‘qua,’ Arm. (in- 
 strum. case); the antecedent here much 
 more naturally marking the state in 
 which, than the means by which God 
 showed us His favor. ἐχαρίτω- 
 σ εν] ‘He imparted His grace to us,’ ‘grat- 
 iticavit,’ Clarom., Vulg., ‘largitus est,’ 
 /Kth. The exact meaning of xapitdw is 
 doubtful. From the analogy of verbs in 
 éw, whether in reference to what is mate- 
 rial (6. g. χρυσόω, etc.) or what is imma- 
 terial (6. g. ϑανατόω, etc., see Harless), 
 xapitéw must mean " χάριτι aliquem affi- 
 cio.” As, however, χάρις is indetermi- 
 nate, and may mean either the subjective 
 state of the individual or the objective 
 grace of God, ἐχαρίτωσε may still have 
 two meanings ;—(a) ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε, 
 Chrys., ‘gratis 5181 acceptos effecit, 
 Beza; comp. Ecclus. ix. 8 (Alez.), appy. 
 xviii. 17, Symm. Psalm xvii. 28, and 
 see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 
 1504 ; — or (b) gratid amplerus est, Beng., 
 sim. Syr., ‘gratiz#, quam effudit:’ comp. 
 Yuke i, 28. Both the context (comp. 
 Alf.) and the prevailing meaning of 
 
 χάρις in St. Paul’s Epp seem distinctly 
 in favor of the latter meaning. On the 
 use of the aor., comp. note on ἐξελέξατυ, 
 ver. 4. ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημέν ῳ] ‘in 
 the Beloved ;’ see Matth. iii. 17, John iii. 
 16, and comp. Col. i. 13. Ἔν is not here 
 interchangeable with διά (comp. Chrys.), 
 or equivalent to propter (Grot., Locke), 
 but retains its full primary meaning. 
 Christ, as Olsh. well observes, 15. re- 
 garded not only as the mediator, but as 
 the true representative of mankind. 
 
 7. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ further illustra- 
 tion and expansion of the preceding 
 exapitwoev. Here again ἐν is neither 
 instrumental (Arm.), nor identical im 
 meaning with διά (Vatabl.). 
 deed (Opuse. p. 184), adduces this pas- 
 sage as an instance of this identity, and 
 regards διὰ Tod atu. as a sort of epexege- 
 sis of ἐν ὦ, ‘per quem,’ 7. e., eo quod 
 sanguinem effudit,’ but such an explana- 
 tion falls greatly short of the true mean- 
 As usual, ἐν has here its primary 
 it im- 
 
 Fritz, in- 
 
 ing. 
 and fullest theological meaning : 
 plies more than wnion with (Riick., Eadie); 
 it points to Christ as the living sphere 
 of redemption, while διὰ «. τ. A. refers 
 to the outward means of it; comp. Rom. 
 iii. 24. As Olsh. profoundly observes : 
 ‘we have not redemption in His work 
 without His person, but in His person, 
 with which His work forms a living 
 unity ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 
 note. ἔχομεν] ‘are having;’ 
 present, and not without emphasis ; ‘ we 
 are ever nceding and are ever having it,’ 
 Eadie. 
 (not our, Conyb.) redemption ;* scil. the 
 long-promised, and now known and real- 
 ized redemption. The use of this word 
 is thus briefly but perspicuously eluci- 
 dated by Usteri in Joc.: ‘Who is ran- 
 somed? Men, from the punishment 
 they deserved. What is the λύτρον 
 (Matth. xx. 28, Mark x. 45,1 Tim. ii. 
 
 τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] ‘the 
 
22 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. 8. 
 
 “, A \ a 
 αἵματος αὐτοῦ, THY ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ TO πλοῦτος 
 
 A ΄, a e ΄ ᾽ aA 
 τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, * ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ Kai 
 
 6)? The blood of Christ. Τὸ whom is 
 it paid? To God. Who pays it? 
 Christ in the first place; though strictly 
 God who sent Him; so, God through 
 Christ ;’ Zehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 107; see col- 
 lection of texts, Waterl. Doctrine of 
 Euch. 1v. 8, Vol. tv. p. 513. We must 
 not, however, too much limit the appli- 
 cation of this important word. As the 
 art. renders it impossible to explain it 
 merely metonymice, ‘a redeemed state’ 
 (comp. Corn. a Lap.), so it presents to 
 us the conception of ‘redemption’ in its 
 most general and abstract sense, alike 
 from Satan, sin, and death; comp. Mid- 
 dleton, Greek Art. v. 1., p. 90 (ed. Bose). 
 διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ] ‘through 
 His blood ;’ closer definition of the ἐν ᾧ, 
 by a notice of the ‘causa medians,’ the 
 blood of Christ, —that, without which 
 there could have been no ἄφεσις : comp. 
 Heb. x. 22, and see the sound remarks 
 of Alf. and Wordsw. in A. ἰ. Thy 
 ἄφεσιν κ. τ. λ. | ‘the forgiveness of our 
 transgressions ;’ apposition to, and speci- 
 fication of the essential character of the 
 The distinction 
 between ἄφεσις (condonatio) and πάρεσις 
 (preetermissio, Rom iii. 25) is noticed by 
 Trench, Synonym. § 33; more briefly 
 but most acutely by Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. 
 p. 199. Too much stress need not here 
 be laid on the distinction between παρατπ- 
 
 preceding ἀπολύτρωσις. 
 
 τώματα and ἁμαρτίαι, for compare Col. i. 
 14. Still the former so naturally point 
 to sins on the side of commission, sinful 
 acts, the latter to sins as the result of a 
 state, sinful conditions, that it seems best 
 (with Beza) to preserve the distinction 
 in translation ; comp. notes on ch. ii. 1. 
 
 χάριτος) ‘the 
 certainly not per 
 Hebraismum, for ‘abundans_ bonitas,’ 
 (Grot.), but, with the usual meaning of 
 the possessive gen., the riches which ap- 
 
 τὸ πλοῦτος TIS 
 
 3 
 
 riches of His grace ; 
 
 pertain to, are the property of His χάρι5. 
 On the form πλοῦτος, here rightly re- 
 tained by Tisch., see Winer, Gr. ὃ 9. 2. 
 2, p. 61. It occurs again, Col. i. 27 
 (strongly supported), Eph. iii. 8, 16 
 (well supported), Eph. ii. 7, Phil. iv. 19, 
 Col. ii. 2 (fairly), 2 Cor. viii. 2 (doubt- 
 fully); comp. Tisch. Prolegom. p. Lv. 
 
 8. ἧς ἐπερίσσευσ ε] ‘which He 
 made to abound ;’ ‘ufarassau ganohida’ 
 {abundanter concessit], Goth., ‘abundare 
 fecit,’ Eth. Though περισσεύω is used 
 intransitively by St. Paul, no less than 
 twenty-two times, yet as it is certainly 
 transitive in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8,1 Thess. 
 iii. 12 (comp. Athen. Dezpn. 11. 16 (42), 
 περιττεύει Tas pas), and as there is no 
 satisfactory instance in the N. T. of at- 
 traction in the case of a verb joined with 
 a dat. (Fritzsche’s explanation of Rom. 
 iv. 17 is more than doubtful, and 1 Tim. 
 iv. 6. ἧς (Lachn.) is only supported by 
 A in opp. to CDFGKL), it seems better 
 to adopt the latter meaning with Theod. 
 (ἡμᾶς περικλύζει) and the Vy. above 
 cited, than the intrans., with Syr., Vulg., 
 Arm., and appy. Chrys. in loc. On the 
 apparent violations of the law of attrac- 
 tion in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 24. 
 1, p. 148. 
 φρονήσει] ‘in all wisdom and intelli- 
 gence ;’? sphere and element in which the 
 περίσσευσεν is evinced and realized. As 
 there is some difficulty in (1) the mean- 
 ing, (2) reference, and (3) connection of 
 these words, it will be best to consider 
 these points separately. (1) Πᾶσα σοφία 
 can only mean ‘all wisdom,’ i. e., “every 
 kind of,’ ‘all possible wisdom,’ not 
 ‘summa sapientia’ (Rosenm., Eadie), 
 mas, as Harless correctly observes, al- 
 ways denoting extension rather than in- 
 tension, and thus often giving a concrete 
 application to abstract nouns; comp. Col. 
 iv. 12, and see Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. 
 
 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ 
 
Cuap. I. 9. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 93 
 
 φρονήσει, “γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Δελήματος αὐτοῦ, 
 
 101. The examples adduced by Eadie 
 (Matth. xxviii. 18, Acts v. 25 (23), 1 
 Tim. i. 15), do not in any way invyali- 
 date this principle. Σοφία and φρόνησις 
 are not synonymous (Homb.; compare 
 Plato, Symp. 202 a) but may be thus 
 distinguished: σοφία (cognate with σά- 
 ons, sapio) denotes ‘ wisdom’ in its gen- 
 eral sense, κοενῶς ἁπάντων μάϑησιν, Suid. 
 (see 4 Mace. i. 16); φρόνησις is 
 rather ‘intelligentia,’ ‘a right applica- 
 tion of the φρήν᾽ (τὸ δύνασϑαι καλῶς Bov- 
 λεύσασϑαι περὶ τὰ αὑτῷ ἀγαϑὰ καὶ συμφέ- 
 ροντα, Aristot.),—in a word, an attribute 
 or result of σοφία (ἡ δὲ σοφία ἀνδρὶ τίκτει 
 φρόνησιν, Prov. x. 23), thus serving here 
 (like ἀποκάλυψις ver. 17, σύνεσις Col. i. 
 9) to define and limit the reference of the 
 more general and comprehensive word. 
 That σοφία is theoretical, φρόνησις prac- 
 tical (Krebs ; comp. Aristot. Wthic. vi. 5, 
 7, Cicero, Off. 11. 2), is too bald a dis- 
 tinction ; for σοφία in its Christian appli- 
 cation necessarily wears a practical as- 
 pect, and may, in this respect, be as 
 much contrasted with γνῶσις (1 Cor. 
 viii. 1), as φρόνησις with the more nearly 
 synonymous, σύνεσις, (Col i. 9); see notes 
 to Transl., and comp. Beck, Seelent. 11. 
 WOE yas (alt, (2) The reference is to 
 man, not God (Alf.), for though φρόνη- 
 ois might be applied to God (see Prov. 
 iii. 19, Jer. x. 12, 1 Kings iii. 28), and 
 ἐν cop. καὶ pov. might, symmetrically 
 with ἐν ἀγάπῃ ver. 4, denote the princi- 
 ple in which God was pleased to act, yet, 
 (a) πάσῃ seems incompatible with such 
 a reference; (0) the introduction of these 
 attributes in reference to God disturbs 
 the pervading reference to the Divine 
 χάρις; (c) the analogy of Col. i. 9 
 (urged by Olsh.) forcibly suggests the 
 reference to man. (8) The connection 
 (left undecided by Lachm., Tisch.) must, 
 then, be that of the text. If the argu- 
 ments, a, b, c, be not considered valid, ἐν 
 
 πάσῃ κ. τ. A. must be joined with γνωρί- 
 cas, as Theod. (μετὰ πολλῆς σοφίας 
 ἐγνώρισεν) Griesb., al. The reference to 
 God, combined with the ordinary pune- 
 tuation (De Wette), is in the highest 
 degree unsatisfactory. 
 
 9. yvwpiaas| ‘having made known ;’ 
 participle explanatory of the preceding 
 ἐπερίσσευσεν --- ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ ppov., 
 esp. of the latter words, and appy. de- 
 noting an act coincident, and terminat- 
 ing synchronously, with the finite verb ; 
 see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 883, Don- 
 alds. Gr. § 576, and esp. Herm. Viger, 
 No 224, Stalbaum, Plato, Phedo, 62 ν. 
 The ‘ut notum faceret’ of Vulg. (comp. 
 Clarom., Goth.) is due to the reading 
 γνωῤίσαι found in FG; 76; Hil., and 
 some Latin Ff. τὸ μυστήριον 
 k. τ. λ.] ‘the mystery of His will ;’ not 
 ‘Hebreo loquendi genere’ for consilium 
 arcanum, Grot., but ‘the mystery pertain- 
 ing to it,’ τοῦ δελήμ. being neither a gen. 
 of apposition (τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον αὐτοῦ 
 ϑέλημα καὶ ἄδηλον τοῖς πᾶσι μυστήριον 
 αὐτὸ καλῶν, Theod.-Mops.), nor a gen. 
 subjecti (‘as it has its origin in,’ Eadie), 
 but simply a gen. objectz (‘concerning 
 His will,’ Meyer), marking that to which 
 the mystery was referred, and on which 
 it turned ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 47. 7. 
 1, Scheuerl. Synt., ὃ 17.1, p. 127. The 
 incarnation of Christ and the redemption 
 He wrought for us, though an actual rev- 
 elation considered as a matter of fact, 
 was a μυστήριον considered with refer- 
 ence to the depths of the divine will: see 
 above Theod.-Mops., and comp. Olsh. in 
 κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν] ‘ac- 
 ” specifica- 
 
 loc. 
 cording to His good pleasure ; 
 tion of the γνωρίσας as having taken 
 place in strict dependence both in time 
 and manner on the will of God ; comp. 
 ver. 56. To refer this to what follows 
 (‘to wit, His intention according to his 
 good pleasure to gather,’ Eadie) seems 
 
24 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. 10. 
 
 \ \ 1) / > a A Ὁ > Cente 10 > t 
 KATA τὴν EVOOKLAY AUTOV, ἣν TTPOESETO EV αὐτῷ ELS OLKOVOMLLAV 
 
 10. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] Tisch. is‘ undoubtedly right in maintaining this reading with 
 AFGK ; appy. majority of mss.; Copt.; Chrys., Theodoret (1) Theophyl. al. (Ree. 
 Griesb., Scholz., Harless, De W.) against ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς with BDEL; about 40 
 mss.; Goth.; Theodoret (1), Dam., Cc., al. (Lachm., Riick., Meyer, Alf,): tor, 
 conceding that it may be grammatically correct (comp. exx. Rost u. Palm, Ler. 
 ἐπί, 11. 1, Vol. 1. p. 1035), it must be said that the internal objections, — that ἐπὶ 
 is never joined in the N. T. with οὐρανὸς or οὐρανοί, and that ἐν οὐρανῷ and ἐπὶ γῆς 
 (probably not without significance) are invariably found in antithesis, — are deci- 
 
 sive: see Harless in loc. 
 
 obviously incorrect, involved, and out of 
 harmony with ver. 5; as κατὰ κ. τ. A. 
 formed a modal clause to mpoopicas there, 
 80 it naturally qualifies γνωρίσας here. 
 προέϑετο), ‘purposed;’ ‘proposuit,’ 
 Vulg., not ‘preestituerat,’ Beza. The 
 verb προτίϑεσϑαι only occurs in the N. 
 T. in two other passages, viz., Rom. i. 
 13 (ethical, as here), and Rom. iii. 25 
 (quasi-local, ‘set forth’); the force of 
 the prep. in both cases being /ocal rather 
 than temporal (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
 20), and analogous to the use of the 
 prep. in προαιρεῖσϑαι (2 Cor. ix. 7) and 
 προχειρίζεσϑαι (Acts iii. 20). It may 
 indeed be doubted whether any instance 
 can be found of προτίϑεσδϑαι in a purely 
 temporal sense: Polyb. Hist. σαι. 13. 
 1. is not in point. ἐν αὑτῷ] ‘in 
 Himself; not αὐτῷ as Tisch, (ed. 2, 7). 
 Though it is often difficult to decide be- 
 tween the reflexive and non-reflexive 
 pronoun (see Buttm. Mid. Excurs. x. p. 
 140), yet as a general rule, where the 
 attention is principally directed to the 
 subject, the former is most natural ; 
 where it is diverted by the importance of 
 the details, the latter. 
 vioYecia is so distinctly the important 
 word that αὐτὸν is sufficiently explicit ; 
 here, the connection with προέϑετο is so 
 immediate that the reflexive form alone 
 seems admissible. 
 
 10. εἰς οἰκονομίαν, ‘for with a 
 view to, the dispensation ;’ eis being not 
 for ἐν (Vulg., Auth.), or temporal, ‘us- 
 
 Thus, in ver. 5, 
 
 que ad,’ Erasm. (a more justifiable trans- 
 lation), but simply indicative of the pur- 
 pose, intention, of the mpdSeots ; compare 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. a, p. 354. The 
 meaning of οἰκονομία has been much de- 
 bated. It occurs nine times in the N. 
 T.; (a) in the simple sense of steward- 
 ship Luke xvi. 2 sq.), ἃ meaning which 
 Wieseler (Chron. p. 448) maintains even 
 in this place; (b) in reference to the 
 apostolic office, to the οἶκος Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. 
 ix. 17, Col. i. 25, and (more remotely) 1 
 Tim. i. 4; (c) in reference to the Divine 
 government of the world, disposition, dis- 
 pensation, — here, and ch. ili. 2, 9; see 
 exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. 11. 
 Ρ. 417, and esp. Schweigh. Lez. Polyb. 
 s.v. The special meanings ‘ dispensatio 
 gratie,’ ‘redemptionis mysterium,” 861], 
 Christi ἀνανϑρώπησις (Suicer, Thesaur. 
 8. v.; comp. Valesius, Euseb. Hist. 1. 1, 
 Petay. de Incarn. 11.1, Vol. tv. p. 110), 
 which was probably deduced from the 
 whole clause, cannot be admitted as ex- 
 planations of the simple word. The 
 article is not required, as the governing 
 substantive is sufficiently defined by the 
 gen. which follows; see Winer, Gr. § 
 19. 2. b, p. 113 sq. 
 ματος τῶν καιρῶν] ‘of the fulness 
 of the seasons ;’ scil that moment which 
 completes, and, as it were, fills up the 
 ordained καιροὶ (time estimated in refer- 
 ence to the epochs in the Divine govern- 
 ment), of the Gospel dispensation : com- 
 pare the somewhat similar expression, 
 
 τοῦ πληρώ- 
 
Cnavp. I. 10. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 25 
 
 a ΄ al [ον ’ , \ 4 τὰ 
 τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαι τὰ πάντα ἐν 
 
 πλήρωσις ἡμερῶν (Dan. x. 3, Ezek. v. 3), 
 where, however, the completion is esti- 
 mated relatively to the act, rather than to 
 the exact moment that made the remaining 
 temporal void full; see notes on Gul. iv. 
 4. ‘The genitival relation of these words 
 to οἰκονομία is very obscure. It would 
 certainly seem that πληρώματος Κ. τ. A. 
 cannot be (a) a gen. of the object (The- 
 od.-Mops.), for, as Meyer justly observes, 
 the πλήρωμα may be said ἐλϑεῖν (Gal. Us 
 c.), but not οἰκονομεῖσϑαι : nor again () 
 can it be an explanatory gen. or gen. of 
 identity (Harless ; comp. Scheuerl. Synt. 
 § 12.1, p. 82), for an essentially tempo- 
 ral conception can scarcely be used in 
 explanation of an ethical notion. It 
 may, however, be plausibly considered 
 as (c) a gen. of the characterizing quality 
 (Scheuerl. § 16.3, p. 115), which, espe- 
 cially in local and temporal reference, 
 admits considerable latitude of applica- 
 tion ; comp. Jude 6, κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέ- 
 pas, and sce exx. in Winer, ‘Gr. ὃ 30. 2, 
 p- 168 sq.; and in Hartung, Casus, p. 27. 
 The difficult expression οἶκον. τοῦ πληρ. 
 x. τ. A. will thus seem to imply not 
 merely the ‘full-timed dispensation,’ 
 (Eadie), but more exactly, ‘the dispen- 
 sation that was characterized by, that was 
 to be set forth in, the fulness of time’ 
 (‘propria plenitudini temp.’ Caloy.), and 
 must be referred not only to the period 
 of the coming of Christ (ed. 1, Ust. 
 Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 83; comp. Chrys. πλή- 
 ρωμα τῶν καιρῶν ἣ παρουσία αὐτοῦ ἦν), 
 but, appy., as the more extended ref. of 
 the context seems to suggest, the whole 
 duration of the Gospel dispensation 
 (Alf.) ; Stier in loc. (p. 96), and contrast 
 Gal. iv. 4, where, as the context shows, 
 the reference is more restricted. The 
 use and meaning of the term is noticed 
 by Hall, Bampt. Lect. for 1797. 
 
 ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαιἶ, ‘to sum up 
 again together,’ ‘restaurare,’ Clarom., 
 
 4 
 
 ‘summatim recolligere,’ Beza; not de- 
 pendent on προέϑετο, but explanatory 
 infinitive, defining the nature and pur- 
 pose of the πρόϑεσις ; comp, 1 Thess. 
 iv. 4, and see notes on Col. i. 22. The 
 article is not necessary, see Winer, Gr. 
 § 44. 2. obs. p. 286, notes on 1 Thess. 
 iii. 8, and comp. Madvig, Syntax § 144. 
 The meaning of this word, connected as 
 it here is with the counsels of Omnipo- 
 tence, must be investigated with the 
 most anxious care. Viewed simply, 
 κεφαλαιῶσαι (συντομῶς συναγαγεῖν, He- 
 sych. means ‘summatim colligere,’ Thu- 
 cyd. 111. 67, vi. 91, VIII. 53; avakepa- 
 λαιώσασϑαι ‘summatim (sibi) recolligere ;" 
 comp. συγκεφαλαιοῦσϑαι (‘in brevem 
 summam contrahere’), Polyb. Hist. 111- 
 3. 1, 1. 66. 11, ete.; see Schweigh. Lez. 
 Polyb., and Raphel in loc. Viewed in 
 connection with the context, two impor- 
 tant questions arise. (1) Is there any al- 
 lusion to Christ as the κεφαλή (Chrys.) 3 
 In a writer so profound as St. Paul this 
 is far from impossible. The derivation 
 of the word, however (κεφάλαιον not 
 κεφαλή), --- St. Paul’s use of it in its 
 common meaning, Rom. xiii. 9, — and 
 most of all the context, which points to 
 a union ‘in Christo,’ not ‘sub Christo’ 
 (Beng.), to His atonement rather than 
 His sovereignty (Col. ii. 10), render it 
 improbable. (2) What is the force of 
 ava? From Rom. ἰ. c. (see Fritz.) it 
 has plausibly been considered latent ; 
 still, as even there this is very doubtful 
 (see Meyer in loc.), it must not here be 
 lightly passed over. What, then, is this 
 force? Obviously not simple repetition ; 
 nor again (from reasons above) summa- 
 tion upwards, in reference to Christ as 
 the Head (σύνδεσμον ἄνωδεν ἐπικειμένον, 
 Chrys.), but re-union, re-collection, a * par- 
 tium divulsarum conjunctio’ in reference 
 to a state of previous and primal unity ; 
 so far, then, but so far ouly, a ‘restora- 
 
to 
 
 26 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. 11. 
 
 fal A \ ᾽ A > A \ \ > \ lol an > > na 
 τῷ Χριστῷ, Ta ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐν αὐτῷ, " ἐν 
 
 tion’ (Syr., Vulg.) to that state ; comp. 
 Beng. in loc. University Sermons, p. 162, 
 and see an excellent discussion on the 
 word in Andrewes, Serm. xvi. Vol. 1. p. 
 265, 270 (A. C. Libr.). The force of 
 the middle voice must also, appy., not 
 be overlooked. 
 imply ‘all intelligent beings’ (compare 
 notes on Gal. iii. 22), but, on account of 
 the clauses which follow, is best taken in 
 its widest sense, ‘all things and beings,’ 
 Meyer; comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1. 
 p- 269. 
 κι τ᾿ A.] ‘the things in heaven and the 
 things upon earth ;’ widest expression of 
 universality designed to show the extent 
 of the preceding τὰ πάντα (Andr.) ; 
 comp. Col. i. 20, and see notes in loc. 
 Without entering into the profound 
 questions which haye been connected 
 with these words, it may be said, — that 
 as on the one hand all limiting inter- 
 pretations —e. g. Jews and Gentiles 
 (Schoettg.), ἀγγέλους 
 (Chrys.), the world of spirits and the 
 race of men (Meier), — are opposed to 
 the generalizing neuter (Winer, Gr. § 
 27. 5, p. 160), and the comprehensive- 
 ness of the expressions ; so, on the other 
 hand, any reference to the redemption 
 or restoration of those spirits (Crellius), 
 for whom our Lord Himself said τὸ πῦρ 
 τὸ αἰώνιον (Matth. xxv. 4) was prepared, 
 must be pronounced fundamentally im- 
 possible : comp. Bramhall, Custigations, 
 ete., Disc. 11. Vol. rv. p. 354 (Angl. 
 Cath. Lib.), Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. 
 p- 192 and University Sermons p. 91 sq. 
 The reading ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρ. (Lachm. Alf.), 
 though fairly supported [BDEL], is 
 scarcely probable ; see crit note. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him;’ not added merely 
 ‘explicationis causi (Herm. Viger. 123 
 b. 5), but as re-asseverating with great 
 solemnity and emphasis (see Jelf, Gr. § 
 658), the only blessed sphere zn which 
 
 τὰ πάντα May 
 
 τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 
 
 καὶ avdpwrous, 
 
 this ἀνακεφαλαίωσις can be regarded as 
 operative, and apart from which and 
 without which, its energies cannot be 
 conceived as acting; see Univ. Serm. p. 
 89, 90. It forms also an easy transition 
 to the following relative. 
 
 11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώϑ.] ‘in whom 
 we were also chosen as His inheritance ;’ 
 kal obviously qualifying ékAnp., not the 
 unexpressed pronoun (Auth.), and speci- 
 fying the gracious carrying out and 
 realization of the divine πρόϑεσις, v. 9. 
 This ascensive foree may sometimes be 
 expressed by ‘really,’ see Hartung, Par- 
 tik. καὶ, 2.7, p. 132 sq.; the exact shade 
 of meaning, however, will be best de- 
 fined by a consideration of the exact 
 tenor and tacit comparisons of the con- 
 text; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. 
 The exact meaning of ἐκληρώδ. is very 
 
 doubtful. Passing over the more ob- 
 viously untenable interpretations of 
 
 Bretsch., Wahl, Koppe, and others, we 
 find four translations which deserve at- 
 tention: (a) Pass. for middle; ‘we have 
 obtained an inheritance,’ Auth., Conyb.; 
 comp. Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 204: this, 
 however, is not fairly substantiated by 
 the citations adduced, and is distinetly 
 at variance with the significant passives 
 which preyail throughout this profound 
 paragraph in reference to man. Even 
 προσεκληρώϑησαν, Acts xvii. 4, is best 
 taken passively; see Winer, Gr. § 39. 
 2, p. 234. (b) Simple pass. ; ‘sorte 
 vocati sumus,’ Vulg., Syr., Goth. (1 Sam. 
 xiv. 41, see exx. in Elsner, /. ¢.), 2. 6. Sas 
 though by lot,’ in allusion to the sove- 
 reign freedom of God’s choice; κλήρου 
 γενομένου ἡμᾶς ἐξελέξατο, Chrys.: this, 
 however, is seriously at variance with 
 St. Paul’s modes of thought and the 
 regular forms of expression (καλεῖν, ἐκ- 
 λέγεσϑαι) which he uses on this subject : 
 see Harless and Meyer in loc. (6) Pas- 
 sive, used like πιστεύομαι, μαρτυροῦμαι 
 
Cuap. I. 19. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 27 
 
 ? \ > δι by Qt \ ay a Ν , 
 ῳ Kab εκ po μεν Tr POOplo SEVTES KaTa “ρο €OlY του τὰ TaVTa 
 
 ᾽ rn 
 
 \ \ \ rn / > an 
 ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ δελήματος αὐτοῦ 
 ? 
 
 (comp. ἀποροῦμαι, Gal. iv. 20, and see 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 39. 1, p. 233), with an im- 
 plied accus., scil. ‘in hereditatem adsciti 
 sumus,’ Grot. 2, Harl., Meyer (‘ were en- 
 feoffed,’ Eadie), — with allusion to Josh. 
 xiv. 1 sq. and reference to the κλῆρος 
 τῶν ἁγίων, Col. i. 12. (d) Pass., in 
 a special sense; ‘eramus facti hereditas 
 (Dominz),’ Beng., Hamm. [mis-cited by 
 De W.], ἢ. e. λαὸς ἔγκληρος, Deut. iv. 
 20; see ch. ix. 29, xxxii. 6. Between 
 (c) and (d) it is somewhat hard to de- 
 cide. While both present some difficul- 
 ties, (6) in point of structure, (d) in the 
 special character of its meaning, both 
 harmonize well with the context, the 
 former in its allusion to κληρονομία, ver. 
 14, the latter with reference to περιποίη- 
 ots, ver. ib. As however (6) is doubtful 
 in point of usage, and as the force of 
 kal is well maintained by (d) in the gen- 
 tle contrast it suggests between the gen- 
 eral ἐκλογὴ and the more specially gra- 
 cious KAnpwols, this latter interpretation 
 is certainly to be preferred; ‘we were 
 not only chosen out, but chosen out as a 
 λαὸς ἔγκληρος ;᾿ εἶπεν, ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς, 
 ἀνωτέρω: ἐνταῦδά φησιν, ἐκληρώϑημεν, 
 Chrys. The reading ἐκλήϑημεν 
 though found in ADEFG; Clarom., 
 Sang., Boern, al. (Lachm.) seems almost 
 certainly a sort of gloss for the more 
 difficult and appy. ill-understood ἐκληρώ- 
 βουλὴν τοῦ ϑελήμα- 
 tos] ‘the counsel of His will, <consilium 
 yoluntatis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; assertion of 
 the unconditioned and sovereign will of 
 God appropriately introduced after ἐκλη- 
 ρώϑημεν; ὥστε οὐκ ἐπειδή ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ov 
 προσεῖχον, διὰ τοῦτο τὰ ἔϑνη ἐκαλεσεν, 
 The expres- 
 sion βουλὴ ϑελήματος is not either ple- 
 onastic, or expressive of ‘ consilium 
 liberrimum’ (Beng.), but solemnly rep- 
 resents the Almighty Will as displaying 
 
 Onmev. 
 
 οὐδὲ ἀναγκασδϑείς, Chrys. 
 
 19 ᾽ Ν “ 
 εἰς TO ELVAL 
 
 itself in action ; ϑέλημα designating the 
 will generally, βουλὴ the more special 
 expression of it. The distinction of 
 Buttmann (ZLevzil. s. v. ὃ 35, compare 
 Tittm. Synon. p. 124 sq.), that ‘BovAoua 
 is confined to the inclination, éSéAw to 
 that kind of wish in which there lies a 
 purpose or design, does not seem gen- 
 erally applicable to the N. T. (see Matt. 
 i. 19, and comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5 with Eph. 
 ii. 3), and probably not always to classi- 
 cal Greek; see Pape, Lex. s. v. βούλομαι, 
 Vol. 1. p. 883, Donalds. Crat. § 463. 
 For further illustrations see notes on 1 
 Tim. v. 14. 
 
 12. εἰς τὸ εἶναι x. τ. λ.] ‘that we 
 should be to the praise of His glory ;’ final 
 cause of the κλήρωσις on the part of God 
 mentioned in the preceding verse, εἰς τὸ 
 κι τ. A. depending on exAnp., and τοῦς 
 προηλπικ. forming an opposition to ἡμᾶς. 
 To refer this clause to προορισϑέντες, 
 and to connect εἶναι with προηλπικότας 
 (Harl.) is highly involved and artificial ; 
 see Meyer zn loc. The reference of 
 the pronoun is somewhat doubtful. Up 
 to the present verse, ἡμεῖς has designated 
 the community of believers, Jews and 
 Gentiles. It would seem most natural 
 to continue it in the same sense; the 
 meaning, however, assigned to e«Anp., 
 that of mponAm., and most of all the op- 
 position καὶ ὑμεῖς (which De Wette does 
 not invalidate by ref. to ch. ii. 1, Col. i. 
 8), seem convincingly to prove that ἡμεῖς 
 refers especially to Jewish Christians, 
 ὑμεῖς to Gentile Christians. Chrys. has 
 not expressed this, but the citation above 
 (on ékAnp.) would seem to imply dis- 
 tinctly that he felt it. It may be 
 observed that the insertion of the art. 
 τῆς before δόξης, with A; many mss. ; 
 Chrys., al. (Ree.), is opposed to the bulk 
 of Mss. and rejected by all recent edi- 
 tors. τοὺς προηλπικ,) ‘we, Lf 
 
28 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuapsi,A3. 
 
 € a > » , 5 lal \ δ᾿ >’ a “ 
 ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ, τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ: 
 
 132 τ NG ne a 5) , , λό n x; % / SUS aN 
 ἐν ᾧ Kal ὑμεῖς, ἀκούσαντες TOV λογον τῆς ahynAELAS, TO εὐαγγεὰλ- 
 
 say, who have before hoped :᾿ Pai faura 
 venjandans [hi ante sperantes], Goth. ; 
 the article with the part. standing in dis- 
 tinct and emphatic apposition to ἡμᾶς, 
 and defining more fully their spiritual 
 attitude; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 1. ¢, p. 
 121, but observe that the transl. ‘ quippe 
 qui speravimus’ (ed. 1, Winer, Meyer, 
 al.) is inexact, as this would imply a 
 part. without, not as here with the article ; 
 on these distinctions of predication, see 
 esp. Donalds. Crat. ὃ 304 sq, Gr. § 492 
 sq- The prep. πρὸ has received many 
 different explanations, several of which, 
 6. g. πρὶν ἢ ἐπιστῇ ὁ μέλλων αἰών, The- 
 oph., ‘qui priores speravimus,’ Beza, 
 ‘already, prior to the time of writing,’ 
 Eadie — appear to have resulted rather 
 from preconceived opinions of the refer- 
 ence of ἡμεῖς, than from a simple invyes- 
 tigation of the word. As mpoopiCw, ver. 
 5, implies an ὁρισμὸς before the object of 
 it appeared, so προελπίζω seems to imply 
 an exercise of ἐλπὶς before the object of 
 it, i.e. Christ, appeared. The perf part., 
 as usual, indicates that the action which 
 is described as past still continues, see 
 exx. Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. a, p. 244. 
 ἐν Χριστῷ denotes the object in whom 
 the hope was placed; compare 1 Cor. 
 xv. 9, and see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 
 10, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. 
 p. 222. The preceding reference of the 
 fore-hope in the Messiah to the Jews 
 (comp. Acts xxviii. 20) is in no way in- 
 compatible with the use of ἐν Χριστῷ 
 rather than of εἰς Χριστόν (Holzh., Ea- 
 die): to have hoped in Christ was a 
 higher characteristic than to have di- 
 rected hope towards Christ, and desig- 
 nated them as more worthy exponents 
 of the praise of God’s glory; compare 
 Stier in loc. p. 112, 114. 
 
 13. év 6 kal bets x. 7. A] The 
 construction of this verse is somewhat 
 
 doubtful. <A finite verb is commonly 
 supposed, either from ἐκληρώϑημεν, ver. 
 11, or προηλπικότας. If from the former 
 (Harless), it would now limit ἐκληρ. to 
 the Gentile Christians, which formerly 
 referred to both them and Jewish Chris- 
 tians: the regression, too, would seem 
 unduly great. If from the latter, mp o- 
 nAtikate (not ἠλπίκατε, Beza) must be 
 supplied, which would imply what was 
 contrary to the fact. Others (Meyer, 
 Alf., al.) supply the verb subst, 
 whom ye are,’ but thus introduce a 
 statement singularly frigid and out of 
 harmony with the linked and ever-rising 
 character of the context. It can scarcely 
 then be doubted that we have here a 
 form of the ‘oratio suspensa’ (Beng.), 
 according to which the second ἐν @ does 
 not refer to a fresh subject (Mey.), but is 
 simply resumptive of the first. The full 
 force and meaning of this anacoluthon 
 have scarcely been sufficiently expanded. 
 Kal ὑμεῖς [ἡμεῖς, A K L; mss., but with 
 no probability] directs the attention to 
 the contrast between the pronouns; ἀκού- 
 σαντες k. T.A. Suggests a further reference 
 to those who had hoped on less conyine- 
 ing evidence. This might have been 
 followed at once by the finite verb éo- 
 pay. kK. τ. A.: but was so important ἃ 
 clause to follow at once on ἀκούσαντες * 
 Surely ἀκοὴ must be expanded into 
 something more vital before it could be 
 so blessed. Kal mov. is thus interca- 
 lated with all the ascensive force of καὶ 
 
 ‘in 
 
 (οὐ yap μόνον ἠκούσατε ἀλλὰ Kal ἐπιστεύ- 
 care, Theod.), and thus, far from be- 
 coming superfluous (Meyer), is truly a 
 necessary and vital member of the sen- 
 tence. So appy. Syr., Copt., Goth., 
 ZEth., which though suppressing the καί, 
 and converting the participles into finite 
 verbs retain substantially the correct 
 structure. Ἔν @ may be joined with 
 
Cuap. I. 18 
 
 EPHESIANS. 29 
 
 "- 
 
 an / e A ΗΝ \ a 
 Lov τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσϑϑητε TO 
 
 πιστεύσαντες (Mark i. 15) as well as ἐσ- 
 φραγ. (Scholef.), but as πιστεύειν ἔν τινι 
 is not used by St. Paul, and as ἐν ᾧ in 
 ver. 11 is not joined with the participle 
 but the finite verb, it seems best, in this 
 somewhat parallel verse, to preserve the 
 same construction ; see Riick, and Harl. 
 in loc. τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀλη- 
 ὃ εία 5] ‘the word of the truth;’ not the 
 gen. of apposition (Harless), but the gen. 
 substantia ; sce Scheuerl. Synt. 12. 1, p. 
 82, Hartung, Casus, p. 21. The truth 
 did not only form the subject (Meyer), 
 but was its very substance and essence. 
 The remark of Chrys. is thus perfectly 
 in point, — τῆς ἀληϑείας, οὐκέτι τὸν τοῦ 
 τύπου, οὐδὲ τὺν τῆς εἰκόνος ; 506 NOtes on 
 δ]: π| a: 
 awtnp.| ‘the Gospel of your salvation ;’ 
 not a gen. of apposition, nor exactly, as 
 above, a gen. of the substance, but rather 
 a gen. of the (spiritual) contents or sub- 
 ject-matter (Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 
 161, Scheuerl, Synt. § 17, 1, p. 126), 
 scil. ‘the Gospel (τὸ κήρυγμα, Chrys.) 
 which turns upon, which reveals salva- 
 tion;’ thus forming one of that large 
 class of genitives of remoter reference 
 (see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2. B, p. 
 169 sq.), and belonging appy. to the 
 general category of the genitive of rela- 
 tion; see Donalds. Gr. § 453, p. 475 sq. 
 For a list of the various substantives 
 with which εὐαγγέλιον is associated (Θεοῦ͵ 
 Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, al., Χριστοῦ, Rom. xv. 
 19, Gal. i. 7, al, τῆς χάριτος, Acts xx. 
 24, τῆς εἰρήνης, Eph. vi. 19), see esp. 
 Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 8, Vol. 11. p. 
 81. πιστεύσαντες is not pres- 
 ent (Eadie), and contemporaneous with 
 ἐσφραγ. (Larl.), but antecedent; comp. 
 Acts xix. 2, and see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 
 2, p. 267; the ordinary sequence, as 
 Meyer observes, is (a) Hearing; (ὁ) 
 Faith, which of course implies prevent- 
 ing grace; (c) Baptism ; (d) Communi- 
 
 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Tis 
 
 cation of the Holy Spirit; compare to- 
 gether, esp. Acts ii. 37 (a, c, d) ; viii. 6, 
 ΤΣ (αὐ; end) ine xia O(c.) Acts 
 x. 44 (d,c) and perhaps ix. 17 are excep- 
 tional cases. On the divine order or 
 method mercifully used by God in our 
 salvation, see the brief but weighty re- 
 marks of Hammond, Pract. Catech. 1. 4, 
 p. 83 (A. C. Libr.). ἐσφραγίσ- 
 Snte| ‘were sealed;’ τὴν βεβαίωσιν 
 ἐδέξασϑε, Theodor.-Mops.: see Suicer, 
 Thesaurus, s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1197. The 
 seal of the Spirit is that blessed hope 
 and assurance which the Holy Spirit 
 imparts to our spirit, ὅτε ἐσμὲν τέκνα 
 Θεοῦ, Rom. viii. 16: see esp. Bull, Disc. 
 111. p. 897 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844). 
 Any purely objective meaning in refer- 
 ence to heathen (Grot.), or even to Jew- 
 ish customs (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 11. p. 
 508, compare Chrys.), seems here very 
 doubtful : ἡ σφραγὶς is undoubtedly used 
 by ecclesiastical writers simply for Bap- 
 tism (Grabe, Spicil. Vol. 1. p. 331 56.» 
 comp. Rom. iy. 11), but any special ref- 
 erence of this nature would not appear 
 in harmony with the present context. 
 
 τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελία:] 
 
 ‘the Spirit of promise,’ eo Lowes 
 Om 9x A 
 
 [qui promissus erat], Syr., ‘quem promi- 
 sit, ith. The genitival relation has 
 here again received different explana- 
 tions. The simple meaning derived 
 from the most general use of the gen., 
 as the case of ablation (Donalds. Gr. § 
 451), the ‘whence-case’ (Hartung, Casus, 
 p- 12) requires but little modification. 
 Td Πν. τῆς ἐπ. is ‘ the Spirit which came 
 from, 7. 6. was announced by, promise ;’” 
 ὅτι κατὰ ἐπαγγ. αὐτὸ ἐλάβομεν, Chrys., 
 or as Theoph. 1, still more literally, ὅτε 
 ἐξ ἐπαγγ. ἐδόϑη : so in effect Syr. The 
 active sense, ὅτε βεβαιοῖ τὴν ἐπαγγελ. 
 (Theoph. 2), is grammatically doubtfal 
 (as there is no such verbal basis in 
 
80 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Guar. 1. 14. 
 
 , a 5) , AL ΕΣ τὴ we 5 »γε \ a 
 Πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, "Os ἐστιν ἀῤῥαβὼν τῆς κλη- 
 
 “- Ἃ an n 
 ρονομίας ἡμῶν, εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως, εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς 
 
 δόξης αὐτοῦ. 
 
 Πνεῦμα; compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 
 1, p. 126), and is exegetically unneces- 
 sary, as the idea of BeBatwors lies in ἐσ- 
 φραγίσϑητε. See Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 
 11. p. 1767, and comp. notes on Gal. iii. 
 14. τῳ ἁγίῳ marks, with solemn 
 emphasis, Him by whom they were 
 sealed — Him whose essence was _holi- 
 ness — the personal Holy Spirit of God. 
 For a weighty and practical sermon on 
 this verse, see Usher, Serm. x11. Vol. 
 x11. p. 175 (ed. Elringt.), and for three 
 discourses of a more general character 
 Barrow, Serm. x111. x1v. xv. Vol. 1. p. 
 1—59 (Oxf. 1830). 
 
 14. ὅ 9] As the noun in the explanatory 
 clause (6s — ἐστί) gains a prominence 
 by being not only an elucidation or am- 
 plification (chap. i. 23), but a definition 
 and specification of that in the antece- 
 dent, the relative agrees with it in gen- 
 der: see esp. Winer, Gr. § 24. 8, p. 192, 
 Madvig, Synt. ὃ 98. b. “Os need not 
 therefore be referred to Christ (Poly- 
 earp. Phil. § 8), nor indeed to the per- 
 sonal nature of the Holy Spirit (John 
 xiv. 26), as τὸ Πν. in its most distinct 
 personal sense is invariably used with 
 the neuter relative; compare the collec- 
 tion of exx. in Bruder, Concord. s. v. ὅς, 
 11. p. 619. The reading 6, adopted by 
 Lachm. with ABFGL; 15 mss.; Athan. 
 (2), al., seems clearly a grammatical 
 gloss, and is rejected by most recent ed- 
 itors. ἀ ῥῥα βὼ ν] ‘earnest, Auth, 
 Arm.; a word used in the N. T. only 
 here and 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, comp. 74273 
 Gen xxviii. 17 sq. ‘arrhabo,’ Plaut. AZost. 
 11. 1. 3, Rud. Prol. 45. It is a term 
 probably of Phoenician origin (Gesen. 
 Lex. s. y.) and denotes (1) a portion of 
 the purchase money, an earnest of future 
 payment, πρόδομα, Hesych., ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς 
 ὠναῖς παρὰ τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη προ- 
 
 καταβολή, tym. M.; (2) pignus, Cla- 
 rom., Vulg., ‘vadi,’ Goth.; see esp. 
 Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 239. The word 
 has here its primary meaning: the gifts 
 and υἱοϑεσία, of which the Spirit assures 
 us now, are the earnest, the ἀπαρχὴ (Ba- 
 sil) of the κληρονομία (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ 
 Xp. καὶ Θεοῦ, ch. v. 5) hereafter: see 
 Rom. viii. 23, and comp. Reuss, Theol. 
 Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 248. Christ, 
 somewhat similarly, is termed the agp. 
 τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἡμῶν, Constit. Apost. ν. 
 6: Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p 512. 
 eis ἀπολύτρωσιν x. τ. A.| ‘for the 
 redemption of the purchased possession,’ 
 
 le» dal? LisseaS [eorum 
 
 qui vivunt, se. servantur] Syr, ‘in re- 
 demptionem adquisitionis’ Vulg.; first 
 of the two final clauses, expressive of 
 the divine purpose inyolved in the ἐσ- 
 φραγίσϑητε x. τ. A.3 see below (2). 
 The explanations of these difficult 
 clauses are very varied. Passing over 
 those founded on questionable construc- 
 tions, whether by participial solution 
 (Koppe, Wahl), apposition (ἀπολύτρ. 
 scil. περιπ., comp. Chrys., Theophl. 1,), 
 conjunction (ἄπολ. καὶ mepim., compare 
 Holzh.), or virtual interchange {(περιπ. 
 τῆς amoA. Beza, Steph. Thesaur. s. v. 
 mepim.), we will notice (1) the probable 
 meaning of the words, (2) the probable 
 connection of the clause with the sen- 
 tence. (1) ἀπολύτρωσις, a 
 word always (6. g. ch. iv. 30, Rom. viii. 
 23), and here especially, modified by 
 the context, appears to denote the final 
 and complete redemption (ἢ καϑαρὰ 
 amo. Chrys.) from sufferings and sins, 
 from Satan and from death ; see Usteri, 
 Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 106, Neand. Planting, 
 Vol. τ. p. 456, and comp. Reuss, Theol. 
 Chrét. 1v. 17, Vol. 11. p. 183 sq. who, 
 
Cuap. I. 15. 
 
 I ever give thanks and 
 pray that ye may be en- 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 31 
 
 fa , 5 te ’ r 
 15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώ, ἀκούσας τὴν καὶ ὑμᾶς 
 
 lightened to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the greatness of His power, 
 which was especially displayed in the resurrection and supreme exaltation of Christ. 
 
 however, is appy. unduly restrictive. 
 περιποίησις is much more obscure ; 
 while its etymological form and syntac- 
 tic use (comp. 1 Thess. ν. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 
 14, Heb. x. 39) suggest an active and 
 abstract interpretation (Beng.), the gen- 
 itival relation with ἀπολύτρ. renders this 
 in the present case wholly untenable. 
 The same may be said of the concrete 
 passive explanation ‘hzreditas acquis- 
 ita’ (Caloy.) even if that explanation be 
 lexically demonstrable. The most an- 
 cient interpretation (Syr.), according to 
 which 4 περιπ. = of περιποιηϑέντες, scil. 
 λαὸς εἰς περίπ. 1 Pet. ii. 9 (comp. Isaiah 
 xliii. 21, and esp. Mal. iii. 7), and is a 
 Christian application of the τῆλ 7230, 
 the λαὸς περιούσιος LXX, of the Old 
 Testament, is on the whole most satis- 
 factory. The objection that περιπ. is 
 never absolutely so used is of weight, and 
 is not to be diluted by a forced reference 
 to αὐτοῦ (Mey.); still, while the exx. 
 adduced show such a meaning to be pos- 
 sible, the context, and esp. the genitival 
 relation, render it in a high degree prob- 
 able. The discussions of the other in- 
 terpretations by Harless and the com- 
 ments of Stier (p. 129) on ἀπολύτρ. will 
 repay perusal. (2) Connection: εἰς may 
 be joined with ὅς ἐστιν κ. τ. A. (Tisch, 
 Riick.) in a temporal sense, ‘until,’ 
 Auth. Ver., but much more probably 
 belongs to ἐσφραγίσϑητε. Eis ἀπολ. is 
 thus a clause coordinate with εἰς ἔπαινον 
 k. τ. A., the former expressing the final 
 clause in reference to man, the latter in 
 more especial and ultimate reference to 
 God. 
 
 15. διὰ τοῦτο Kaya] ‘On this ac- 
 count I also ;’ ref. to the preceding verses 
 as a reason for thanks to God for the 
 spiritual state of the Ephesians, with a 
 prayer (ver. 17) for their further enlight- 
 enment. The exact reference of these 
 
 words is doubtful. Harless (after Chrys.) 
 refers διὰ τοῦτο to the whole paragraph ; 
 as, however, the Ephesians are first spe- 
 cially addressed in ver. 13 (καὶ ὑμεῖς), it 
 seems best, with Theophyl., to connect 
 διὰ τοῦτο only with ver. 13, 14; ‘on ac- 
 count of thus having heard, believed, 
 and having been sealed in Christ.” Κἀγὼ 
 (‘I also, I too,’ not “1 indeed,’ Eadie) is 
 thus faintly corresponsive with καὶ ὑμεῖς, 
 and hints at the union in prayer and 
 praise which subsisted between the 
 Apostle and his converts. De Wette 
 refers καὶ to διὰ τοῦτο, adducing Col. i. 
 9, but this example (comp. verse 4 with 
 yerse 9) certainly confirms the strict 
 union of particle and pronoun; see 
 notes 7m loc. Eadie and Bretschneider 
 cite Rom. iii. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 8, xi. 1, Gal. 
 iv. 12, 1 Thess. iii. 5, al., but in all these 
 instances καὶ has its full and proper 
 comparative force: see Klotz, Devar. 
 Vol. 11. p. 635. &kovaas| ‘having 
 heard? All historical arguments (ὡς 
 μηδέπω Seacduevos αὐτούς, --- noticed, but 
 rejected by Theodoret) derived, on the 
 one hand, from pressing the meaning of 
 the verb (D. W.) or, on the other, the 
 improbable (see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. b. 
 1, comp. on Gal. vy. 24) frequentative 
 force of the tense (Eadie), must be pro- 
 nounced extremely precarious. St. Paul 
 certainly uses ἀκούσας, Col. i. 4, in refer- 
 ence to converts he had not seen; but 
 this alone would not have proved it, and 
 thus does not prevent our here referring 
 ἀκούσας to the progress the Ephesians 
 had made in the four or five years since 
 he had last seen them; see Wieseler, 
 Chronol., p. 445, Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. 
 1841, p. 431 sq. τὴν Kad ὑμῶς 
 πίστιν is commonly regarded as a 
 mere periphrasis for τὴν ὑμετέραν m-, or 
 rather τὴν π. ὑμῶν, the possessive ὑμέτε- 
 pos (comp. ἡμέτ.) being used sparingly 
 
32 EPHESIANS. Cuap. I. 16. 
 
 7 / ’ a K t eli la) \ \ ’ is \ > ΄ a3 
 
 ίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς 
 , ‘4 lal lal ‘ lal 
 
 ἁγίους, ™ ov παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιού- 
 
 10. μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμενος] So Tisch. with ΟΡ ΕΚΤ, (FG; Boern. transpose ὑμῶν 
 and ποιούμ.) great majority of mss.; Sangerm., Aug., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., 
 al.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., De W. (e sil.), Wordsw.). The 
 omission of ὑμῶν is well supported by external evidence, viz. ABD! (not C, Eadie ; 
 this is one of its lacunz); about 10 mss.; Clarom., Goth.; Hil. (Rick. Lachm., 
 Mey., approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 144 1), but is perhaps slightly less probable ; 
 esp. as an omission of ὑμῶν owing to the preceding ὑμῶν is more likely than an 
 explanatory insertion, where the meaning is so obvious, and as 1 Thess. i, 2 (where 
 
 AB similarly omit ὑμῶν) is appy. an instructive parallel. 
 
 (only 4 times) in St. Paul’s Epp. It 
 must be admitted that later writers ap- 
 pear to use κατὰ with acc. as equivalent 
 to possess. pronoun or gen. (see Bern- 
 hardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 241, Winer, Gr. 
 § 22. 7, obs. Ρ. 178), still, as St. Paul 
 uses 7 πίστ. ὑμῶν at least 17 times, and 
 ἡ Kad bu. π. Only once, there would seem 
 to be a distinction; the latter (κατὰ dis- 
 tributive) probably denoting the faith of 
 the community viewed objectively, ‘the 
 faith which is among you,’ the former the 
 subjective faith of individuals : see Har- 
 less and Stier in loc., and comp. John 
 Vili. 17, τῷ νόμῳ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ (addressed 
 to Pharisees), with Acts xviil. 15, νομοῦ 
 τοῦ Kad ὑμᾶς (in reference to Jews in 
 Achaia), which seem to convey a par- 
 allel distinction, and at any rate to in- 
 vert the supposition of Eadie, that ἡ kav’ 
 ju. m. denotes more distinctive, charac- 
 teristic possession than the former, 
 
 ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ) ‘in the Lord;’ defini- 
 tion of the holy sphere and object of the 
 πίστις; the omission of the article giv- 
 ing a more complete unity to the con- 
 ception, as it were, ‘ Christ-centred faith,’ 
 ‘ fidem erga Deum in Domino Jesu,’ Beng. ; 
 see notes on Gal. iii. 26. It is instructive 
 to compare with this the subsequent 
 clause, τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν k. τ. Δ.» where 
 the second article [Lachm. omits with 
 AB; 17 al.] seems inserted to convey 
 two momenta of thought, love generally, 
 further defined by that amplitude (οὐ 
 
 τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους, φησί, μόνον, Chrys.) 
 which is its true Christian characteris- 
 tic; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p. 
 195. As a general rule, it may be ob- 
 served, that when the defining preposi- 
 tional clause is so incorporated with (e. 
 g. ch. ii. 11), — appended to (Col. iv. 8), 
 —or, as here, structurally assimilated 
 πίστις (πιστεύω) ἐν, compare ch. 11]. 13, 
 Rom. vi. 4) with the subst. it defines as 
 to form only a single conception, the ar- 
 ticle is correctly omitted ; see Harless in 
 loc., and Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 128. 
 
 eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίου 5] ‘towards 
 all the ϑαϊπιδ; objects towards whom 
 the love was directed ; omnes character 
 Christianismi,’ Bengel: compare ch. vi. 
 18, Philem. 5. On the meaning of ayi- 
 ous, see notes on ch. i. 1. 
 
 16. οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν) 
 ‘I cease not giving thanks.’ In this sim- 
 ple and well-known formula the partici- 
 ple points to a state supposed to be al- 
 ready in existence ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 
 4, p. 308 sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 45. 5, p. 
 481. In many verbs 6. g. αἰσχύνομαι, 
 Luke xvi. 8) this distinction between 
 part. and inf. may be made palpable ; in 
 others, as in the present case, the verb 
 is such as rarely to admit any other idio- 
 matic structure; see Herm. Viger, No. 
 218, Donalds. Gr. § 591, and for a good 
 paper on the general distinction between 
 the uses of the participle and of the 
 infin., Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. 
 
 4 
 
Cuap. J. 17. 
 μενος ἐπὶ TOV προσευχῶν μου, 
 
 μνείαν motovm.| ‘making 
 mention of you;’ limitation, or rather 
 specification of the further direction of 
 the εὐχαριστία : comp. 1 Thess. 1. 2, Phi- 
 lem. 4, and see notes zn loce. ἐπὶ 
 τῶν προσευχ. μου] ‘in my prayers,’ 
 ‘in orationibus,’ Clarom., Vulg., Goth. ; 
 ἐπὶ here being not simply and crudely 
 temporal, ‘at the time of my prayers’ 
 (adie), but retaining also that shade of 
 local reference of which even the more 
 distinctly temporal examples are not 
 wholly divested: see Bernhardy, Synt. 
 v. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 
 2. The prep. thus serves to express the 
 concurrent circumstances and relations 
 in which, and under which an event took 
 place; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47, g, p. 336. 
 17. ἵνα 6 Θεὸς κ. τ. λ.] ‘that God 
 εἰς. ; ᾿ subject of the prayer blended with 
 the purpose of making it. The exact 
 meaning of this particle both here and in 
 similar passages requires a brief notice. 
 The uses of ἵνα in the N. T. appear to 
 be three, — (1) Final, or indicative of 
 the end, purpose, or object of the action, 
 —the primary and principal meaning, 
 and never to be given up except on the 
 most distinct counter-arguments. (2) 
 Sub-final, — occasionally, especially after 
 verbs of entreaty (not of command), the 
 subject of the prayer being blended with, 
 and even in some cases obscuring the 
 purpose of making it; see esp. Winer, 
 Gr. § 44. 8, p. 299, and notes on Phil. i. 
 9. (3) Eventual, or indicative of result, 
 —appy. in a few cases, and due, per- 
 haps, more to what is called ‘Hebrew 
 teleology’ (1. 6. the reverential aspect 
 under which the Jews regarded prophecy 
 and its fulfilment) than grammatical de- 
 pravation ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, p. 
 406 sq. After maturely weighing the 
 2vidence adduced by Winer and others, 
 few, perhaps, will hesitate to character- 
 ize Fritzsche’s and Meyer’s strenuous 
 
 ὑμῶν 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 33 
 
 17 &% 
 
 ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 
 
 denial of (2) and (3) as perverse, and 
 the criticism of Eadie, who admitting 
 (3), denies (2) after verbs of entreaty, 
 as somewhat illogical. In the pres- 
 ent case, independent of the parallelism 
 afforded by numerous similar passages 
 (ch. iii. 16, Phil. i. 9, Col. i. 9, iv. 3, 1 
 Thess. iv. 1,2 Thess. i. 11), the presence 
 of the opt. δῴη after the pres. (hoped for, 
 dependent realization, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
 11. p. 622, Bernhardy, Synt. xi. 11, p. 
 407) inclines us distinctly to this sub- 
 Jinal or secondary telic use; compare 
 Winer, § 41. 1. obs. p. 260. On the 
 late and incorrect form δῴη for δοίη, see 
 Lobeck, Phyrn. p. 845, Sturz, de Dial. 
 Maced. p. 52. ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Kv- 
 ρίου] ‘the God of our Lord ;’ see John 
 xx. 17, Matth. xxvii. 46. ‘Deus ejus est 
 qua ex eo natus in Deum est,’ Hilar. de 
 Trin. τν. 35, p. 96. The somewhat con- 
 torted explanations of this and the fol- 
 lowing clause, cited by Suicer (Thes. 
 Vol. 1. p. 944), may be dispensed with 
 if this only be observed, that ‘the word 
 God was never looked upon as a word of 
 office or dominion, but of nature and sub- 
 stance,’ Waterland, Sec. Def. Qu. 11. Vol. 
 11. p. 399. The admirably perspicuous 
 distinctions of the same author, in Ans. 
 to Pref. Vol. 11. p. 415, deserve perusal. 
 ὁ πατὴρ τῆς SdEnS| ‘the Father of 
 glory ;? comp. Psalm xxviii. 8, Acts vii. 
 Ql Cor ies) ΕἸΘΌΣ τσ ρθη; ΟΕ 
 characteristic quality, see Scheuerl. Synt. 
 § 16. 3, p. 115, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 2. b, p. 
 211. It is singular that a mere adjec- 
 tival resolution (Riickert), or a poetical 
 and less usual meaning of πατὴρ (sc. 
 ‘auctor,’ Job xxxviii. 28, probably Jas. 
 i. 17, and perhaps Heb. xii. 9, but see 
 context; not 2 Cor. i. 8 [Eadie], see De 
 W., and Mey.), should so generally have 
 been adopted instead of this simple and 
 grammatical explanation. The use of 
 πατὴρ was probably suggested by the 
 
94 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cnap. I. 18. 
 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 6 πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, δῴη ὑμῖν Πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ 
 
 ΜΨ va: > 5 ¥ > an 
 ἀποκαλύψεως, EV ἐπιγνώσει αὑτοῦ), 
 
 foregoing mention of our Lord, while the 
 qualifying gen. δόξης serves appropriately 
 to carry on the ref. to the eternal glory 
 of God which pervades the whole of the 
 The reference, then, of 
 δόξα to the glorified humanity (Stier), or 
 to the divine nature of Christ (Athan , 
 Greg -Naz., see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. 
 p- 944) is by no means necessary. 
 
 first paragraph. 
 
 Πνεῦμα σοφίας κ. τ. A] ‘the Spirit 
 of wisdom and revelation ; the character- 
 izing genitives denoting the special forms 
 and peculiar manifestations in which the 
 Apostle prayed for the gift of the Spirit 
 to his converts; compare Rom. i. 4, 2 
 Cor. iy. 18, 2 Tim. i. 7, see notes on Gal. 
 yi. 1, and on the omission of the article 
 with Πνεῦμα, notes on zb., ch. v. 5. The 
 favorite subjective and objective distinc- 
 tions of Harl., viz. that cop. is the sub- 
 jective state, ἀποκάλ. the objective me- 
 dium, are not necessary, nor eyen, as 
 the order (state to means, not vice versa) 
 suggests, logically satisfactory ; copia is 
 simply the general gift of illumination ; 
 ἀποκάλ. the more special gift of insight 
 into the divine mysteries; see further 
 remarks in notes on 1 Zim. ii. 7. 
 
 ἐν ἐπιγνώσει avtod| ‘in the (full) 
 ‘knowledge of Him, ‘in agnitione [or 
 rather cognitione| ejus,’ Clarom., Vulg. ; 
 ev not being for eis (Grot., Wolf) or διά 
 (Beza), but, as usual, marking the sphere 
 or element in which the action takes 
 place; the knowledge of God (not 
 Christ, Calv., to whom the first ref. is in 
 ver. 20) was to be the sphere, the circum- 
 ambient element in which they were to 
 receive wisdom and revelation; compare 
 2 Pet. i. 2, and see esp. Winer, Gr. § 
 48. a, p. 345. Ἔν ἐπιγν. thus belongs to 
 the whole preceding clause, not specially 
 to ἀποκάλ., still less to what follows 
 (Chrys. Zachm., al.), both of which con- 
 nections would interfere with the paral- 
 
 / 
 * πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφ- 
 
 lelism of ver. 15 and 16; πνεῦμα x. τ. A. 
 being symmetrical with πεφωτ. κ. τ. Δ.» 
 - ἐν ἐπιγν. with εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι. 
 The ἐπὶ in ἐπίγνωσις may be either addi- 
 tive (Eadie), in ref. to the increments of 
 knowledge continually received, or, more 
 probably, simply zntens7ve, scil. ‘cognitio 
 accurata et certa,’ Bretschn., erkennt- 
 niss; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, see Rost τι. 
 Palm, Lex. s. v. ἐπὶ, iv. c. 5, and De- 
 litasch. on Heb. x. 26. 
 
 18. 
 ϑαλμοὺ 9] ‘having the eyes of your heart 
 enlightened.’ 
 
 πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὃφ- 
 Three constructions are 
 here possible: (a) Accus. absolute, πε- 
 φωτισμένους agreeing with ὀφϑαλμούς, 
 Peile, Eadie. (0) Accusatival clause 
 after, δῴη, καὶ being omitted to give the 
 clause an emphatically appositional as- 
 pect; see Harless and Stier. (c) Lax 
 construction of part.; πεφωτ. referring 
 to duty, and τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς being accus. 
 of limiting reference; Winer, Gir. § 32. 
 5. 6, p. 205, Madvig, Synt. § 31, comp. 
 Hartung, Of these (a) is 
 grammatically doubtful, for though such 
 accusatives undoubtedly do exist, esp. in 
 later writers, — see Wannowski's elabo- 
 rate treatise de Construct. Abs. 1v. 5, p. 
 146 sq.,—still they far more generally 
 admit of an explanation from the con- 
 text; see Winer, § 82. 7, p. 206, comp. 
 Bernh Synt. 111. 30, p. 133. Again (0d), 
 is somewhat grammatically doubtful, on 
 account of the article (see Beng-), and 
 certainly exegetically unsatisfactory, ‘en- 
 lightened eyes’ rather defining the effect 
 of the Spirit than forming any sort of 
 apposition to It; see Meyer in loc. In 
 (c) the connection of the accusatives is 
 less simple, but the other syntactic diffi- 
 culties are but slight, as a permutation 
 of case, esp. in participial clauses, is not 
 uncommon in the N. T. (e. g. Acts xy. 
 22, Winer, ὁ 63. 1. 1, p. 500), nor with- 
 
 ‘asus, p. 62. 
 
Cuap. I. 18, 
 
 EPHESIANS. 35 
 
 v 
 
 Sarpods τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, εἰς TO εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς 
 
 out distinct parallel in classical Greek ; 
 see exx. in Wannowski, Iv. 6, p. 169 
 sq., Jelf, Gr. ὃ 711. ‘This then seems 
 the most probable constr.: πεφώτ. k. τ. 
 A. serves to define the result of the gift 
 of the Spirit (comp. Phil. iii. 15, 1 
 Thess. iii. 13, Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 
 549 sq), and owing to the subsequent 
 inf. (εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι) which expresses the 
 purpose of the illumination, not unnatu- 
 rally lapses into the accusative. 
 
 τοὺς Oo. τῆς καρδίας] ‘the eyes 
 of your heart; a somewhat unusual and 
 figurative expression denoting the in- 
 ward intelligence of that portion of our 
 immaterial nature (the ψυχή), of which 
 the καρδία is the imaginary seat; comp. 
 Acta Thom. ὃ 28, τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφϑαλ- 
 μούς, and see esp. Beck, Seelen/. 111. 24. 
 3, p. 94 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. i. 5. 
 On the use and meaning of φωτίζειν, 
 here, to illuminate with the brightness of 
 inner light, see esp. Harl. in loc., and 
 contrast Eph. ili. 9, where, as the con- 
 text shows, the illumination is of a na- 
 ture less inward and vital; comp. Beck, 
 Seelenl. 11. 13. 2, p. 37. The read- 
 ing of Rec., 6p3. τῆς διανοίας, has only 
 the support of some cursive mss. : 
 Theod., QCicum. al. tls] ‘what.’ 
 There appears no reason to adopt in 
 this verse either a qualitative (‘ cujus- 
 nam nature, Wahl, Harl.), or, what is 
 appy. more questionable, a quantitative 
 (ποταπήῇ, πόση, Holzh, Stier) transla- 
 tion; the ordinary meaning ‘what’ 
 (‘que spes,’ Vulg.), is fully sufficient, 
 and includes all more special interpreta- 
 tions. The articles with ἐλπὶς and πλοῦ- 
 tos only serve to point them out as well- 
 known and recognized, and as indirectly 
 alluded to throughout the preceding par- 
 agraph; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 27, 
 p- 324, Stalb. Plato, Crit. 43 c. 
 
 n ἐλπὶς x. τ. A.] ‘the hope of His call- 
 ing,’ i. 6. the hope which the calling 
 
 works in the heart; κλήσεως being the 
 gen. of the causa efficiens, Scheuerl. 
 Synt. ὃ 17, p. 125. Ἐλπὶς is thus not 
 objective, τὸ ἐλπιζόμενον (Olsh., Eadie), 
 a meaning scarcely fully substantiated 
 even in Col. i. 5 (comp. notes zn loc.), 
 and here certainly unnecessary, but as 
 usual subjective; ἐπὶ ποίαις ἐλπίσι κεκ- 
 λήμεϑα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, Theod. Like πίστις, 
 it is probably occasionally used in an 
 objective aspect (‘objectivirt’), as ‘the 
 grounds, the state of hope,’ but just as 
 πίστις is not used in the N. T. for ‘re- 
 ligio Christiana’ (see on Gal. i. 23), so 
 it is very doubtful whether ἐλπὶς ever 
 fully amounts to ‘res sperata,’ as as- 
 serted by Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 
 1095. Tis 6 πλοῦτον K.T. A. 
 ‘what the riches of the glory of His inher- 
 itance;’ a noble accumulation of (pos- 
 sessive) genitives, setting forth the κλη- 
 povoula on the side of its glory, and that 
 glory on the side of its riches. All ad- 
 jectival solutions, it need scarcely be 
 said, are wholly inadmissible ; see notes 
 on ver. 6, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 3.1, p. 
 171 sq. The prefixed καὶ is omitted 
 by Lachm. with ABDIFG; 59: Cla- 
 rom., Sangerm., Amit., Goth., al., but 
 appy. rightly retained by Tisch., Mey., 
 al., with D8EKL; nearly all mss.; 
 Copt., Syr. (both), al.; Orig. (Cat.), 
 Chrys., Theod., — as the καὶ in the third 
 member (ver. 19) might have so easily 
 suggested an omission in the second. 
 
 ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘among the saints ;’ 
 a semi-local clause appended to τίς (ἐσ- 
 tw) ὃ “πλοῦτος k. τ. A. defining the 
 sphere (the whole community of the 
 faithful, comp. Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18) in 
 which the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξ. τῆς KAnp. is 
 peculiarly found, felt, and realized: com- 
 pare Col. i. 27, and see Meyer, h. J. 
 Harless connects ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις with KAn- 
 ρον. αὐτοῦ, an interpretation exegetically 
 tenable (see Stier in loc. p. 161 sq.), but, 
 
36 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. I. 19. 
 
 an / > fa) \ if « a an ie an ͵΄ 
 τῆς κλήσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας 
 
 αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις, 
 
 on account of the omission of the arti- 
 cle, by no means so grammatically ad- 
 missible, even in Hellenistic Greek, as 
 the somewhat sweeping language of Alf. 
 in loc. would lead us to conclude. For 
 as the former clause contains a defined 
 and self-subsistent idea (not merely κλη- 
 pov. évk.7.A. Job xiii. 15, ete., but κλη- 
 pov. αὐτοῦ, SC. Θεοῦ, a very distinct 
 expression), the latter cannot easily be 
 regarded as supplemental, and thus, as 
 legitimately anarthrous; see notes on 
 ver. 15. If, however, ἐν tots ay. be 
 immediately connected with the unex- 
 pressed ἐστί, the omission of the article 
 will be less sensibly felt (comp. Winer, 
 Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 155), and the harmony 
 in the three clauses fully preserved ; the 
 first, ἐλπὶς x. τ. A. being stated generally, 
 the second, πλοῦτος x. T. Δ.» more nearly 
 specialized by ἐν τοῖς ay., the sphere in 
 which it is found; the third, τὸ ὑπερβάλ- 
 Aov k. T. A., by eis ἡμᾶς, the living 
 objects towards whom it is, and will be, 
 exercised. 
 
 19. καὶ τί τὸ ὕπερβ. κ. τ. Χ.] 
 ‘and what (is) the exceeding greatness of 
 His power ;’ specification of that by 
 which hope becomes quickened and real- 
 ized; ὅση τὶς περίεσται κτῆσις ayadav 
 τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁγίοις ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος 
 αἰῶνος, Theodorus, Chrys., Theoph., and 
 Cécum. refer this clause simply to the 
 present life. This is doubtful, as the 
 foregoing expressions, ἐλπὶς and KAnpo- 
 vouia (ch. v. 5, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9, Gal. 
 y. 21), and the reference in the following 
 verse seem to point primarily to the 
 power of God which shall hereafter 
 quicken us even as it did Christ, and 
 shall install us in our inheritance as it 
 enthroned Him on the right hand of 
 God. There is thus a kind of climax, 
 — the hope which the calling awakens, 
 —the exhaustless and inexpressible 
 
 "Ὁ καὶ τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεδος τῆς δυνά- 
 
 glory (Chrys.) of that inheritance to 
 which hope is directed, — the limitless 
 power that shall bestow it. Still the in- 
 dividualizing εἰς ἡμᾶς seems to show 
 that a secondary reference to the present 
 quickening power in the hearts of be- 
 lievers (ch. ii. 1, 5) is by no means to be 
 excluded. ἡμᾶς 
 πιστ.}] ‘to us-ward who are believing ;’ 
 objects towards whom the exceeding 
 greatness of the power is displayed; the 
 eis ἡμᾶς not being dependent on τῆς δυ- 
 νάμ. αὐτοῦ (Harl., citing 2 Cor. xiii. 4, 
 where however eis ὑμᾶς is most probably 
 to be joined with ζήσομεν ; see Meyer in 
 loc.) but, as in the preceding member, 
 on τί (ἐστί) and eis having its regular 
 and primary sense of ethical direction, 
 admirably expressed by ‘to us-ward,’ 
 Auth. Ver.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. c. 
 5, p- 353. The second and third clauses 
 τίς 6 πλοῦτος κ. τ. λ., aNd τί τὸ ὕπερβ. kK. 
 τ. A., are thus perfectly symmetrical, the 
 substantival sub-clauses forming a paral- 
 lelism to each other, and the preposi- 
 tional sub-clause eis ἡμᾶς being struc- 
 turally parallel to the preceding ἐν τοῖς 
 ἁγίοις, while at the same time it prepares 
 us for the latent apposition suggested by 
 the ἐν Xp. which follows; see Stier in 
 loc., p. 155. κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ- 
 γειαν does not refer to all three clauses 
 (Harl.), but, as the correspondence of 
 ideas and language distinctly suggests, 
 to that immediately preceding ; not, 
 however, especially to πιστεύοντας 
 (Riick.), for such a connection, though 
 doctrinally unexceptionable (see Col. ii. 
 12), is eregetically unsatisfactory from its 
 interpolation of an unlooked-for idea, — 
 viz., the origin and antecedents of faith. 
 The reference, then, is simply to the 
 whole clause, not, however, as an expla- 
 nation (Chrys.) or amplification (Calv.) 
 of this power, but, in accordance with 
 
 > \ 
 ers TOUS 
 
Crap. I. 20. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 37 
 
 fa) ’ a Ν \ , rn ΄ 
 μεως αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας KATA τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Kpa- 
 
 τους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, “ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἐγείρας 
 
 the full ethical force of κατά (“ measure,’ 
 ‘proportion,’ Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, 
 p- 239), as a definition of its mode of 
 operation (Eadie), a mighty measure, a 
 stupendous exemplar by which its infinite 
 powers towards the believing, in its fu- 
 ture, yea, and its present manifestations, 
 might be felt, acknowledged, estimated, 
 and realized; comp. Ignat. Trall. 9, 
 where, however, the ὁμοίωμα of the ἔγερ- 
 ots is more alluded to than in the pres- 
 ent passage. As the meaning of κατὰ 
 here falls short of ‘propter’ (compare 
 Griesb. Opuscula, 11. 5), so it certainly 
 transcends that of mere similitude. 
 
 τῆς ἰσχύος] ‘the 
 strength of His might, ‘robur potentix,’ 
 Aith., scil. the strength which appertains 
 to, is evinced by His ἴσχυς ; neither a 
 Hebraism (Holzh.), nor a mere cumula- 
 tive form of expression (Kiittn.), but a 
 specification of the outcoming and exhi- 
 bition of that power which is the divine 
 attribute ; see ch. vi. 10, Dan. iv. 27. 
 Each word has thus its distinct and 
 proper force; ἔσχυς, as its derivation 
 (toxw, ἔχω) implies, refers rather to pas- 
 sive, inherent power (Mark xii. 30) ; κρά- 
 τος (KPA, KAP, cogn. with κάρα, comp. 
 Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. 178) to 
 power evinced in action ; see Luke i. 51. 
 The striking force of the expressions 
 here used to specify this ‘eminent act of 
 God’s omnipotency’ is well illustrated 
 by Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 11. p. 
 222 (ed. Burt.). 
 
 20. ἣν ἐνήργησεν) ‘which He 
 wrought,’ scil. ἣν évépyeay,—which act 
 of omnipotence God, as the principal 
 cause (see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 
 I. p. 301, ed. Burt.), displayed in Christ, 
 and in Him in us (‘innuit efficaciam Dei 
 in credentibus,’ Cocc.) who share the 
 humanity He vouchsafed to take, and 
 are spiritually risen with our risen Lord; 
 
 τοῦ κράτους- 
 
 see Stier in loc. p. 172. The read- 
 ing ἐνήργηκεν (AB; Cyr., Procop.) is 
 adopted by Lachm., Mey., but, as nearly 
 the same authorities [AB ; mss.; Aug., 
 Vulg.; Eus., al.| also read καδίσας, must 
 be regarded as very suspicious, and as a 
 not unlikely emendation of style. 
 
 ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ] ‘in Christ, in Him 
 as our spiritual Head ; ἐν here being no 
 mere ‘nota dativi,’ a construction now 
 exploded in the N. T. (see Winer, Gir. ὃ 
 31. 8, p. 195), but correctly indicating 
 the substratum of the action; see notes 
 on Gal. i. 24. It is scarcely necessary 
 to recapitulate the caution of Theodoret 
 and Theophyl., δῆλον δέ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα 
 ὡς περὶ ἀνδρώπου τέϑεικε (Theod.), τὸ 
 γὰρ ἀναστὰν ἄνϑρωπος, εἰ καὶ Θεῷ ἥνωτο 
 (Theophyl.). In this passage, Phil. ii. 
 6—11, and Col. i. 14—19, as Olsh. well 
 observes, we find the entire Christology 
 of St. Paul. ἐγείρα 5] ‘when He 
 raised Him, Auth., or perhaps better ‘in 
 that He raised Him, Arm. ; contempora- 
 neous act with ἐνήργησεν, sce notes on 
 γνωρίσας, ver. 9. καὶ ἐκάδισεν) 
 ‘and He set Him ;’ change from the par- 
 ticipial structure to the finite verb, espe- 
 cially designed to enhance the impor- 
 tance of the truth conveyed by the 
 participle ; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 
 2. b, p. 505 sq. The distinctive and 
 emphatic mention of the consequent and 
 connected acts heightens the conception 
 of the almighty ἐνέργεια of God (Father, 
 Son, and Spirit, Pearson on Creed, Art. 
 v. Vol. 1. p. 302), displayed in the res- 
 urrection of Christ from the dead. On 
 the session of Christ at the right hand of 
 God, see Knapp, Scripta Var. Argun. 
 Art. 11.; let these words of Bp. Pear- 
 son’s, however, never be forgotten, ‘He 
 shall reign for ever and ever, not only to 
 the modificated eternity of His mediator- 
 ship, but also to the complete eternity 
 
38 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cap. 1910 
 
 . πὸ Σ A \ ’ ΄ι 5 A ’ Coeur aA ’ / 
 QUTOV εκ VEKPWV, Kab ἐκάδισεν εν δεξιᾷ QUTOU €V τοις ETTOUPAVLOLS 
 
 Ἵ ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότη- 
 
 of the duration of His humanity, which 
 for the future is coéternal to His Di- 
 vinity,’ Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 335. 
 
 ἐν tots émovpaviors] ‘in the heav- 
 
 ρ Vv 4 
 enly places’ Losows [in clo] Syr., 
 
 Goth., 7Eth.; see notes on ver. 3. It is 
 scarcely possible to doubt that these 
 The 
 distinctly local expressions, ἐκάϑισεν, ἐν 
 defi, —the Scripture doctrine of Christ’s 
 literal and local ascent (Mark xvi. 19, 
 al.), — His regal session in heayen in his 
 glorified had resplendent Body (Acts vii. 
 56, ἑστῶτα ἐκ Setiwy, al., see Phil. iii. 
 20), — His future literal and local judi- 
 ciary descent (Acts i. 11, ὃν τρόπον 
 
 words have here a local reference. 
 
 ededoacde αὐτὸν πορευόμενον), --- all tend 
 to invalidate the vague and idealistic 
 ‘status celestis” urged by Harless in Joc. 
 The choice of the more general expres- 
 sion, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., ‘in the heavenly re- 
 gions’ (comp. ch. iy. 10), rather than the 
 more specific ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς was perhaps 
 suggested by the nature of the details in 
 Welw le The reading οὐρανοῖς 
 (Zachm. with B; al.; Victorin., Hil.), 
 has weak external support, and seems 
 an almost self-evident gloss. 
 
 21. ὑπεράν ὦ] ‘over above,’ ‘supra,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg., ‘ufaro,’ Goth.; not 
 ‘longe supra,’ Beza, Auth., Alf., al.: 
 specification of the nature and extent 
 of the exaltation. The intensive force 
 which Chrys. and Theophyl. find in this 
 word, ἵνα τὸ ἀκρότατον ὕψος δηλώσῃ, and 
 which has recently been adopted by Stier 
 and Eadie, is very doubtful; as is also 
 the assertion (Eadie) that this prevails 
 ‘in the majority of passages’ in the 
 ΤΟΝ SECOnS ZK. 1.9265, ‘Vall 12; xe 19, 
 Xi. 22, xiii. 15, and even Deut. xxvi. 19, 
 xxviii. 1. Such distinct instances as 
 Ezek. xliii..15, and in the N. T., Heb. 
 ix. 5, — the similarly unemphatic use of 
 
 the antitheton ὑποκάτω, John i. 51, Luke 
 viii. 10,— and the tendencies of Alex- 
 andrian and later Greek to form dupli- 
 cated compounds (see Peyron, ad Pap. 
 Taurin. Vol. 1. p. 89) make it highly 
 probable that ὑπεράνω, both here and ch. 
 iv. 10, implies little more than simple 
 local elevation. So too Syr. and appy. 
 all the ancient Vv. πάσης" ἀρχῆς 
 κι τ. λ.] ‘all (every) rule and authority 
 and power and lordship ;’ no parenthesis, 
 but a fuller explanation of ἐν τοῖς ἐπου- 
 paviors; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 64, 1. 2, p. 
 614 (ed. 5). The context and the illus- 
 trations afforded by ch. iii. 10, Col. i. 16, 
 and 1 Pet. iii. 22, seem to preclude any 
 mere generic reference to all forms of 
 power and dominion (Olsh.), or any 
 specific reference to the orders of the 
 Jewish hierarchy (Schoettg.), or the 
 grades of authority among men (see ap. 
 Pol. Syn.). The abstract words (δυνά- 
 μεών τινων ὀνόματα ἡμῖν ἄσημα, Chrys.) 
 seem to be designations of the orders of 
 heavenly Intelligences, and are used by 
 St. Paul in preference to any concrete 
 terms (ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων κ. τ. A.) tO 
 express with the greatest aptitude and 
 comprehensiveness the sovereign power 
 and majesty of Christ; εἴ τι ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ 
 οὐρανῷ, πάντων ἀνώτερος γέγονε, Chrys., 
 see Caly. in loc. As this verse relates to 
 Christ’s exaltation in heaven rather than 
 His victory over the powers of hell (1 
 Cor. xv. 24, comp. Rom. viii. 38), the 
 reference is, probably, exclusively to 
 good Angels and Intelligences, 1 Tim. v. 
 21, Any attempt to define more closely 
 (see authors cited in Hagenbach, 715]. of 
 Doctr. ὃ 131, Petavius, de Angelis, 11. 1, 
 Vol. 111. ps 101 sq.) is alike presumptu- 
 ous and precarious: see the excellen 
 remarks of Bp. Hall, Invisible World, 
 Book 1. ὃ 7. On the nature of Angels, 
 consult the able treatise by Twesten, 
 
ἄρ᾿ I. 22. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 39 
 
 \ Ν 3 , ’ , / lal al 
 τος, καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῳ μέλλοντι, 
 
 Dogmatik, Vol. 11. esp. § 1. 4, the essay 
 by Stuart, Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843, 
 pp. 88—154, Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 228 
 sq. Vol. 1. p. 276, and the remarks of 
 Lange, Leb. Jes. Part. 11. p. 41 sq. 
 
 καὶ παντὺς dvdpatos| ‘and, in a 
 word, every name named ;’ concluding 
 and comprehensive 
 having here that species of adjunctive 
 
 designation ; καὶ 
 force according to which a general term 
 is appended to foregoing details; see 
 Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, notes on 
 Phil. iv. 12, Fritz. Matth. p. 786. Πᾶν 
 ὄνομα is not ‘every title of honor,’ 
 (Grinf. Scholl. Hell.), a particular expla- 
 nation to which ὀνομαζ. (which has al- 
 ways its simple meaning in the N. T., 
 even in Rom. xy. 20, see Fritz.) is dis- 
 tinctly opposed, — nor again, in refer- 
 ence to Heavenly Powers which are 
 ἀκατονόμαστοι (Theophyl.),—nor even 
 as a generic representation of the fore- 
 going abstract nouns (Wahl, Harless), 
 —pbut simply with reference to every- 
 thing in existence (‘quicquid existit,’ 
 Beza), personal or impersonal, ‘every- 
 thing bearing a name and admitting 
 designation ;’ comp. Col. i. 16, where a 
 similar latitude is implied by the four 
 times repeated εἴτε, and see notes in 
 loc. ov μόνον k.7.A.] clause 
 appended not to ἐκάϑισεν (Beza Koppe), 
 but to παντὸς ὀνόμ. dvouat., to which it 
 gives a still further expansion, both in 
 respect of time and locality, — every- 
 thing named, whether now or hereafier, 
 in the present state of things or the 
 
 world to come; παντὸς ῥητοῦ καὶ ὄνυμασ- 
 τοῦ, οὐ μόνον τοῦ ἐνταῦδα ὀνομαζομένου, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἐκεῖϑεν δυναμένου ῥηδῆναι 
 τῷ 
 αἰῶνι τούτῳ] ‘this world,’ scil. ‘this 
 present state of things,’ ‘systema rerum,’ 
 Beng. With regard to the meaning of 
 αἰὼν it may be observed that in all pas- 
 
 kal ὀνομασϑῆναι, Cicum. 
 
 92 ἊΝ / e f ἕξ (< Ἂς \ 46 
 καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺυς TOOaS 
 
 sages where it occurs, a temporal notion 
 To this, in 
 the majority, an ethical idea is united, so 
 
 is more or less apparent. 
 
 that αἰὼν οὗτος, as Olsh. has observed, is 
 ‘the temporary and terrestrial order of 
 things, in which sin predominates (comp. 
 Gesen. Ler. s. v. o>4z, B), to which 
 αἰὼν μέλλων (= BantActe Θεοῦ), the holy 
 state of things founded by Christ, is the 
 exact contrast; see Comment. on Matth. 
 xii. 31, 32, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
 500, 501 (Bohn). In a few passages, 
 like the present, a semi-local meaning 
 seems also superadded, causing αἰὼν to 
 approach in meaning to κόσμος, though 
 it still may be always distinguished from 
 it by the temporal and commonly ethical 
 notions which ever form its background ; 
 see notes, ch. ii. 2. 
 
 22. καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν] Sand 
 put all things under His feet ;’ further 
 specification of the majesty of Christ, — 
 not only the highest conceivable exal- 
 tation (ver. 21), but the most unbounded 
 sovereignty. The strong similarity of 
 the language scarcely leaves a doubt 
 that here and Heb. ii. 8, there is a dis- 
 tinct allusion to Psalm viii. 7, πάντα 
 imératas ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ ; 
 comp. Gen. i. 38, Nor is this due to 
 any ‘rabbinischtypischer Interpretation- 
 sweise,’ (Mey.) on the part of St. Paul, 
 but to a direct reference under the guid- 
 ance of the Spirit, to a passage in the O. 
 T., which, in its primary application to 
 man, involves a secondary and more 
 profound application to Christ. In the 
 grant of terrestrial sovereignty the 
 Psalmist saw and felt the antitypical 
 mystery of man’s future exaltation in 
 Christ, even more fully than Tholuck 
 and even Hengstenberg in loc. appear to 
 admit. The reference thus seems less to 
 the subjugation of foes, as in 1 Cor. xv. 
 27 (Hamm., Stier), than to the limitless 
 
40 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cxap. I; 95 
 
 A \ \ / Lowe J δ 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, “ἥτις 
 
 nature of Christ’s sovereignty, which 
 the words ὑπὸ τοὺς Kk. τ. A. (ἡ ἐσχάτη 
 ὑποταγή, Chrys.) still more heighten and 
 enhance. On this and the next verse 
 see a sound sermon by Beveridge, in 
 which the three points, Christ’s headship 
 over all things, His headship to the 
 Church, and His relation to it as His 
 body, are well discussed, Serm. xxx11. 
 Vol. 11. p. 124 sq. (A. C. Libr.) 
 
 ἔδωκεν is not synonymous with 4hn:, 
 ἔϑηκεν, ἔστησεν (Wolf, Holzh., and even 
 Harl.), either here or ch. ivy. 11, but (as 
 the dat. ἐκκλησίᾳ and the emphatic posi- 
 tion of αὐτὸν seem to suggest) retains its 
 primary and proper sense. The mean- 
 ing then seems to be, though so exalted 
 and so glorified, yet even Hrm did God, 
 out of his boundless mercy and _benefi- 
 cence, give to the Church to be its head. 
 κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα] ‘head over 
 all things.’ The exact construction and 
 immediate reference of these words is 
 not perfectly clear. 
 dently qualifies kep., not, however, an 
 immediate and adjectival epithet (‘sum- 
 mum caput,’ Beza, Conyb.), but as an 
 accessory and quasi-participial definition, 
 
 Ὑπὲρ πάντα eyi- 
 
 2. 6. ὑπερέχουσαν πάντων ; πάντα being 
 used in exactly the same general sense 
 as before, without any limiting reference 
 to τῇ ἐκκλ. (Harl.), or any implied con- 
 trast to other subordinate heads, apos- 
 tles, prophets, etc. (Olsh.). 
 κεφ. may be regarded either as (a) a sim- 
 ple appositional accus. to the preceding 
 αὐτόν, a second κεφ. being supplied (per 
 brachylogiam) before τῇ éxkKa., —‘ He 
 gave Him, Head over all, (as Head) to 
 his Church ;’ comp. Jelf, Gr. § 893. ¢.; 
 or (b) as an accus. of further predica- 
 tion, serving to complete the notion of 
 the verb, and forming a species of ter- 
 tiary predicate (Donalds. Gr. § 489), — 
 ‘He gave Him as head over all,’ 7. 6. ‘in 
 the capacity of head over all; compare 
 
 The accus. 
 
 Madvig, Synt. § 24. a, and see the vari- 
 ous exx. in Donalds. Gr. § 490. Of 
 these (a) was adopted in ed. 1 (so also 
 Stier, Mey.), and coincides in meaning 
 with the ungrammatical order (ἔδωκεν 
 αὐτὸν [ὄντα] ὑπὲρ πάντα κεφ. TH ἐκκλ.) 
 of Syr., ἀὐῃ.-Ρ] αἴ, Chrys., al., but is, 
 grammatically considered, less simple 
 than (b), and, considered exegetically, 
 but little different in meaning: if God 
 gives Christ to the Church, and Christ 
 at the same time is Head over all things 
 (tertiary predication) He becomes neces- 
 sarily head to the Church. It seems 
 best, then, with (appy.) Syr.-Phil., 
 Vulg., Clarom., Arm., to adopt the lat- 
 ter view; comp. Alf. in loc. 
 
 23. ἥτι 5] ‘which indeed ;’ not exactly 
 ‘ut que,’ Meyer, but ‘que quidem,’ the 
 force of the indef. relative being here 
 rather explanatory than causal, and sery- 
 ing to elucidate the use and meaning of 
 κεφαλὴ by the introduction of the cor- 
 On the uses of 
 ὕστις, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. τὸ 
 σῶμα αὐτοῦ] ‘His hody;’ not in any 
 merely figurative sense, but really and 
 truly; the Church is the veritable body 
 of Christ mystical (ch. iv. 12, 16, esp. v. 
 30), no mere institution subject to Him 
 as to a κεφαλὴ used in any ethical sense, 
 but united to Him as to a κεφαλὴ used 
 in its simple and literal sense; ἵνα yap 
 
 responding term σῶμα. 
 
 > 
 
 μὴ, ἀκούσας κεφαλὴν, ἀρχήν τινα καὶ ἐξου- 
 σίαν νομίσῃς, σωματικῶς φησίν, ἡμῶν ἐστί 
 κεφαλή, (ει. This great and vital 
 truth, and the nature of our union with 
 Christ which it involves and implies, is 
 well illustrated in the beautiful treatise 
 of Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, esp. ch. 
 VII. τὸ πλήρωμα κ. τ. λ.] ‘the 
 fulness of Him that jilleth all things with 
 all things;’ apposition to the preceding 
 τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ designed still more to 
 expand the full meaning of the pre- 
 ceding identification of the Church with 
 
Cnap. I. 23. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 41 
 
 3 \ \ A 5 A \ / rn \ A 
 ἐστὶν TO σῶμα αὐτοῦ, TO πλήρωμα τοῦ Ta πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν 
 
 πληρουμένου. 
 
 the Lord’s body, the general truth con- 
 veyed being τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ 7 
 ἐκκλησία, Chrys. The special meaning 
 and reference of these mysterious words 
 has been greatly contested. This, how- 
 ever, seems clear (esp. after the long 
 and careful note of Fritz. on Rom. xi. 
 12, Vol ir. p. 469), that πλήρωμα is here 
 used passively, and that of its two pas- 
 sive meanings, (a) 7d quod impletum est, 
 and (b) 7d quo res impletur (see notes on 
 Gal. iv. 4), the former, sc. τὸ πεπληρω- 
 μένων, though less common (compare 
 Lucian, Ver. Hist. 11. 37, δύο πληρωμά- 
 των, ‘manned ships’), is here alone 
 applicable. The Church, then, is τὸ 
 TeTAnpwuevovy, —not, however, in the 
 sense ‘plenum Christi agmen,’ ‘homi- 
 num a Christo impletorum caterva,’ as 
 Fritz. paraphrases, but in a simple and 
 almost local sense, ‘that which is filled 
 up by Christ,’ ‘the receptacle’ (Eadie), 
 as it were, of all the gifts, graces, and 
 blessings of Christ; comp. Philo, de 
 Prem. εἰ Pen. p. 920, where the soul is 
 called a πλήρωμα ἀρετῶν, and contrast 
 the opposed κένωμα, as used by the 
 Gnostics to express the void world of 
 sense; Baur Gnosis, p. 157, 462 (cited 
 by Mey.). ἐν πᾶσιν πλη- 
 ρουμ.] ‘Of Him who filleth all things 
 with all things,’ ‘ qui rerum universitatem 
 omnibus rebus [5101] implet,’ Fritz.; ἐν 
 being here used in its instrumental sense 
 (see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18), as serving 
 to specify that with which the filling 
 takes place (see ch. v. 18), and πᾶσιν 
 being used with an equal latitude to τὰ 
 πάντα (ver. 22) as implying, not only 
 ‘all blessings’ (Eadie), but ‘all things’ 
 unrestrictedly ; for by Christ was the 
 whole Universe made, and all things 
 therein ;: see Col. i. 16, and comp. in ref. 
 generally to the terms of the expression, 
 Philo, Sacrif. Cain, § 18, Vol. 1. p. 175 
 (ed. Mang.), πεπληρωκὼς πάντα διὰ πάν- 
 
 6 
 
 των. It has been doubted whether πλη- 
 ροῦσϑαι is (a) passive as Vule,, Clarom., 
 Chrys., al., or (Ὁ) middle, as Syr., Copt., 
 Goth., Arm., whether in a purely active 
 sense (Xen. Hell. v1. 2. 14, 35, see exx. 
 in Rost πὶ. Palm, Lex. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 
 956), or perhaps, as this unique use of 
 the middle in the N. T. suggests, in a 
 specially reciprocal sense ‘sibi implere.’ 
 Of these the latter alone seems admissi- 
 ble, as the idea of Christ receiving com- 
 pletion in His members (Est., compare 
 Harl.) implies restrictions little accord- 
 ant with the inclusive τὰ πάντα. ‘The 
 meaning of the whole then would seem 
 to be, —that the Church is the veritable 
 mystical Body of Christ, yea the recipi- 
 ent of the plenitudes of Him who filleth 
 all things, whether in heaven or in earth, 
 with all the things, elements, and enti- 
 ties of which they are composed. And 
 this, as both the parallelism of τὸ σῶμα 
 αὐτοῦ and τὸ mAnp. k. τ. A. and the ab- 
 sence of any hint of a change of per- 
 son seem distinctly to suggest, must be 
 referred, not to God (Theod. Alf.) but 
 to Christ ; see esp. ch. iv. 10. On 
 the doctrine of the omnipresence of 
 Christ, an eternal truth of vital impor- 
 tance (Bull, Def. Fid. Mic. §4.3.1 sq., 
 Waterland, Sermon vit. 3, Vol. 11. p. 
 164), to which this verse seems to al- 
 lude, see notes on ch. iv. 10, Jackson, 
 Creed, Book xt. 8, 10 sq, and the calm 
 and conciliatory observations of Marten- 
 sen, Dogmatik, ὃ 177 sq. Well and 
 clearly has it been said by Andrews, 
 ‘Christ is both in Heayen and earth: as 
 He is called the Head of His Church, 
 He is in Heaven, but in respect of 
 His body which is called Christ He is 
 on earth,’ Serm. x11. Vol ν. p. 407. 
 
 The omission of τὰ (Rec.) is opposed 
 to all the MSS. and to the majority of 
 mss., and adopted by none of the best 
 recent editors. 
 
42 
 
 You too who were dead in 
 sin He hath quickened, 
 
 Il. 
 
 vation is by grace, not works. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. II. 1. 
 
 \ e a , \ a 
 Kai ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώ- 
 
 raised, and even enthroned with and in Christ, to show all ages the riches of His grace and love. 
 
 Your sal- 
 
 1. ὑμῶν] This word was omitted in ed. 1 with Rec. and Tisch. (ed. 2) on the 
 authority of KL; great majority of mss.; Chrys. Dam., al.,—but, though some- 
 what doubtful on account of the variation of A (ἑαυτῶν), is appy. to be restored on 
 the greatly preponderating authority of BDEFG; 15 mss.: nearly all Vv.; 
 
 Theod., al. 
 
 Cuaprer II. 1. καὶ twas] ‘And 
 you also,’ ‘you too;’ special address and 
 application of the foregoing to the case 
 of the readers; καὶ neither (a) simply 
 connecting the verse with what precedes, 
 
 ? 
 
 sc. καὶ ὑπέταξεν, καὶ ἔδωκεν, kal ὑμᾶς K. 
 τ. A. (Lachm.), — as ver. 23 is plainly a 
 conclusion of the foregoing clause, nor 
 (0) serving to introduce a special exem- 
 plification of the general act of grace in 
 ver. 23 (Peile),— as the force of the 
 correlation between νεκροὺς and ouve wr. 
 is thus seriously impaired, but ratber (c) 
 applying what has been said to the ὑμᾶς, 
 to which word it gives emphasis and 
 prominence. The Ephesians are re- 
 minded how they also had experienced 
 in their moral death the energy of the 
 same quickening power which raised 
 Christ from physical death (ch. i. 20), 
 the ascensive force of καὶ being just per- 
 ceptible in the implied parallelism be- 
 tween the νέκρωσις ψυχικὴ in the case of 
 the Ephesians (see next note), and the 
 νέκρωσις σωματικὴ on the part of Christ 
 (ch. i. 20); comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
 p. 636. The connection has also its 
 difficulties. According to the most sim- 
 ple view, ver. 1, after having its struc- 
 ture interrupted by the two relatival sen- 
 tences, ver. 2, 8, is renewed in ver. 4 
 (not ver. 5, Schott.), by means of δὲ 
 resumptive (Herm. Viger, No. 544), and 
 there further elucidated by the inter- 
 polated nominat. Θεός, expanded in ap- 
 plication by the more comprehensive 
 ἡμᾶς, and concluded in yer. 5; see The- 
 ophyl. in loc. ὄντας νεκροῦ] 
 ‘being dead,’ se. spiritually ; νέκρωσις οὐκ 
 
 So Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1 and 3.) 
 
 3 
 
 ἡἣ σωματική, ἣ ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ ἀρξαμένη, 
 
 5) 
 
 ἀλλὰ ἡ ψυχική, ἡ ἐξ ἡμῶν συνισταμένη, 
 Theophyl. ; compare Bramhall, (δέν. 
 111. 2, Vol. rv. 233 (Angl. Cath. Lib.). 
 The proleptic reference to physical 
 death, scil. ‘certo (Mey-), 
 seems irreconcilable with the context. 
 The πλούσιος dy ἔν ἐλέει, which seems 
 to specify God's mercy in extending the 
 exercise of His resurrectionary power, 
 would thus lose much of its appropriate- 
 ness, and the particle καὶ (ver. 5) its 
 proper ascensive force. On this and the 
 two following verses, see a good prac- 
 tical sermon by Usher, Serm. 1v. Vol. 
 xl. p. 45 (ed. Elringt.) 
 παραπτώμασιν κ. τ. A.) ‘by the tres- 
 
 morituri’ 
 
 τοῖς 
 
 passes and sins which ye had committed,’ 
 ‘delictis et peccatis,’ Vulg., Goth.; not 
 ‘in delictis,’ ete., Arm.; the dat. being 
 appy. that of the causa instrumentalis ; 
 see Hartung, Casus, p. 79, Winer, Gr. § 
 31. 7, p. 194. In the closely parallel 
 passage Col ii. 13, νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς 
 παραπτώμασιν, the same general senti- 
 ment is expressed under slightly differ- 
 ent relations; here sin is conceived as 
 that which kills (Olsh.); there it is de- 
 scribed as the element or state in which 
 the νέκρωσις shows and reveals itself; 
 comp. notes in loc. It is doubtful 
 whether the distinction drawn by Titt- 
 mann (Synon, p. 45) between παραπτ., 
 sins rashly (‘a nolente facere injuriam ἢ), 
 and ἁμαρτίαι sins designedly committed, 
 can be fully substantiated ; both equally 
 referring to ‘peccata actualia,’ whether 
 in thought, word, or deed, and differing 
 more in the images (‘ missing,’ ‘ stum- 
 
Cuap. II. 2. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 43 
 
 \ - - / fal - 
 μασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, "ἐν αἷς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε 
 
 bling’) under which they are presented 
 to our conception, than in the degree of 
 intention ascribed to the perpetrator ; 
 see Fritz. Rom. v. 15, Vol. 1. p. 324, 
 comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 2, 
 Vol. 1. p. 92 (Clark). Perhaps we may 
 say generally, that παραπτώματα, as its 
 derivation suggests, is the more limited 
 term, viz. particular, special acts of sin ; 
 ἁμαρτίαι [a pepos, μείρω, Buttm. Lexil. 
 No. 15, note], the more inclusive and 
 abstract, viz. all forms, phases and 
 movements of sin, whether entertained 
 in thought or consummated in act ; com- 
 pare notes on Col. ii. 16. 
 
 2. ἐν ais] ‘in which;’ not so much 
 with ref. to the prevailing direction (De 
 Weitc), as the sphere in which they 
 habitually moved. It does not, how- 
 ever, seem necessary to press the mean- 
 ing of περιπατεῖν (‘sphere in which they 
 trod,’ Eadie) this being one of those 
 words in the N. T. which are used with 
 so strong a Hebraistic coloring (see the 
 list, Winer, Gr. ὃ 3, p. 81), that in sey- 
 eral passages it denotes little more than 
 ‘vivere ;’ see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 12, Vol. 
 111. p. 141, Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 
 Tepe «679: τὸν αἰῶνα κ. τ. A.| 
 ‘according to the course of this world,’ 
 
 oo 2 ο > ρ ° 
 Auth. Lior ἰδοῦν.» oZostaSs 
 [mundanitatem mundi hujus] Syr.; the 
 ethical meaning of αἰὼν here appy. pre- 
 dominating; see on ch. i. 22. In such 
 cases as the present the meaning seems 
 to approach that of ‘ tendency, spirit, of 
 the age’ (Olsh.), yet still not without 
 distinct trace of the regular temporal 
 notion, which, even in those passages 
 where αἰὼν seems to imply little more 
 than our ‘world’ (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10), 
 may still be felt in the idea of the (evil) 
 course, development, and progress (‘ ubi 
 xtas mala malam excipit’) that is tac- 
 itly associated with the term ; see Beng. 
 
 in loc., and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chret. 
 Iv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 228. Any Gnostic 
 reference (Baur, Paulus, p. 433), as St. 
 Paul’s frequent use of the word satisfac- 
 torily proves, is completely out of the 
 question. κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα 
 k. τ. A.| ‘according to the prince of the 
 power or empire of the air,’ scil. the 
 devil; climax to the foregoing member, 
 the contrast being κατὰ Θεόν, ch. iv. 24. 
 Without entering into the various inter- 
 pretations these difficult words have re- 
 ceived, we will here only notice briefly, 
 (1) the simple meaning of the words ; 
 (2) (3) 
 their probable explanation. (1) the 
 two cardinal words are ἐξουσία and ἀήρ. 
 The former, like many words in --ἰία 
 (Bernhardy, Synt. 1. 2, p. 47), appears 
 used, not exactly for ἐξουσίαι, scil. as an 
 abstract implying the concrete posses- 
 sors of the ἐξουσία (comp. Dionys. Hal. 
 vil. 44), but as a collective designation 
 of their empire and sovereignty, see esp. 
 Lobeck Phryn. p. 469. ᾿Αὴρ is used 
 thrice by St. Paul besides this place, 
 thrice in the rest of the N. T., — (a) 
 ‘the air’ simply and generally, Acts 
 xxii 23,1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9, and appy. 
 Rev. ix. 2,— (8) as ‘the 
 probably, strict physical reference, Rey. 
 xvi. 17, — (y) as ‘the air or sky,’ appy. 
 tacitly correlative to γῆ (the seat of the 
 περιλειπόμενοι), 1 Thess. iv. 17. We 
 seem, then, bound to reject all partial 
 interpretations, 6. g. σκότος (Heinsius, 
 Kuttn. ap. Peile), πνεῦμα (Hofmann 
 Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 403), and to leave 
 the context to define the specific mean- 
 ing and application of the word. (2) 
 The gen. ἀέρος is not a gen. objecti, ‘cui 
 potestas est aeris,’ Beza; nor qualitatis, 
 scil. ἀέριος, ἀσώματος (so Phrys., appy., 
 but not the Greek Fathers generally), 
 but a gen. of place, denoting their évaé- 
 ριον διατριβήν (Cacum.), the seat of their 
 
 their grammatical connection ; 
 
 air,’ with, 
 
44 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. 11. 2. 
 
 κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ TOV ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξου- 
 
 σίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς 
 
 spiritual empire; οὐχ ὡς τοῦ ἀέρος δεσ- 
 πόζντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς αὐτῷ ἐμφιλοχωρουντα, 
 Theophyl.; compare Bernhardy, Synt. 
 ὙΠ 33. a, p. 137. (3) The explana- 
 tion really turns on the latitude of mean- 
 ing assigned to ἀήρ. 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 lim- 
 itation to the physical atmosphere (Mey.) 
 is as precarious in doctrine as the refer- 
 ence to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting 
 a death-world’ (Eadie), or to the com- 
 mon parlance of mankind (Alf.), is too 
 vague and undefined. The natural ex- 
 planation seems to be this, — that as 
 οὐρανὸς is used in a limited and partial 
 (Matt. vi. 26), as well as an uncircum- 
 scribed meaning, so conversely ἀήρ, which 
 is commonly confined to the region of 
 the air or atmosphere, may be extended 
 to all that supra-terrestrial but sub-celes- 
 tial region (6 ὑπουράνιος τύπος, Chrys.) 
 which seems to be, if not the abode, yet 
 the haunt of evil spirits; see esp. LXX., 
 Job i. 7, ἐμπεριπατήσας τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν ; 
 compare Olsh. in loc., and Stuart, Bibl. 
 Sacra for 1848, p. 139; see also Hagen- 
 bach, Stud. τι. Krit. Vol. 1. 479. Quo- 
 tations out of Rabbinical writings and 
 Greek philsophers will be found in 
 Wetst., and Harl. zn /oc., but that St. 
 Paul drew his conceptions from the for- 
 mer (Mey.) or the latter (Wetst.), we 
 are slow indeed to believe; see the re- 
 marks on Gal. ch. iv. 24. τοῦ 
 mvevpatos| ‘the spirit;’ scil. the evil 
 principle of action, more specially de- 
 fined by the succeeding words. The 
 explanation of this gen. is not easy, as 
 exegesis appears to suggest one construc- 
 tion, grammar another. The most con- 
 venient assumption, an anomaly of case 
 (gen. for accus. in apposition to τὸν apx. 
 x. T.A., Heinichen, Euseb. JZist. Eccl. y. 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 20, Vol. ii. p. 99), is so doubtful, that it 
 seems best, with Winer (Gr. 67. 3, p. 
 558), to regard the gen. as dependent on 
 τὸν ἄρχοντα, and in apposition with ἐξου- 
 σίας ; πμεῦμα not referring, like ἐξουσία, 
 to the aggregate of individual πνεύματα 
 (πάντος évaepiov πνεύματος, Theophyl., 
 compare Eadie, Alf.), a very doubtful 
 meaning, owing to the difference of ter- 
 mination, but to the evil principle which 
 animated the empire, and emanated from 
 Satan, the ruler of it. There is con- 
 fessedly an exegetical difficulty in the 
 expression τὸν ἄρχ. τοῦ πνεύμ. ; this, 
 however, may be removed either by sup- 
 plying a similar but more appropriate 
 substantive out of τὸν a&x., or (what is 
 in effect the same) by observing that τοῦ 
 πνεύματος has a species of objective 
 meaning reflected on it from the words 
 with which it is in apposition. There is 
 probably, as Harless and Meyer suggest, 
 a tacit antithesis in τοῦ πν. to the Πνεῦμα 
 τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 12. 
 
 νῦν is commonly referred to the period 
 since the redemption, the time of in- 
 creased satanic energy and of hottest 
 strife (De Wette); comp. Rey. xii. 12. 
 This, however, is more than the words 
 seem intended to convey. As ποτέ, ver. 
 1, is again repeated ver. 3, the natural 
 antithesis appears νῦν---ποτέ; the Apos- 
 tle specifies the still active existence in 
 one class, the children of disobedience, 
 of the same spirit which formerly wrought 
 not only in his readers, but in all; sim. 
 Hammond and Harless in doc. 
 υἱοῖς τῆς a&metd.| ‘the sons of diso- 
 bedience;’ a Hebraistic circumlocution 
 nearly equivalent to οἱ ἐξ ἀπειϑείας 
 (compare Fritz. Rom. ii. 16, Vol. i. p. 
 105), and serving to mark more vividly 
 than the adjectival construction the essen- 
 tial and innate disobedience of the sub- 
 jects, —a disobedience to which they 
 
 τοῖς 
 
Cuap. II. 3. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 45 
 
 » t 3 3 e Nore a ΄ ᾽ , t 3 a 
 ἀπειδείας, εν OLS και NMELS παντες ἀνεστράφημεέν TTOTE ἐν TALS 
 
 ἐπιϑυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν, ποιοῦντες τὰ ϑελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς 
 
 belong as chidren to a parent; comp. ch. 
 v. 6, Col. iii. 6 (notes), 1 Thess. v. 5 
 (notes), 2 Thess. ii. 3, and see Winer, 
 Gr. § 34. 3.b, 2, p. 153, and Gurlitt, 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 728. ᾿Απειϑεία, 
 as in Col. iii. 6 (see critical note zn /oc.), 
 is obviously neither ‘diffidentia’ (Vulg., 
 Clarom., ‘ungalaubeinais,’ Goth. ; com- 
 pare /Eth.), nor ἀπάτη (Chrysost.), but 
 
 ‘ disobedience,’ [ZotmsasAte ts 
 3 Ο o == w ae 
 
 [inobedientize] (Syr., Arm.), whether to 
 the message of the Gospel or the man- 
 dates of the conscience, — sin, in fact, in 
 its most enhanced form, the violation of 
 the dependence of the creature on the 
 Creator; see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 
 2, Vol. 1. p. 91 (Clark). 
 
 3. ἐν ois] ‘among whom,’ Auth., 
 scil. ὧν καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες, Riick.; not ἐν ois 
 SC. παραπτώμασιν (Syr., Hier.), in which 
 case ver. 2 would illustrate the ἅμαρτ., 
 ver. 3 the maparr. The parallelism (ἐν 
 αἷς----ν ois) is a specious argument for 
 such a reference (see Stier in loc., p. 
 252); still, grammatical perspicuity, the 
 studied change to ἀνεστράφ., and still 
 more the very general nature of the dis- 
 tinction between παραπτώματα and ἅμαρ- 
 tia are seriously opposed to it; comp. 
 2 Cor. i. 12, where ἄνεστρ. is similarly 
 used with a double ἔν, the first (semi- 
 local) referring to the surrounding ob- 
 jects, 1 Tim. iii. 15, the second (ethical) 
 to the element in which they moved, 2 
 Pet. ii. 18. kal ἡμεῖς πάντ εΞ9] 
 ‘even we all;’ Jews and Gentiles, not 
 Jews alone (Mey.). As ὑμεῖς (ver. 1, 2) 
 denotes the Gentile world, so it might be 
 argued ἡμεῖς would seem naturally to 
 refer to the Jews. To this, however, 
 the addition of πάντες presents an insu- 
 perable objection, as almost obviously 
 designed to preclude any such _limita- 
 tion, and to expand the reference to both 
 
 classes (σὺν τάττει καὶ ἑαυτόν, Theod.) ; 
 we all, called and reclaimed Jews and 
 converted Gentiles, were once members 
 of that fearful company, the viol τῆς 
 amewelas; comp. Alf. in loc. 
 ϑελήματα τῆς σαρκός] ‘the (va- 
 rious) desires of the flesh.’ The plural 
 is not elsewhere found in the N. T. (Acts 
 xiii. 22 is a quotation), though not un- 
 usual in the LXX; Psalm. cx. 2, 2 
 Chron. ix. 12, Isaiah xliv. 28, lviii. 13, 
 al. It here probably denotes the various 
 exhibitions and manifestations of the 
 will, and is thus symmetrical with, but a 
 fuller expansion of ἐπιϑυμίαις. On the 
 true meaning of σάρξ, ‘the life and 
 movement of man in the things of the 
 world of sense,’ see Miiller, Doctr. of 
 Sin, τι. 2, Vol. 1. p. 352 sq., and esp. 
 notes on Gal.v.16. τῶν διανοιῶν] 
 ‘of the thoughts,’ scil. ‘ of the evil thoughts’ 
 (compare διαλογισμοὶ, πονηροί Matth. xv. 
 19); the ethical meaning, however, not 
 being due to the plural (‘die schwan- 
 kenden wechselnden Meinungen,’ Harl.), 
 but, as Mey. justly observes, to the con- 
 text; comp. τὰ διανοήματα, Luke xi. 17. 
 It is added, not to strengthen the mean- 
 ing of σάρξ (Holzh.), but to include 
 both sources whence our evil desires 
 emanate, the worldly (sensual) tendency 
 of our life on the one hand, and the spir- 
 itual sins of our thoughts and intentions 
 on the other; so Theod. in loc., except 
 that he too much limits the meaning of 
 σάρξ. On the meaning of διανοίαι, as 
 usually marking the motions of the 
 thoughts and will on the side of their 
 outward manifestations, see Beck, Seelent. 
 11. 19, p. 58. ἢ μεν] ‘and we 
 were ;’ with great definiteness as to the 
 relation of time, the change of construc- 
 tion from the (present) part. to the oratio 
 directa being intended to give emphasis 
 to the weighty clause which follows (see 
 
 x 
 τα 
 
 καὶ 
 
40 
 
 \ aA a 
 καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ 
 *6 δὲ Θεὸς, πλούσιος 
 
 notes, ch. i. 20), and also to disconnect 
 it from any possible relation to the pres- 
 ent; ‘we were children of wrath by na- 
 ture, —it was once our state and condi- 
 tion, it is now so no longer.’ 
 
 τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆ 5] ‘children by 
 nature — of wrath. This important 
 clause can only be properly investi- 
 gated by noticing separately (1) the 
 simple meaning of the words; (2) their 
 grammatical connection; (3) their proba- 
 (1) We 
 begin with (a) τέκνα, which is not simply 
 identical with the Hebraistic υἱοί, ver. 2, 
 but, as Bengel obviously felt, is more 
 significant and suggestive; see Steiger 
 on 1 Pet. i. 14. The word arouses the 
 attention; ‘we were téxva,’—that be- 
 speaks a near and close relation, — but 
 of what? Of God? No, —‘of wrath ;’ 
 its actual and definite objects; see Stier 
 in loc. p. 256, and comp. Hofm. Schrifib. 
 Vol. τ. p. 497. (b) ᾿Οργὴ has its proper 
 meaning, and denotes, not τιμωρία or 
 κόλασις itself (Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 
 11. p. 505), but the moving principle of 
 it, God’s holy hatred of sin, which re- 
 veals itself in His punitive justice ; com- 
 pare Rom. i. 18. (c) The meaning of 
 φύσει has been much contested. The 
 general distinction of Waterland (Second 
 Defence Qu. xx1v. Vol. 11. p. 723) seems 
 perfectly satisfactory that φύσει in Scrip- 
 ture relates to something inherent, in- 
 nate, fixed, and implanted from the first, 
 and is in opposition to something acces- 
 sional, superinduced, accidental; or, as 
 Harl. more briefly expresses it, ‘das 
 Gewordene in Gegensatz zum Gemach- 
 ten;’ compare Thorndike, Covenant of 
 Guin, απ 1.0. ΟἹ] rate joy 170 (WANG (CE 
 Libr.). 
 be determined by the context: compare 
 Gal. ii. 15, Rom. ii. 14, Gal. iv. 8, where 
 φύσει respectively means, (a) transmit- 
 
 ble dogmatical application. 
 
 The more exact meaning must 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. II. 4. 
 
 5 , , > a ε \ c ΄, 
 ἣμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί 
 BY ’ 5 / Ν \ \ 5 ΄ > nr 
 ὧν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ 
 
 ted, inborn nature ; (β) inherent nature ; 
 (y) essential nature. The connection 
 must here guide us. (2) Connection. 
 Φύσει is to be joined with τέκνα, not 
 ὀργῆς (Holzh., Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τ. p. 
 497), and defines the aspect under which 
 the predicate shows itself (see Madvig, 
 Synt.§ 40); the unusual order [ADEFGL 
 reverse it but appy. by way of emenda- 
 tion] appearing to have arisen from a 
 limitation of a judgment which St. 
 Paul was about to express unlimitedly ; 
 the Jews were the covenant people of 
 God; Jews and Gentiles (ἡμεῖς) could 
 not then equally and unrestrictedly be 
 called τέκνα ὀργῆς; see Miiller, Doctr. 
 of Sin, 1v. 2, Vol. 11. p. 306. (3) The 
 doctrinal reference turns on the meaning 
 of φύσει. This the limiting connection 
 seems to show must imply what is ¢nnate ; 
 for if it implied ‘habitual or developed 
 character’ (e. g. ZBlian, Var. Hist. 1x. 1, 
 φύσει φιλάργυρος ; see exx. in Wetst., 
 and compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. τ. p. 116), 
 there would be little need of the limita- 
 tion, and little meaning in the assumed 
 contrast, ‘filii adoptione,’ Estius ap. Poli 
 Syn. This is further confirmed by the 
 tense (see above) and the argument ‘ex 
 simili’ in ὡς Kal of λοιποί (ἦσαν), for it 
 must have been some universal state to 
 have applied to all the rest of mankind. 
 Still it must fairly be said the unem- 
 phatic position of φύσει renders it doubt- 
 ful whether there is any special contrast 
 to χάριτι, 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. The very long but instructive 
 note of Harless in loc. may be consulted 
 with profit. 
 
 4. ὃ δὲ eds] ‘but God.’ 
 tion of ver. 1 
 
 Resump- 
 after the two relatival 
 
πα. EGY 
 
 EPHESIANS. AG 
 
 ἃ » / id a 5 wt) rn “- 
 ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, ° καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν 
 
 sentences, ἐν ais ver. 2, and ἐν οἷς ver. 3; 
 δέ being correctly used rather than οὖν, 
 as the resumption also involves a con- 
 trast to the preceding verse. The decla- 
 ration of the ἔλεος of God forms an 
 assuring and consoling antithesis to the 
 foregoing statement that by nature all 
 were the subjects of His ὀργή. On the 
 use of δὲ after a parenthesis, see Motz, 
 Devar. Vol. 11. p. 877, Hartung, Partik. 
 δὲ, 3. 2, Vol. p. 173; the use of ‘autem’ 
 in Latin is exactly similar, see esp. 
 Hand, Tursell. s. v. § 9, Vol. 1. p. 569; 
 Beza’s correction of the Vulg., ‘sed’ 
 instead of ‘autem’ is therefore not neces- 
 sary. πλούσιος ὧν k. τ. A.J 
 “being rich in mercy,’ scarcely ‘ut qui 
 dives sit,’ Beza (comp. Madvig, Lat. 
 Gramm. ὃ 366. 2), as the participial 
 clause does not here so much assign the 
 reason, as characterize, in the form of a 
 secondary predicate of time, ‘being as 
 He is’ (compare Donalds. Gr. § 442. a) 
 the general principle under which the 
 divine compassion was exhibited. The 
 more particulur motive (De W.) is stated 
 in the succeeding clause. The expres- 
 sion πλούσιος ἐν (οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἐλεήμων, 
 Chrys.) occurs James ii. 5, and points to 
 the object or sphere in which the rich- 
 ness is apparent; compare 1 Cor. i. 5. 
 On the distinction between ἔλεος (‘ipsum 
 miseris succurrere studium’) and οἰκτιρ- 
 pos (‘ipsa tantum misericordia’), see 
 Tittm. Synon. p. 69 sq. ἣν nya- 
 πησεν ἣ μᾶ 5] ‘wherewith He loved us ;’ 
 cognate accus., serving to add force and 
 emphasis to the meaning of the verb; 
 see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 200, 
 and in Donalds. Gr. § 466. The pro- 
 noun ἡμᾶς obviously includes both Jew- 
 ish and Gentile Christians, and is codx- 
 tensive with ἡμεῖς πάντες, ver. 3. 
 
 5. καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς vexp.| ‘even 
 while we were dead ;’ καὶ not being otiose 
 (comp. Syr., th.), nor simple copula 
 
 (Mey.), nor as a mere repetition of καί, 
 ver. 1, but qualifying ὄντας (Syr.-Phil.), 
 and suggesting more forciply than in 
 ver. 1 (where it qualifies ὑμᾶς) the might 
 of the quickening power of God which 
 extended even to a state of moral death. 
 Kal νεκροὺς x. τ. A. would certainly seem 
 a more natural order (Fritz. Conject. in 
 N. T. p. 45; comp. Chrys. τοὺς νεκρούς 
 ον τούτους ἐζωοπ.), but as St. Paul seems 
 to wish to make their state of death its 
 permanence and its endurance, more felt 
 than the mere fuct of it, the ascensive 
 particle is joined with the participle 
 rather than with the predicate; see 
 Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 638. 
 συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Xp.| ‘He to- 
 gether quickened with Christ, not ‘in 
 Christ,’ Copt., Arm. (perhaps following 
 the reading συνεζ. ἐν, B; 17, al), but 
 
 ‘with Christ,’ δ SeXS Syr. al.; 
 4 
 
 ἐζωοποίησε κἀκεῖνον καὶ ἡμᾶς, Chrysost. 
 The previous statement of the spiritual 
 nature of their death, and the similar 
 (but, owing to the mention of baptism, 
 not wholly parallel) passage, Col. ii. 19, 
 seem to show that συνεζ. has reference to 
 spiritual life, the life of grace. It is thus 
 not necessary to consider the realization 
 as future (Theod.), nor even with The- 
 ophyl. (ἡμᾶς δυνάμει viv μετ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ 
 καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ), to limit the present degree 
 of it: the aorist has its proper and char- 
 acteristic force; what God wrought in 
 Christ he wrought ‘ipso facto’ in all 
 who are united with Him. Meyer aptly 
 cites Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 206, ‘ponitur 
 aoristus de re, que quamvis futura sit, 
 tamen pro peracta recte censeatur.... 
 cum alia re jam facta contineatur.’ It is 
 then just possible that cvve¢. may include 
 also a future and physical refcrence 
 (Rom. viii. 10, 11, see notes ver. 6), but 
 that its primary reference is to an actu- 
 ally existent and spiritual state, it seems 
 
48 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. II. 6, 7. 
 
 ' a a / ih mies , 6 ᾿ 
 συνεζωοποιησεν τῷ Χριστῷ (χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι), καὶ 
 
 ΄ \ / ? lal >? t > a? rn 
 συνηγειρεν, καὶ TUVEKUSLTEV EV τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν “Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 
 Zot. > s ? a bial a > ΄ ΑΝ ἘΠῚ ΄ὔ 
 ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένους TO ὑπερβάλλον 
 
 very difficult to deny. Χάριτί 
 ἐστε σεσωσμένοι] ‘by grace have ye 
 been (and are ye) saved;’ see notes on 
 ver. 8. This emphatic mention of grace 
 (grace, not works) is to make the readers 
 fecl what their own hearts might other- 
 wise have caused them to doubt, — the 
 real and vital truth, that they have pres- 
 ent and actual fellowship with Christ in 
 the quickening, — yea, and even in the 
 resurrectionary and glorifying power of 
 God; see esp. Origen (Cram. Caten.), 
 and comp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 
 y. 1 (ad. init.). 
 
 6. cuyHyetpev.... συνεκάδι- 
 σεν] ‘He raised us with (Him), He en- 
 throned us with (Him). The simple 
 meaning of these verbs, and esp. of the 
 latter, seems to confine the reference to 
 what is future and objective. Still, as 
 συνεζωοποίησεν, though primarily spirit- 
 ual and present, may have a physical 
 and future reference, — so here con- 
 versely, a present spiritual resurrection 
 and enthronement may also be alluded 
 to; as Andrewes truly says, ‘even now 
 we sit there in Him, and shall sit with 
 Him in the end,’ Serm. vit. in Vol. 1. p. 
 115 (A. C. Libr.). This may be referred 
 (a) to the close nature of our union with 
 Christ, so that His resurrection and ex- 
 altation may be said, in Him, to be actu- 
 ally ours (κεφαλὴ γὰρ ἡμῶν 6 συνεδρεύων, 
 ἀπαρχὴ ἡμῶν 6 συμβασιλεύων, Theod.), 
 or, more simply, ()) to that divine effi- 
 cacy of the quickening power of God 
 which extends itself to issues spiritually 
 indeed present (Phil. iii. 20, Rev. i. 6), 
 but, strictly speaking, future and contin- 
 gent; comp. esp. Rom. viii. 30, where the 
 aorists are used with equal significance 
 and effect. ἐν Tots ἐπουρανί- 
 οι5] ‘in the heavenly places ;’ see notes, 
 ch. 1, 8, 20, Bengel has noticed how 
 
 appropriately St. Paul omits the specific 
 ev δεξιᾷ, of ch. i. 20; ‘non dicit in dex- 
 trad; Christo sua manet excellentia ;’ 
 comp. Hst. in loc. ἐν Xp. Ἰησοῦ 
 must not be connected simply with ἐν 
 τοῖς ἐπουρ. (Peile, Eadie), but with συνή- 
 γειρεν and συνεκάϑισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ. ; 
 comp. ch.i.38. At first sight the clause 
 might seem superfluous, but more atten- 
 tively considered, it will be found to 
 define the deep, mystical nature of the 
 union; God ἤγειρεν, ἐκάϑίσεν, ἡμᾶς, not 
 only σὺν Xp., but ἐν Xp.; not only with 
 Christ by virtue of our fellowship, but 
 in Christ by virtue of our mystical, cen- 
 tral, and organic union with Him. On 
 the nature of this union, see Hooker, 
 Serm. 111. Vol. iii. p. 762 (ed Keble), 
 Ebrard, Dogmatik, ὁ 445, Vol. 11. p. 823, 
 Martensen, Dogmatik, § 176. obs. 
 
 7. ἵνα ἐνδείξηται) ‘in order that 
 He might show forth ;’ divine purpose of 
 the gracious acts specified in ver. 5, 6. 
 The middle voice ἐνδείξασϑαι is not used 
 (either here or Rom. ii. 15, ix. 17, 22, 2 
 Cor. viii. 24) with any reference to ‘a 
 sample or specimen of what belonged to 
 Him’ (Riick., Eadie), but either simply 
 implies ‘for Himself,’ 7. 6.,) ‘for His 
 glory’ (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 363.1), ‘let be 
 seen, (Peile), or, still more probably, is 
 used with only that general subjective 
 reference, ‘show forth his, ete.’ (the 
 ‘dynamic’ middle of Kriiger, Sprachil. 
 ὁ δῶ. 8. 5; see Kuster de Verb. Med. ὁ 
 58, and exx. in Rost. u. Palm. Lez. s. 
 y.), which, owing to the following αὐτοῦ, 
 can hardly be retained in translation. 
 The word occurs eleven times in the N. 
 T. (only in St. Paul’s Epp. and Heb.), 
 always in the middle voice. In fact, as 
 δείκνυμι is but rarely used in the middle 
 voice, though in a few formule (see Ast, 
 Lex, Plat. s. y.) it involves a middle 
 
Cuap. II. 8. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 49 
 
 A a / ’ a > , JE ke ς a 5) ΄ a 
 πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ 
 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
 
 sense; so ἐνδείκνυμαι, Which is not com- 
 mon in the act., except in legal forms, 
 may in the middle inyolve little more 
 than an active meaning; comp. Donalds. 
 Gr. § 484, p. 447. τοῖς αἰῶσιν 
 τοῖς ἐπερχ.] ‘to the ages which are 
 coming.’ ‘These words have been unduly 
 limited. Any special reference to the 
 then present and immediately coming 
 age (‘per omne vestrum tempus,’ Mor.), 
 or to the still future kingdom of Christ, 
 the αἰὼν 6 μέλλων, ch. i. 21 (Harl., Olsh.), 
 seems precluded respectively by the use 
 of the plural and the appended pres. 
 part. érepxou. The most simple mean- 
 ing appears to be ‘the successively ar- 
 riving ages and gencrations from that 
 time to the sccond coming of Christ,’ 
 ‘tempora inde ab apostolicis illis ad 
 finem mundi secutura,’ Wolf. Such 
 expressions as the present deserve espe- 
 cial notice, as they incidentally prove 
 how very ill-founded is the popular opin- 
 ion adopted by Meyer and others, that 
 St. Paul believed the Advent of the 
 Lord to be close at hand; see on 1 Thess. 
 iv. 15. τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦ- 
 το 5] ‘the exceeding riches ;’ an especially 
 and studiedly strong expression designed 
 to mark the ‘satis superque’ of God’s 
 grace in our redemption by Christ ; 
 comp. ch. iii. 20,1 Tim. i. 14, and see 
 Andrewes, Serm. 1. Vol. 11. p. 197 (A. 
 C. Libr.). The neuter πλοῦτος is adopted 
 with ABD!FG; 17 67**: Orig. (1), and 
 by Lachm., Tisch., and most recent ed- 
 itors. ἐν χρηστότητι ep 
 ἡμᾶς ἐν Χρ. Ἰησ᾿Ἶ ‘in goodness towards 
 us in Christ Jesus ;’ a single compound 
 modal clause appended to ἐνδειξ. ; ἐν xp. 
 ἐφ᾽ ju. being closely connected (comp. 
 Luke vi. 35; the art. is not necessary, 
 see notes, ch. i. 6), and defining accu- 
 rately the manner in which God displays 
 ‘the riches of His grace,’ while ἐν X. Ἴ. 
 
 7 
 
 A \ a 
 “Th γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως: Kal 
 
 (‘in,’ not ‘through Christ Jesus,’ Auth. ; 
 see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note) 
 specifies, as it were, the ever-blessed 
 sphere to which its manifestations are 
 confined, and in which alone its opera- 
 tions are felt. Well do Calvin and Stier 
 call attention to this ‘notanda repetitio 
 nominis Christi’ (contrast the melan- 
 choly want of appreciation of this in 
 De W.), and the reiteration of that eter- 
 nal truth which pervades this divine 
 epistle, — ‘nur in Christo Jesu das alles, 
 und anders nicht,’ Stier, p. 273; see 
 notes on ch, i. 3. On the meaning 
 of χρηστότης see notes on Gal. ν. 22. 
 
 8. τῇ yap χάριτί[] ‘For by grace ;’ 
 confirmatory explanation of the truth 
 and justice of the expression τὸ ὑπερβ. 
 κι τ. A., by a recurrence to statement 
 made parenthetically in ver. 5. The 
 article is thus not added merely because 
 χάρις ‘expresses an idea which is famil- 
 iar, distinctive, and monadic in its na- 
 ture’ (1416), but because there a retro- 
 spective reference to χάριτι, ver. 5, where 
 the noun, being used adverbially, is 
 properly anarthrous; see Middleton, 
 Greek Art. v. 2, p. 96 (ed. Rose). It 
 may be observed that the emphasis rests 
 on τῇ χάριτι, the further member διὰ τῆς 
 πίστεως being added to define the weighty 
 ἐστε σεσωσμένοι: χάρις is the objective, 
 operating and instrumental cause of sal- 
 vation, πίστις the subjective medium by 
 which it is received, the causa apprehen- 
 dens, or to use the language of Hooker, 
 ‘the hand which putteth on Christ to 
 justification,’ Serm. 11. 31; comp. Water- 
 land, Justif. Vol. v1. p. 22, and a good 
 sermon by Sherlock, Vol. 1. p. 323 sq- 
 (ed. Oxf.). ἐστε σεσωσμένοιἶ] 
 ‘ye have been (and are) saved.’ It is 
 highly improper to attempt to dilute 
 either the normal meaning of the verb 
 (‘salyum facio,’ ‘ad cternam yitam per- 
 
50 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Crap. II. 9. 
 
 a > 5) ea A \ A Ὁ, 05 2 Ὁ “ ΄ 
 τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον: ὅ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις 
 
 duco,’ see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v.) or the 
 proper force of the tense. The perfect 
 indicates ‘actionem plane preteritam, 
 que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, 
 aut per effectus suos durat’ (Poppo, Progr. 
 de emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6), and, in a 
 word, serves to connect the past and the 
 present, while the aorist leaves such a 
 connection wholly unnoticed; see esp. 
 Schmalfeld, Synt. § 56, and compare 
 Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 32. 5, p. 342. Thus, 
 then, ἐστὲ σεσωσμ. denotes a present 
 state as well as a terminated action; for, 
 as Eadie justly observes, ‘Salvation is a 
 present blessing, though it may not be 
 fully realized.’ On the other hand, ἐσώ- 
 Snuev (Rom. viii. 24) is not ἐν τοῖς 
 σωζομένοις ἐσμέν (Peile), but simply ‘we 
 were saved,’ the context (ἐλπίδι) supply- 
 διὰ 
 τῆς πίστεω 5] ‘through your faith;’ 
 subjective medium and condition; see 
 above, and compare Hammond, Pract. 
 Catech. p. 42 (A.C. Libr.). The modi- 
 fication suggested by Bull (‘per fidem 
 hic intelligit obedientiam evangelio przs- 
 titam cujus fides specialiter sic dicta non 
 tantum initium est sed et radix et funda- 
 mentum,’ Harm. Apost. τ. 12.8) is here 
 not necessary. The contrast with ἐξ 
 ἔργων and connection with χάριτι, seem 
 to show that πίστις is ‘reliance on the 
 divine grace’ (Waterland, Just?f. Vol. 
 ΥἹ p. 87), ‘the living capacity,’ as it is 
 termed by Olsh., ‘for receiving the pow- 
 ers of a higher world;’ xdpis being thus 
 identical with imparting, πίστις with re- 
 ceiving love; see Olshaus. on Rom. iii. 
 21, and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 
 tole Lachm. omits the article with 
 BD!IFG; 4 mss.; Chrys., al.; the ex- 
 ternal authority, however [AD°EKL; 
 nearly all mss.; Theod., Dam., al.], 
 seems slightly in favor of the text. 
 
 καὶ τοῦτο] ‘and this, sc. τὸ σεσωσμ. 
 εἶναι (Theoph. 2), not ‘nempe hoe quod 
 
 ing the necessary explanation. 
 
 credidistis,’ Bull, loc. cit., with Chrys., 
 Theod., Theoph. 1, al.; see Suicer, 
 Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 728. Grammat- 
 ically considered, καὶ τοῦτο (= καὶ ταῦτα, 
 Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v. οὗτος, Vol. 11. 
 p- 599) might be referred to a verbal 
 notion (τὸ πιστεύειν) derived from πίσ- 
 τις, but the logical difficulty of such a 
 connection with ἐξ ἔργων (parallel and 
 explanatory to ἔξ ὑμῶν) seems insupera- 
 ble. Still it may be said that the clause 
 καὶ τοῦτο K. τ. A. was suggested by the 
 mention of the subjective medium πίστις, 
 which might be thought to imply some 
 independent action on the part of the 
 subject (compare Theod.); to prevent 
 even this supposition, the Apostle has 
 recourse to language still more rigor- 
 ously exclusive. Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον] 
 ‘of God is the gift, scil. Θεοῦ δῶρον τὸ 
 δῶρον ἐστί; the gen. Θεοῦ (emphatic, on 
 account of antithesis to ὑμῶν) being thus 
 the predicate, τὺ δῶρον (‘the peculiar 
 gift in question,’ τὸ σεσωσμ. εἶναι διὰ τῆς 
 πίστ.), the subject of the clause; see 
 Riickert zn loc. Harl., Lachm., and De 
 W. inclose these words in a parenthesis, 
 but certainly without reason ; the slight 
 want of connection seems designed to 
 add force and emphasis. 
 
 9. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων] ‘not of works;’ 
 more exact explanation of the preced- 
 ing οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, and thus standing more 
 naturally in connection with καὶ τοῦτο 
 than with τὸ δῶρον ἐστί (Meyer). The 
 sense,- héwever, in either case is the 
 The grammatical meaning of ἐξ 
 ἔργων is investigated in notes on Gal. ii. 
 16; its doctrinal applications are noticed 
 by Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 419 
 (Bohn). ἵνα μή τις Kavx.] 
 ‘that no man should boast ;’ purpose of 
 God, involved in and included in the 
 ‘lex suprema’ alluded to in the fore- 
 
 same. 
 
 going οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ; comp. Rom. iii. 27. 
 The repression of boasting was not the 
 
Cuap. IT. 10. 
 καυχήσηται 
 
 primary and special object of God’s ap- 
 pointment of salvation by grace through 
 faith (compare Mackn.), still less was it 
 merely the result (Peile), but was a pur- 
 pose (ἵνα εὐγνώμονας περὶ τὴν χάριν ποιήσῃ, 
 Chrys.), that was necessarily inseparable 
 from His gracious plan of man’s salva- 
 On the force and use of ἵνα, see 
 notes on ch. i. 17. 
 
 10. αὐτοῦ yap x. τ. A.] ‘for we are 
 His handiwork, ‘ipsius enim sumus fac- 
 tura,’ Vulg.; proof of the foregoing sen- 
 
 tion. 
 
 tences καὶ τοῦτο---δῶρον and οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων; 
 the emphatic αὐτοῦ pointing to the posi- 
 tive statement that the gift of salvation 
 comes from God, and the assertion of 
 our being His (spiritual) ποίημα, to the 
 negative statement that salvation is not 
 ef ὑμῶν, or as further explained, οὐκ ἐξ 
 ἔργων. If we are God’s ποίημα, our sal- 
 vation, our all must be due to Him 
 (comp. Bramhall, Castig. Vol. 1v. 232, 
 A. C. Libr.) ; if we are a spiritual ποίημα 
 αἰνίττεται, 
 Chrys.), spiritually formed and designed 
 for good works, our salvation can never 
 be ἐξ ἔργων (whether of the natural, 
 moral, or ritual law which preceded that 
 ἀνάκτισι5).; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 
 I. p. 476 note (ed. Bohn). κτισ- 
 ϑέντες ἐν Χρ. Ἴη σ.] ‘created in Christ 
 Jesus ;’ defining clause, explaining the 
 true application and meaning of the pre- 
 ceding ποίημα ; compare ver. 15, the ex- 
 pression καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. ν. 17, Gal. 
 vi. 15, and notes in loc. That the refer- 
 ence of ποίημα is not to the physical, and 
 that of κτισῶ. to the spiritual creation 
 (‘quantum ad substantiam fecit, quan- 
 tum ad gratiam condidit,’ Tertull. Mare. 
 v.17), but that both refer to the spiritual 
 ἀνάκτισις, seems contextually necessary, 
 and is asserted by the best ancient (od 
 κατὰ τὴν πρώτην λέγει δημιουργίαν, ἀλλὰ 
 κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν, Theod., compare 
 (ξσαμ.), and accepted by the best mod- 
 
 ‘ 2 / 9 σι 
 (τὴν ἀναγέννησιν ἐνταῦϑα 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 51 
 
 105.982 α 2 2 , δέ 2 x a 
 αὐτου yap EO MEV ποίημα, KTLOJEVTES EV βίστῳ 
 
 ern commentators ; still it does not seem 
 improbable that the more general and 
 inclusive word ποίημα was designed to 
 suggest the analogy (Harl.) between the 
 physical creation and the spiritual re-cre- 
 ation of man. For a sound sermon on 
 this text see Beveridge, Serm. 1v. Vol. 
 11. p. 417 sq. (A. C. Libr.). ἐπὶ 
 ἔργοις ἀγάϑοι5)] ‘for good works,’ 
 ἢ. e., ‘to do good works ;’ ἐπὶ denoting 
 the object or purpose for which they 
 were created ; see Winer, Gi. § 48. ¢, p. 
 351, notes on Gal. v. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 7, 
 and exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 
 546. On the doctrinal and _ practical 
 aspects of the clause, see Beveridge, Serm. 
 1. Vol. 11. p. 418. ois προητοί- 
 μασεν] ‘which God afore prepared, 
 
 aa} Seo — [ab initio pa- 
 
 ravit] Syr., ‘prius paravit,’ Copt. /£th., 
 ‘preparavit, Vulg., Clarom. The con- 
 struction, meaning, and doctrinal signifi- 
 cance of these words has been much dis- 
 cussed. We may remark briefly, (1) 
 that owing to the absence of the usual 
 accus. after προητοίμ. (Isaiah xxviii. 24, 
 Wisdom ix. 8, Rom. ix. 23), οἷς cannot 
 be ‘the dative of the object,’ ‘for which 
 God hath from the first provided,’ Peile, 
 but is simply (by the usual attraction) 
 for ἅ; Winer, Gir. § 24.1, p. 188, and ὃ 
 22 4S obs. ps lids Son Vulos Syn, 
 Copt., al., and the majority of commen- 
 tators. (2) Προητοίμ. is not neuter 
 (Beng., Stier); the simple verb is so 
 used Luke ix. 52, 2 Chron. i. 4 (1), but 
 there is no evidence of a similar use of 
 the compound. Nor is it equivalent (in 
 regard to things) with προορίζω (in re- 
 gard to persons), Harl., a paraphrastic 
 translation rightly condemned by Fritz. 
 Rom. ix. 23, ‘aliud est enim parare, ἕτοι- 
 μάζειν [to make ἕτοιμα, ἕτ a, see Rost u. 
 Palm, Lex. 5. v. ἕτοιμος], aliud definire, 
 ‘dépiCev, Vol. 11. p. 339. Lastly, neither 
 
52 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IL. 11. 
 
 ᾽ πὰ ὧν » -“ Ὁ Ud e \ “ > > a 
 Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαδοῖς, ois προητοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς iva ἐν αὐτοῖς 
 
 περιπατήσωμεν. 
 
 Remember that ye were 
 once aliens, but have now 
 been brought nigh. 
 
 here nor Rom. /. 6. must the force of 
 πρὸ be neglected; comp. Philo, de Opif. 
 § 25, Vol. 1. p. 18 (ed. Mang.), as 
 OikewoTaTw . . . (dw τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πάντα 
 rightly translated by 
 Fritz., ‘ante paravit quam conderet.’ 
 (3) Thus, then, we adhere to the sim- 
 plest meaning of the words, using the 
 latter part of the clause to explain any 
 ambiguity of expression in the former: 
 “God, before we were created in Christ, 
 made ready for us, pre-arranged, prepared 
 a sphere of moral action, or (to use the 
 simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent 
 that we should walk in it, and not leave 
 it; this sphere, this road was ἔργα ἀγαϑά; 
 comp. Beveridge, Serm. ἰ. c. p. 428. On 
 the important doctrinal statement fairly 
 deducible from this text, —‘bona opera 
 sequuntur hominem justificatum, non 
 precedunt in homine justificando,’ see 
 Jackson, Creed, x1. 30. 6. 
 
 11. διό] ‘ Wherefore, ‘since God has 
 youchsafed such blessings to you and to 
 all of us;’ not in exclusive reference to 
 
 προητοιμάσατο, 
 
 ver. 10, ὅτι ἐκτίσϑημεν ἐπ᾽ ἔργοις ἀγαδοῖς, 
 Chrys., nor alone to ver. 4—10 (Meyer), 
 but, as the use of ὑμεῖς (compare ver. 
 1) suggests, to the whole, or rather to 
 the declaratory portion of the foregoing 
 paragraph, ver. 1—7; ver. 7—10 being 
 an argumentative and explanatory addi- 
 tion. On St. Paul’s use of διό, comp. 
 notes on (ral. iy. 31. The construc- 
 tion, which is not perfectly clear, is com- 
 monly explained by the introduction of 
 ὄντες before τὰ ἔϑνη (Fuld.), or ἦτε be- 
 fore (Syr.), or after (Goth.) ἐν σαρκί. 
 This is not necessary; the position of 
 ποτὲ (as rightly maintained by Lachm. 
 Tisch., with ABD!E; Clarom., Sang., 
 Aug., Vulg., al.) seem to suggest that 
 τὰ ἔϑνη K. τ. A. is simply in apposition to 
 
 ll \ ΄ Ψ N Jet ΟΣ a, 2 
 Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔδνη ἐν 
 σαρκί, οἱ Χλεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομέ- 
 
 ὑμεῖς. Ὅτι and ποτὲ are then respec- 
 tively resumed by ὅτι and τῷ καιρῷ 
 ἐκείνῳ in ver. 12; see Meyer zn loc. 
 
 τὰ €dvn ἐν σαρκί] ‘Gentiles in the 
 flesh.” On the correct insertion of the 
 article before ἔϑνη (to denote class, cate- 
 gory), see Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 2. 2, p. 
 40 (Rose); and on its equally correct 
 omission before ἐν (τὰ ἔν. ἐν o. forming 
 only one idea), see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, 
 p- 128, notes ch. i. 15, and Fritz. Rom. 
 111, 25, Vol. 1. p. 195. Ἔν σαρκὶ is not 
 in reference ‘to their natural descent’ 
 (Hamm.), nor to their corrupted state 
 (οὐκ ἐν πνεύματι, Theoph., ‘ unregenerate 
 Gentiles,’ Peile; compare Syr.), but, az 
 the use of the word below distinctly sug, 
 gests, to the corporeal mark: ‘ preeputium 
 profani hominis indicium erat,’ Caly. 
 They bore the proof of their Gentilism 
 in their flesh and on their bodies. 
 
 of λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία K.TA.] 
 ‘who are called (contemptuously) the Un- 
 circumcision by the so-called Circumcision.’ 
 Both ἀκροβ. and wepit. are used as the 
 distinctive names or titles of the two 
 classes, Gentiles and Jews. On the 
 omission of the art. before ἀκροβυστ. (a 
 verb ‘yocandi’ having preceded), see 
 Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 2, p. 43 (Rose), 
 and on the derivation of the word (an 
 Alexandrian corruption of ἀκροποσδία), 
 Fritz. Rom. ii. 26, Vol. 1. p. 186. 
 
 ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήῆ του ‘wrought 
 by hand in the flesh, ‘et est opus manuum 
 in carne,’ Syr.; a tertiary predication 
 (see Donalds. Gr. § 479 sq., and observe 
 the idiomatically exact transl. of Syr.), 
 added by the Apostle reflectively rather 
 than descriptively ; ‘the circumcision, — 
 yes, hand-wrought in the flesh, only a 
 visible manual operation on the flesh, 
 when it ought to be a secret spiritual 
 
Cuap. II. 12. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 53 
 
 an “ \ Ω δ 3 - “- 
 UNS περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου, "" OTL ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ 
 
 process in the heart, only κατατομή, not 
 περιτομή ;” comp. Rom. ii. 28, 29, Phil. 
 iii. 8, Col. ii. 11. Thus, then, as Calvin 
 rightly felt, the Apostle expresses no 
 contempt for the outward rite, which he 
 himself calls a σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, 
 Rom. iv. 11, but only (as the present 
 words suggest) at the assumption of 
 such a title (observe τῆς λεγομ., not τῶν 
 Aeyou.) by a people who had no concep- 
 tion of its true and deep significance. 
 The Gentiles were called, and were the 
 ἀκροβυστία ; the Jews were called, but 
 were not truly the περιτομή. 
 
 12. ὅτε ἦτ ε] ‘that ye were ;’ resump- 
 tion of the ὅτι in ver. 11, and continua- 
 tion of the suspended sentence; see 
 notes on ver. 11. τῷ καιρῷ 
 ἐκείν ῳ] ‘at that time;’ ‘in your hea- 
 then state.” The prep. ἐν (here rightly 
 omitted by Lachm., Tisch., with ABD! 
 FG; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Aug.; al.; 
 Chrys.), though occasionally omitted (2 
 Cor. vi. 2 quotation, Gal. vi. 9), is more 
 commonly, and indeed more correctly 
 inserted in this and similar forms ; com- 
 pare Rom. iii. 26, xi. 5, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
 2 Thess. ii. 6, and see Wannowski, 
 Constr. Abs. 111. 1, p. 88, Madvig, Synt. 
 § 39, and comp. ib. Lat. Gr. § 276. 
 ἦτε.... χωρὶς Χριστοῦ) ‘ye were 
 -... without Christ ;’ χωρὶς Xp. forming 
 a predicate (Syr.; ‘et nesciebatis Chris- 
 tum,’ Aith.), not a limiting clause to ἦτε 
 ἀπηλλοτρ. (De W., Eadie), —a singu- 
 larly harsh construction. The Ephe- 
 sians, whom St Paul here views as the 
 representatives of Gentilism (Olshaus.), 
 were, in their heathen ante-Christian 
 state, truly χωρὶς Xp., without the Messiah, 
 without the promised Seed (contrast 
 Rom. ix. 4 sq.); now, however, ‘eum 
 possidetis non minus quam ii quibus 
 promissus fuerat,’ Grot. in loc. The two 
 following clauses, each of two parts, 
 then more exactly elucidate the signifi- 
 
 cance of the expression. On the 
 distinction between ἄνευ (‘absence of 
 object from subject’) and χωρὶς (‘separa- 
 tion of subject from object’), see Tittm., 
 Synon. p. 94. This distinction, however, 
 does not appear perfectly certain (comp. 
 Phil. ii. 14, with 1 Pet. iv. 9), and must, 
 at all events, be applied with caution, 
 when it is remembered that χωρὶς is used 
 forty times in the N. T., and ἄνευ only 
 three times, viz., Matt. x. 29, 1 Pet. iii. 
 1, iv. 9. Where, in any given writer or 
 writers, there is such a marked preference 
 for one rather than another of two per- 
 fectly simple words, it is well not to be 
 hypercritical. ἀπηλλοτρεωμέ. 
 νοι «. τ. A.] ‘being aliens, or in a state 
 of alienation, from the commonwealth of 
 Israel ;’ in opp. to συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων, 
 ver. 19. There is a slight difficulty in 
 the exact meaning and application of 
 the words. Reversing the order, for the 
 sake of making the simpler word define 
 the more doubtful, we may observe that 
 Ἰσραὴλ is clearly the theocratic name 
 of the Jewish people, the title which 
 marks their re/igious and spiritual, rather 
 than their national or political distine- 
 tions; see Rom. ix. 6.1 Cor, x. 18, Gal. 
 vi. 16. From this it would seem to fol- 
 low that πολιτεία, which may be 
 either {a) ‘reipublice forma, status, τῶν 
 τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων τάξις τις, Aristot. 
 Pol. 111. 1.1 (compare 2 Mace. iv. 11, 
 νομίμους πολιτείας Opp. tO παρανόμους 
 ἐδισμούς, Vill. 17, προγονική πολιτεία), --- 
 or (b) ‘jus civitatis’ (compare Acts xxii. 
 28, 3 Mace. iii. 21),—or (c) ‘vivendi 
 ratio’ (comp. Vulg., Clarom., ‘ conversa- 
 tione’—; see Theoph. on ver. 13, and 
 Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 795), is 
 here used only in the first sense, and 
 with a distinctly spiritual application; so 
 /#th.-Platt, Arm., and most modern . 
 commentators. The gen. is thus, not 
 that of the ‘identical motion,’ 6. g. ἄστυ 
 
δ4 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. II. 12. 
 
 χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, ἀπηχλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ 
 
 ᾿Αϑηνῶν (Harl.), but a simple possessive 
 gen., — the ‘reipublice status’ which 
 belonged to Israel. ἀπηλλοτρι- 
 wuévot, a noticeable and emphatic 
 word (οὐκ εἶπε κεχωρισμένοι .. .. πολλὴ 
 τῶν ῥημάτων ἡ ἔμφασις πολὺν δεικνῦσα 
 τὸν χωρισμόν, Chrys.), seems to hint at 
 a state of former unity and fellowship, 
 and a lapse or separation (ἀπὸ) from it ; 
 comp. ch. iv. 18, Col. 1. 21, Ecclus. xi. 
 34, 3 Mace. i. 3, Joseph. Antig. x1. 5. 4, 
 and exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 295, 
 and Schweigh. Polyb. Lex. 5. v. This 
 union, though not historically demon- 
 strable, is no less spiritually true. Jew 
 and Gentile were once under one spirit- 
 ual πολιτεία, of which the Jewish was a 
 subsequent visible manifestation. The 
 Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it 
 invalid (Matt. xv. 6, compare Chrys.) ; 
 and they parted, only to unite again, 
 ἔϑνη καὶ λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ (Acts iv. 27), in 
 one act of uttermost rebellion, and vet, 
 through the mystery of redeeming Love, 
 to remain thereby (ver. 15, 16) united in 
 Christ forever. ξένοι τῶν δια- 
 ϑη κῶν] ‘strangers from the covenants ;’ 
 second and more specializing part of the 
 first explanatory clause. The gen. after 
 ξένος is not due to any quasi-participial 
 power (Eadie), but belongs to the cate- 
 gory of the (inverted) possessive gen. 
 (Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 49, p. 171), or 
 perhaps rather to the gen. of ‘the point 
 of view’ (‘extraneos quod ad pactoruam 
 promissiones attinet,’ Beza) ; see Scheu- 
 erl. Synt. § 18. 8, a, p. 135. The use of 
 the plural διαϑῆκαι must not be limited, 
 either here or Rom. ix. 4, to the two 
 tables of the law (Elsn., Wolf), nor again 
 unnecessarily extended to God’s various 
 covenant promises to Dayid and the peo- 
 ple (comp. De W.), but appears simply 
 to refer to the several renewals of the 
 covenant with the patriarchs; see esp. 
 Wisdom xviii. 22, ὅρκους πατέρων καὶ 
 
 διαϑήκας, 2 Macc. viii. 15, τὰς πρὸς τοὺς 
 πατέρας αὐτῶν διαϑήκας ; compare Rom. 
 xy. 8. The great Messianic promise 
 (Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8; Chrys. 
 Theophyl.) was the subject and substra- 
 tum of all. ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχον- 
 τες] ‘not having hope,’ Auth., ‘spem non 
 habentes,’ Vulg., Clarom., comp. Syr. ; 
 general consequence of the alienation 
 mentioned in the preceding member ; 
 not however with any special dependence 
 on that clause, scil. ὥστε μὴ ἔχειν ἐλπίδα, 
 ‘so that you had no (covenanted) ‘hope,’ 
 ‘spem promissioni respondentem,’ (Ben- 
 gel, comp. Harl.),— for (a) the absence 
 of the article shows that ἐλπίδα cannot 
 here be in any way limited, but is simply 
 ‘hope’ in its most general meaning, and 
 (0) μὴ can be no further pressed than as 
 simply referring to the thought and feel- 
 ing of the subject introduced by μνημο- 
 vevere, ver. 11, ‘having (as you must have 
 felt) no hope;’ comp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 
 5, p. 428, Herm. Viger, No. 267, and the 
 good collection of exx. in Gayler, Par- 
 tic. Neg. ch. 1x. p. 275 sq. On the gen- 
 eral use in the N. T. of μὴ with partici- 
 ples, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15. 
 
 ἄϑεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] ‘without God 
 in the world ;’ objective negation (ἀ being 
 here equivalent to ov with an adjective, 
 Harl.; see, however, Gayler, Partie. Neg. 
 p- 85), forming the climax and acecumu- 
 lation of the misery involved in χωρὶς 
 Χριστοῦ ; they were without church and 
 without promise, without hope, and, in 
 the profane wicked world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
 being in contrast to πολιτ. τοῦ “Iop., and 
 like it ethical in its reference), — without 
 God. *ASeos may be taken either with 
 active, neuter, or passive reference, 7. e., 
 either denying (see exx. Suicer, Thes. 
 s. y.), ignorant of (Gal. iv. 8; ‘nescie- 
 batis Deum,’ A®th., ἔρημοι τῆς ϑεογνω- 
 σίας, Theod., comp. Clem. Alex, Pro- 
 trept. 14), or forsaken by God (Soph. 
 
=! 
 
 Cnap. 11. 13, 14. 
 
 EPHESIANS. ΓΓ 
 
 ξένοι τῶν διαδηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ ἄδεοι 
 
 > A Ul 13 \ \ τὶ an? lal - lal "“ v 
 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ “᾿ νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὑμεῖς ov ποτε ὄντες 
 
 \ » \ 5 Ay 2 eee 4 n xX a Was: τ στον , 
 μακρὰν ἐγγὺς Eyer NTE EV TH αἰματι TOU Δριστου. αὑτὸς yap 
 
 (Ed. Rex, 661, ἄϑεος, ἄφιλος) ; the last 
 meaning seems best to suit the passive 
 tenor of the passage, and to enhance the 
 dreariness and gloom of the picture. 
 On the religious aspects of heathenism, 
 see the good note of Harless in loc. 
 
 13. νυνὶ δέ] ‘ But now;’ in antithe- 
 sis 10 τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ, ver. 12, ἐν 
 Xp. Ἰησοῦ] ‘in Christ Jesus ;’ promi- 
 nent and emphatic; standing in imme- 
 diate connection with νυνί (not ἐγενή- 
 ϑητε, Mey.), which it both qualifies and 
 characterizes, and forming a contrast to 
 χωρὶς Xp., ver. 12, The addition of 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ, far from being an argument 
 against such a contrast (Mey.), is, in 
 fact, almost confirmatory of it. Such 
 an addition was necessary to make the 
 circumstances of the contrast fully felt. 
 Then, they were xwpls Xp., separate 
 from and without part in the Messiah, — 
 now they were not only ἐν Χριστῷ but 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, in a personal Saviour, 
 —in One who was no longer their future 
 hope, but their present salvation. The 
 personal reference is appropriately con- 
 tinued by ἐν τῷ αἵματι, --- πού merely 
 αὐτοῦ, but τοῦ Xp.; He who poured out 
 His blood, Jesus of Nazareth, was truly 
 Christ. ἐγγὺς ἐγενήϑητ εἶ 
 ‘became nigh, were brought nigh to God’s 
 holy and spiritual πολιτεία ; οἱ μακρὰν 
 ὄντες τῆς πολιτ. τοῦ Ἴσρ., τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν 
 ἐγγὺς ἐγενήϑητε, Gicum. On the pas- 
 sive form éyevns. see notes on ch. 11]. 7, 
 and on the use of the words μακράν and 
 ἐγγὺς in designating Gentiles and Jews 
 (comp. the term προσήλυτοι), see the very 
 good illustrations of Schoettgen, Hor. 
 Heb. Vol. τ. p. 761 sq. and of Wetst. in 
 loc. ; comp. also Isaiah lvii. 19, Dan. ix. 
 7, and Valck. on Acts. ii. 39 (cited by 
 Grinfield, Schol. Hell.). The order 
 eyev. ἐγγὺς is adopted by Lachm. with 
 
 AB; mss.; Aug, Vulg., Goth., al. but 
 seems due to a mistaken correction of 
 the emphatic juxtaposition μακρὰν ἐγγύς. 
 ἐν τῷ αἵματι] ‘by the blood;’ ἐν hay- 
 ing here appy. its instrumental force ; 
 see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346. No very 
 precise distinction can be drawn between 
 this use and διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. ch. i. 7. We 
 may perhaps say the latter implies medi- 
 ate and more simple, the former, zmma- 
 nent instrumentality ; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 
 622. 3, Winer, /. c. p. 347 note, and notes 
 on 1 Thess. iv. 418. 
 
 14. αὐτὸς γάρ] ‘For He—and 
 none other than He;’ confirmatory ex- 
 planation of ver. 13, the emphasis rest- 
 ing, not on εἰρήνη ἡμῶν (De W.), but, as 
 the prominent position of ἐν Xp. Ἴησ. 
 and repetition of Χριστοῦ, ver. 13, seem 
 decisively to show, — on αὐτός, which is 
 thus no mere otiose pronoun (compare 
 Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 98), but is used 
 with its regular and classical signifi- 
 cance; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 4, obs. p. 
 135, and comp. Herm de Pronom. αὐτός, 
 ἘΠ ΟΣ: εἰρήνη ἡμῶν] ‘our 
 Peace.’ Though the context, and parti- 
 ciple defining 6 ποιήσας scem very dis- 
 tinctly to prove that εἰρήνη is here used 
 in some degree ‘ per metonymiam ’ (com- 
 pare 1 Cor. i. 30, Col. i. 27), and so ina 
 sense but little differing from εἰρηνοποιός 
 (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 253), the abstract 
 subst still has and admits of a fuller 
 and more general application. Not only 
 was Christ our ‘ Pacificator,’ but our 
 ‘Pax,’ the true ch+v ay (Isaiah ix. 5), 
 the very essence as well as the cause of 
 it; comp. Olsh. in loc. Thus considered, 
 εἰρήνη seems to have here its widest 
 meaning, — not only peace between Jew 
 and Gentile, but also between both and 
 God. In ver. 15 the context limits it to 
 the former reference; in ver. 17 it reverts 
 
56 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Crxe. 11.015. 
 
 2 e 2 / « lal e 4 ἣν » + Δ \ \ , 
 ἐστιν ἢ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα EV καὶ τὸ μεσότοίχον 
 
 τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, 
 
 to its present and more inclusive refer- 
 ence. τὰ aupotepal ‘both,’ 
 Jews and Gentiles; explained by τοὺς 
 δύο and τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, ver. 15, 16. 
 We have here no ellipsis of γένη, vn 
 κι τ. A., but only the abstract and gener- 
 alizing neuter; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 
 27. δ; p. 160: καί] ‘and,’ se. 
 ‘namely ;’ the particle having here its 
 explanatory force; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, 
 Vol. 11. p. 339, Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. obs. 
 p- 388, and notes on Phil. iv. 11. 
 
 τὸ μεσότοιχον φραγμοῦ) 
 ‘the middle wall of the fence or partition,’ 
 scil. between Jew and Gentile. The 
 genitival relation has been differently 
 explained. There is of course no real 
 (Pisc.) or virtual (Beza) interchange of 
 words for τὸν φρ. Tod μεσοτ.; nor does 
 τοῦ φραγμοῦ appear to be here either (a) 
 a gen. of the characterizing quality, scil. 
 τὸ διαφράσσον, τὸ διατειχίζον (Chrys. 1., 
 Harl.; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. v1. 18, 
 p- 793, τὸ μεσότοιχον τὸ διορίζον) or () 
 a gen. of identity, ‘the middle wall which 
 was or formed the φραγμός (Mey.), but 
 either (c) a gen. of origin, τὸ ἀπὸ φραγ- 
 pov (Chrys. 2), or still more simply (d) 
 a common possessive gen., ‘the wall 
 which pertained to, belonged to the 
 fence,’ — a use of the case which is far 
 from uncommon in the N. T., and ad- 
 mits of some latitude of application; 
 comp. Donalds. Gr. § 454. aa, p. 481 sq. 
 The exact reference of the φραγμὸς (372 
 Buxtorf Lex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1447) is 
 also somewhat difficult to fix, as both 
 εἰρήνη and ἔχϑρα (ver. 15) and indeed 
 the whole tenor of the passage seem to 
 imply something more than the relations 
 of Jews and Gentiles to each other, and 
 must include the relations of both to 
 God; comp. Alf. in loc. If this be so, 
 the φραγμὸς would seem to mean the 
 Law generally (Zonaras, Ler. p. 1822), 
 
 τοῦ 
 
 5 ΕΣ) ~ A , -“ Ν , 
 1 σὴν ἔχϑραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον 
 
 not merely the ceremonial law (Neander, 
 Planting, Vol. 1. p. 49, ed. Bohn), nor 
 the ‘discrimen prputii’ (Beng.) but 
 the whole Mosaic Law, esp. in its aspects 
 as a system of separation ; comp. Chrys. 
 in loc., who appositely cites Isaiah v. 2. 
 Whether there is any direct reference to 
 the ἑρκίον δρυφράκτου AwWivov (Joseph. 
 Antiq. XV. 11.6) between the courts of 
 the Jews and Gentiles (Hamm.) is per- 
 haps doubtful; see Meyer. We may 
 well admit, however, as indeed the spe- 
 cific and so to say localizing φραγμὸς 
 seems to suggest, an allusion both to 
 this and to the veil which was rent 
 (Matth. xxvii. 51) at our Lord’s cruci- 
 fixion ; the former illustrating the sepa- 
 ration between Jew and Gentile, the lat- 
 ter between both and God. As it has 
 been well remarked, the temple was, as 
 it were, a material embodiment of the 
 law, and in its very outward structure 
 was a symbol of spiritual distinctions ; 
 see Stier in loc. p. 322, 323. 
 
 15. τὴν ἔχϑραν) ‘the enmity ;’ 
 ‘ponenda hic ὑποστιγμή, Grot.; in ap- 
 position to, and a further explanation of 
 τὸ μεσ. τοῦ φρ., ‘to wit, the root of the 
 enmity (‘parietem, qui est odium,’ ΖΕ 1.) 
 between Jew and Gentile, and between 
 both and God. The exact reference of 
 ἔχϑραν has been greatly debated. That 
 it cannot imply exclusively (a) ‘the 
 enmity of Jews and Gentiles against 
 God’ (Chrys.), seems clear from the 
 foregoing context (compare 6 ποιῆσας τὰ 
 ἀμφότερα ἕν, ver. 14), in which the en- 
 mity between Jew and Gentile is dis- 
 tinctly alluded to. That it also cannot 
 denote simply (Ὁ) ‘the reciprocal enmity 
 of Jew and Gentile’ (Meyer, compare 
 Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 2. 1, p. 253), seems 
 also clear from its appositional relation 
 to μεσ. τοῦ φρ., from the preceding term 
 εἰρήνη, and from the subsequent explana- 
 
Cuap. II. 15. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 57 
 
 la) > in’ > , ΤᾺ t/ NX ὃ 7 / ’ e a 
 τῶν ἐντολῶν EV δόγμασιν KaTapynoas, νῷ TOVS OVO KTLO7 EV εαυτῷ 
 
 tion afforded by τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντ. κι τ. A. 
 The reference then must be to both, sc. 
 to the @y3pa which was the result and 
 working of the law regarded as a system 
 of separation, — the enmity due not only 
 to Judaical limitations and antagonisms, 
 but also and, as the widening context 
 shows, more especially to the alienation 
 of both Jew and Gentile from God; 
 ἑκατέραν ἔχϑραν καὶ ἑκάτερον μεσότοιχον 
 ἔλυσε Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, Phot. ap. 
 cum. This, though not distinctly put 
 forward in ed. 1, and peremptorily re- 
 jected by De W. and Meyer, seems, on 
 reconsideration, the only explanation 
 that satisfies the strong term ἔχῶρα, and 
 the very inclusive context. ἐν τῇ 
 σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ] ‘in His crucified flesh ;’ 
 comp. Col. i. 22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρ- 
 Kos αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦ ϑανάτου. These words 
 cannot be connected with τὴν ἔχϑραν 
 (Arm., Chrys., Cocc.), as in such a case 
 the article could not be dispensed with 
 even in the dialect of the N. T., but 
 must be joined as a specification of the 
 manner, or perhaps rather of the instru- 
 ment — either (a) with καταργήσας, to 
 which this clause is emphatically pre- 
 fixed (ed. 1, De W., Mey.), or perhaps 
 more naturally (b) with λύσας (Syr. 
 /Eth., Theod., Theoph., G&cum.), to 
 which it subjoins an equally emphatic 
 specification. Stier (compare Chrys.) 
 extends the ref. of σὰρξ to Christ’s incar- 
 nate state and the whole tenor of His 
 earthly life (‘ Fleisches-lebens’); comp. 
 Schulz, Abendm. p. 95 sq. This is doubt- 
 ful; the context appears to refer alone 
 to His death; compare ver. 13, ἐν τῷ 
 αἵματι, ver. 16, διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. On the 
 distinction between the σὰρξ and the 
 σῶμα (the σὰρξ δοϑεῖσα) of Christ, com- 
 pare Liicke on John vi. 51, Vol. 11. 
 Ρ. 149 sq. 
 évt. ἐν δόγμ.] ‘the law of ordinances 
 expressed in decrees,’ scil. ‘the law of 
 
 τὸν νόμον τῶν 
 
 decretory ordinances ;’ compare Col. u. 
 14. The Greek commentators join ev 
 δόγμ. with karapy., referring δόγματα 
 (scil. τὴν πίστιν, Chrys. τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν 
 διδασκαλίαν, Theod.) to Christian doc- 
 trines; this meaning of δόγμα in the 
 N. T. is, however, untenable. Harless 
 (comp. Syr.) retains the same construc- 
 tion, but regards ἐν δόγμ. as defining the 
 sphere in which the action of Christ’s 
 death was manifested, ‘on the side of, 
 in the matter of decrees.’ This is plaus- 
 ible, and much to be preferred to Fritz- 
 sche’s expl. ‘nova pracepta stabiliendo ’ 
 (Dissert. ad 2 Cor. p. 168); still the 
 article {τοῖς δόγμ.) seems indispensable, 
 for, as Winer observes (Gr. p. 250, ed. 
 5) both the law and the side or aspect 
 under which it is viewed are fairly defi- 
 nite. We retain, therefore, the ordinary 
 explanation, according to which ἐν δόγμ. 
 is closely united with τῶν ἐντολῶν, and 
 therefore correctly anarthrous ; see Winer, 
 Gr. § 20. 2; and’ notes ch.1.15. ‘The 
 gen. ἐντολ. thus serves to express the 
 contents (Bernhardy. Synt. 111. 45, p. 
 163), ἐν δόγμ. the definite mandatory 
 form (‘legem imperiosam,’ Erasm.) in 
 which the ἐντολαὶ were expressed; see 
 Tholuck, Beitrége, p. 93 sq., and esp. 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 31.10. obs. 1. p. 196 (ed. 
 6), but more fully in ed. 5, p. 250. 
 
 ἵνα τοὺς δύο κ. τ. λ.] ‘that He might 
 make the two in Himself into one new 
 man ;’ purpose of the abrogation ; peace 
 between Jew and Gentile by making 
 them (οὐκ εἶπε, “μεταβάλῃ᾽ ἵνα δείξῃ τὸ 
 ἐνεργὲς τοῦ γενομένου, Chrys.) in Him- 
 self, in His person (not δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, 
 Chrys.), into—not merely one man, 
 but one new man; ἕνα ἀνήνεγκε ϑαυμασ- 
 τόν, αὐτὸς τοῦτο πρῶτον γενόμενος, Chrys. 
 Meier’s assertion that καινὸς has here no 
 moral significance is obviously untena- 
 ble; comp. ch. iv. 24, and-notes in oe. 
 The reading is slightly doubtful. Lachm. 
 
58 
 
 _EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IIL. 16. 
 
 , wo Ν » lal > , 16 \ ᾽ / 
 εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνδρωπον, ποιῶν εἰρήνην, καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ 
 
 adopts αὐτῷ with ABF; ten mss.; Pro- 
 cop..—a more difficult reading, but 
 appy. less strongly attested than ἑαυτῷ 
 [DEGKL; bulk of mss.], and not im- 
 probably due to the frequent confusion 
 between the oblique cases of αὐτὸς and 
 those of the reflexive pronoun. 
 
 ποιῶν εἰρήνην} ‘so making peace,’ 
 5011. between Jews and Gentiles, and 
 between both and God, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 
 kal πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Chrys.; contrast τὴν 
 ἔχϑραν, ver. 15. It may be observed 
 that the aorist is not used (as in ver. 16), 
 but the present; the ‘pacificatio’ is not 
 mentioned as in modal or causal depend- 
 ence on the ‘creatio,’ but simply as 
 extending over, and contemporaneous 
 with, the whole process of it; compare 
 Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 31, 2. a, p. 310. 
 
 16. ἀποκαταλλάξῃ] ‘and 
 might reconcile us; parallel purpose to 
 the foregoing, and stated second in 
 order, though really from the nature of 
 the case the first; the divine procedure 
 being, as De W. observes, stated regres- 
 
 καὶ 
 
 . ἵνα ἀποκατ. .- -- 
 The double compound ἀπο- 
 κατ. is used only here and Col, i. 20, 21. 
 In both cases ἀπὸ does not simply 
 strengthen (6. g. ἀποϑαυμάζω, ἀπεργάζο- 
 μαι. Meyer, Eadie), but hints at a res- 
 toration to a primal unity, ‘reduxerit in 
 unum gregem,’ Caly.; compare ver. 13, 
 and Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 7, 8. 
 Chrys. gives rather a different and per- 
 haps doubtful turn, δεικνὺς ὅτι πρὸ τού- 
 
 sively, ἵνα κτίσῃ... ... 
 ἀποκτείνας. 
 
 Tov ἡ ἀνδρωπίνη φύσις εὐκατάλλακτος ἦν, 
 οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου. 
 
 The profound dogmatical considerations 
 connected with καταλλαγὴ (alike active 
 and objective, and passive and subjec- 
 tive, comp. 2 Cor. vy. 18 with ib. 20) are 
 treated perspicuously by Usteri, Lehrb. 
 11. 1. 1, p. 102 sq.; sce also Jackson, 
 Creed, Book x. 49. 8, Pearson, zbid. 
 
 Vol. 1. p. 430 sq. (Burton). ἐν 
 
 ἑνὶ σώματι] ‘in one (corporate) body,’ 
 scil. in the Church. The reference to 
 the human σῶμα τοῦ Xp. (Chrys.) is 
 plausible, but on nearer examination not 
 tenable. Had this been intended, the 
 order (comp. the position of ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ 
 αὐτοῦ) would surely have been different, 
 if only to prevent this very connection 
 of τοὺς ἄμφοτ. and év ody. which their 
 present juxtaposition so obviously sug- 
 gests. Moreover, the query of B. Crus., 
 why Christ’s human body should be 
 here designated ὃν σῶμα, has not been 
 satisfactorily answered, even by Stier; 
 the application of it to the mystical body 
 is intelligible and appropriate, comp. ch. 
 iv. 4. Ἔν does not thus become equiva- 
 lent to evs, but preserves its proper mean- 
 ing; they were κτισϑέντας eis ἕνα ἄνῶρ. ; 
 thus κτισϑέντας, Christ reconciles them 
 both ἐν é σώμ. (scil. ὄντας, Olsh.) to 
 God; see Winer, Gr. § 50 5, p. 370. 
 amoKktetvas| ‘having slain,’ ἃ. e., ‘after 
 He had slain ;’ temporal participle, stand- 
 ing in contrast with ποιῶν, ver. 15. The 
 use of the particular word has evidently 
 been suggested by διὰ σταυροῦ; not 
 λύσας, not ἀνελών, but ἀποκτείνας, ‘quia 
 crux mortem adfert,’ Grot.; and thus in 
 the words, though not the application 
 of Chrys., ὥστε μηκέτι αὑτὴν ἀναστῆναι. 
 The ἔχϑρα here specified is not merely 
 and exclusively the enmity between Jew 
 and Gentile (comp. ed. 1), but a/so, as 
 in ver. 15, and here even still more dis- 
 tinctly and primarily, the enmity be- 
 tween both and God ; μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸν 
 Θεόν: τὸ yap ἑξῆς τῦυτο δηλοῖ, Chrys. 
 comp. Alf. in oc. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in 
 it,’ scil. ‘upon it,” Hamm. —not ‘in cor- 
 pore suo,’ Bengel; see Col. ii. 15 and 
 notes in loc. In FG; Vulg. (‘in semet 
 ipso’) Syr.-Philox., and several Latin 
 ἘΠ, we find ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; the reading prob- 
 ably owes its origin and support to the 
 reference ἕν σῶμα to Christ. 
 
Canela i718. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 59 
 
 \ ’ U >’ roo , a A \ a A > , 
 TOUS ἀμφοτέρους εν EVL σώματι τῷ Θεῷ διὰ του σταῦρου, ATTOKTEL- 
 
 i »Μ > > lal 17 ὯΝ bs \ > / τὸ 4 ce! “-“ 
 vas τὴν ἔχϑδραν ἐν αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐλὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν 
 
 a > a ΄ ῳ Ψ > Anal 
 τοῖς μακρὰν Kal εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς. OTL δι’ αὐτοῦ ἔγομεν τὴν 
 ἢ μ 
 
 17. καὶ ἐλχὃ ὦν] ‘And having come, 
 etc.;’ not ‘and came’ (Auth.), as_ this 
 obscures the commencement of the new 
 sentence (see Scholef. Hints, p. 100), 
 nor ‘and coming’ (Eadie), as the action 
 described by ἐλϑὼν is not here contem- 
 poraneous with, but prior to that of εὐηγ- 
 γελίσατο ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, 
 p. 382. This verse seems clearly to 
 refer back to ver. 14, αὐτὸς γάρ κ. τ. λ., 
 there being, as B. Crus. suggests, a faint 
 apposition between Xp. ἐστιν εἰρήνη, ver. 
 14, and εὐηγγελ. εἰρήνην, ver. 17; still, as 
 ver. 15 and 16 cannot be considered 
 parenthetical, the connection is carried 
 on by καί, and the verse is linked with 
 what immediately precedes. *“EASa@y thus 
 following ἀποκτείνας will more naturally 
 refer to a spiritual advent (see esp. Acts 
 Xxvi. 23), or a mediate advent in the 
 person of His Apostles, than to our 
 Lord’s preaching when on earth. ; com- 
 pare Acts xxvi. 23. The participle 
 ἐλϑὼν (no mere redundancy, Raphel, 
 Annot. Vol. 11. p. 471) in fact serves to 
 give a realistic touch to the whole group 
 of clauses; ‘Christ is our peace; yes, 
 and He came and by His Spirit and the 
 mouths of His Apostles He preached it ;’ 
 see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 338. 
 εἰρήνην] ‘peace, not only τὴν πρὸς τὸν 
 Θεόν (Chrys), but also τὴν πρὸς ἀλλή- 
 λους; see notes ver. 14, The repetition 
 of εἰρήνην is rightly maintained by Tisch. 
 with ABDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., 
 Goth., Copt., /&th., Arm., and many 
 Ff. It gives an emphasis and solemnity 
 to the passage, which is here (though 
 denied by Stier, p. 370, comp. Bengel) 
 especially appropriate. Meyer compares 
 Rom. iii. 31, viii. 15. 
 
 18. ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] ‘seeing that 
 through Him,’ not merely explanatory, 
 ‘to wit, that we have,’ (Baumg.), nor yet 
 
 strongly causal, ‘because we have, (Ben- 
 gel), but with somewhat more of a de- 
 monstrative or confirmatory force, ‘as it 
 is a fact that, etc.;’ compare 2 Cor i. 5, 
 and see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 7. The 
 ‘probatio,’ as Calvin observes, is ‘ab 
 effectu ;’ the principal moment of 
 thought, however, does not rest on ἔχο- 
 μεν, on the reality of the possession 
 (Harl.), or on any appeal to inward 
 experience, ‘for — is it not so?’ (Stier), 
 but, as the order suggests, on δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, 
 on the matter of fact that it was ‘through 
 Him, and none but Him’ that we haye 
 this mpocaywyn. For a sound sermon 
 on this text, see Sherlock, Serm. xvt. 
 Vol. 1. p. 288 sq. (ed. Hughes). 
 
 ἔχομεν ‘we are having,’ present; the 
 action is still going on; contrast ἐσχήκα- 
 μεν, Rom. vy. 2, where the reference is to 
 the period when they became Christians, 
 and where, consequently, the mpocaywy) 
 is spoken of as a thing past. Thy 
 Tpoctaywyny| ‘our introduction, admis- 
 sion, ‘quia ipse adduxit,’ /Eth.; not intran- 
 sitively, either here or Rom. v. 2, scil. 
 ‘access,’ Auth, ‘accessum,’ Vulg., ad- 
 ventum (dshini), Copt, ‘atgagg,’ Goth., 
 —but transitively, ‘adeundi copiam,’ 
 ‘admissionem,’ the latter being the pri- 
 mary and proper meaning of the word ; 
 see Meyer on Rom. y. 2, and compare 
 (appy-) Xen. Cyrop. vit. 5. 45, τοὺς 
 ἐμοὺς φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῇῆ, ib. τ. 
 3. 8, and the various applications of the 
 word in Polybius, 6. g. Hist. 1. 48. 2, τῶν 
 μηχανημάτων mp., XIV. 10. 9, τῶν dpyd- 
 νων. Christ is thus our προσαγωγεὺς to 
 the Father; οὐκ εἶπεν “πρόσοδον᾽ ἀλλὰ 
 «“προσαγωγήν,᾽ οὐ γὰρ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν προσήλ- 
 ϑόμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ αὐτοῦ προσήχϑημεν, 
 Chrys. on ver. 21; see 1 Pet. iii. 18, tva 
 ἡμᾶς mpooayayn τῷ Θεῷ. There may 
 possibly be here (less probably, however, 
 
60 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cnap. II. 19. 
 
 \ 4 > Ld 3 eX / \ x / 
 προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ Πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. 
 
 19.» 
 
 Rom. y. 2) an allusion to the προσαγω- 
 γεὺς (‘admissionalis,’ Lampridius, Sever. 
 4) at oriental courts, Tholuck, Rom. ἰ. c., 
 and Usteri, Lelrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 101; at 
 any rate, the supposition does not merit 
 the contempt with which it has been 
 treated by Riickert. The uses of προσα- 
 yoy) are well illustrated by Wakefield, 
 in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 86 (ed. 
 Valpy), and by Bos, Obs. Mise. 35, p. 
 149 sq. “in 
 one Spirit, common to Jew and Gentile ;’ 
 not for διά, (Chrys.; compare Cicum., 
 Calv., al.), but, as usual, ‘united in’ 
 (Olsh.); compare 1 Cor. xii. 13. The 
 Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital 
 sphere or element in which both parties 
 have their common προσαγωγὴ to the 
 Father. The mention of the three Per- 
 sons in the blessed Trinity, with the 
 three prepp. διά, ἐν, πρός, is especially 
 noticeable and distinct. 
 
 19. apa οὖν] ‘ Accordingly then,’ ‘so 
 
 ἐν ἕνι Πνεύματι] 
 
 ’ 
 
 then ;’ ‘rebus ita comparatis igitur ;’ con- 
 clusion and consequence from the decla- 
 rations of ver. 14—18, with a further 
 expansion of the ideas of ver. 13. On 
 the use of ἄρα οὖν, see notes on Gal. vi. 
 10, and compare Rom. vy. 18, vii. 3, 25, 
 vill. 12, ix. 16, 18; in all these cases the 
 weaker ratiocinative force of ἄρα is sup- 
 ported by the collective οὖν. This union 
 of the two particles is not found in clas- 
 sical Greek, except in the case of the 
 interrogative form apa; see Herm. Viger, 
 No. 292. 
 “strangers and sojourners;’ ‘peregrini 
 atque incole,’ Cic. Offic. 1. 84. The 
 two expressions seem to constitute a full 
 antithesis to συνπολῖται, and to include 
 all who, whether by national and territo- 
 rial demarcation, or by the absence of 
 civic privileges, were not citizens.’ Πά- 
 ροικος then is here (compare Acts vii. 6, 
 29, 1 Pet. ii. 11) simply the same as the 
 
 ΄ \ jf 
 ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι] 
 
 S > / 2) \ / \ / 5 3. 3: \ nr 
 ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, ANA ἐστε συνπολῖται 
 
 classical μέτοικος (a form which does not 
 occur in the N. T., and only once, Jer. 
 xx. 3, in the LXX), and was probably 
 its Alexandrian equivalent. It is used 
 frequently in the LXX, in eleven pas- 
 sages as a translation of 44, and in nine 
 of asim: ‘accolas fuisse dicit gentiles 
 quatenus multi ex illis morabantur inter 
 Judxos,....non tamen iisdem legibus 
 aut moribus aut religione utentes,’ Es- 
 tius. Harless (after Beng.) regards πάρ. 
 as in antithesis to οἰκεῖοι, ξένοι to συνπο- 
 Aira, the former relating to domestic, the 
 latter to civic privileges; this is plausi- 
 ble, —see Lev. xxii. 10 sq., Ecclus. 
 Xxix. 26 sq.,—but owing to the fre- 
 quent use of πάροικος simply for μέτοικος, 
 not completely demonstrable. An 
 allusion to proselytes (Whitby) is cer- 
 tainly contrary to the context; see ver. 
 11 sq. συνπολῖται, though par- 
 tially vindicated by Raphelius, Anmnot. 
 Vol. 11. p. 472, belongs principally to 
 later Greek, e. g. lian, Var. Hist. 111. 
 44, Joseph. Antig. x1x. 2. 2; but also 
 Eur. Heracl. 826; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
 172. The tendency to compound forms 
 without an adequate increase of meaning 
 is appy. ἃ very distinct characteristic of 
 ‘fatiscens Greecitas ;’ comp. Thiersch, de 
 Pentat. 11. 1, p. 83. With regard 
 to the orthography we may observe that 
 the form συνπολ. is adopted by Tisch. 
 (ed. 7) with AB'CDEFG, and must 
 appy. be adopted, as supported by such 
 very distinctly preponderating uncial au- 
 thority ; see Tisch. Prolegom. p. XLv1t. 
 
 τῶν ἁγίων] ‘the saints:’ not inclu- 
 sively the holy ‘of all times and lands’ 
 (Eadie), for the mention of the πολιτεία 
 τοῦ “Iop., ver. 12, is distinct and specific ; 
 nor exclusively the Jews as a nation 
 (Hamm.), or the saints of the Old Tes- 
 tament (Chrys.), for this the nature of 
 the argument seems to preclude, — but, 
 
Crap. II. 90. 
 
 A \ 5 A A A 
 τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι TOD Θεοῦ, 
 
 20. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So CDEFGKL; 
 Chrys. (text) omits "Ino. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer). 
 
 EPHESIANS. 61 
 
 20 2 L SEN IER 
 ἐποικοδομηϑέντες ἐπὶ τῷ Sepe- 
 
 many ν.; Orig. (1) and many Ff.; 
 Tisch. inverts the 
 
 order with AB; Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Orig. (2), Theophyl.; Ambrosiast., August. 
 
 (frequently), and many others (Liick., Lachm., Alf.). 
 
 uncial MSS. seems to preponderate. 
 
 the members of that spiritual commu- 
 nity in which Jew and Gentile Christians 
 were now united and incorporated, and 
 to which the external theocracy formed 
 a typical and preparatory institution. 
 The expression is further heightened 
 and defined by οἰκεῖοι rod Θεοῦ. On this 
 use of οἰκεῖος, see notes on Gal. vi. 10, 
 and for a good sermon on this text, Bev- 
 eridge, Serm. xtv1i1. Vol. 11. p. 381 sq. 
 
 20. €motkodoundévres| ‘built up, 
 ‘supereedificati, Vulg.; the preposition 
 being not otiose, but correctly marking 
 the super-position, superstructure ; comp. 
 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14, Gol. ii. 7. The 
 accus. is not used here (as in 1 Cor. iii. 
 12) because the idea of rest predominates 
 over that of motion or direction. That 
 the dat. rather than the gen. of rest is 
 here used, can hardly be said to be 
 ‘purely accidental’ (Meyer), as the for- 
 mer denotes absolute and less separable, 
 the latter partial and more separable 
 super-position ; see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 
 483. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. 11. § 68. 41. 1. 
 Though this distinction must not be 
 over-pressed in the N. T. (see Luke iv. 
 29), or even in classical writers (see 
 exx. in Rost τι. Palm, Lez. s. v. ἐπί, 11. 
 Vol. 1. p. 1035), it still appears to have 
 been correctly observed by St. Paul. 
 The reading ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ch. i. 10 
 (Zachm.), which would apparently form 
 an exception in this very Ep., is of 
 doubtful authority. τῶν ἂἄποσ- 
 τόλων καὶ προφητῶν] ‘of the Apos- 
 tles and Prophets.’ Two questions of 
 some interest present themselves, (1) 
 the nature of the gen.; (2) the meaning 
 of προφητῶν. With regard to (1) it may 
 
 The evidence of the seven 
 
 be said, that though the gen. of apposi- 
 tion (ϑεμέλιος of ἀπόστ. καὶ of προφ., 
 Chrys., comp. Theoph., GEcum.) is per- 
 fectly tenable on grammatical grounds, 
 {compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, p. 470), 
 and supported by the best ancient com- 
 mentators, all exegetical considerations 
 seem opposed to it. The Apostles were 
 not the foundations (Rev. xxi. 14 is not, 
 like the present, a dogmatical passage, 
 see Harl.), but laid them ; see 1 Cor. iii. 
 10. The gen. will therefore more prob- 
 ably be a gen. subject, not however in a 
 possessive sense (Calv. 2, Coce., Alf.), as 
 this seems tacitly to mix up the ϑεμέλιος 
 and the axpoywy. (comp. Jackson, Creed, 
 x1. 5. 2), but simply as a gen. of the 
 agent or originating cause (Scheul. Synt. 
 § 17. 1, p. 125; see on Thess. i. 6); what 
 the Apostles and prophets preached 
 formed the ϑεμέλιος ; compare Rom. xv. 
 20, Heb. vi. 1. Thus all seems consis- 
 tent, and in accordance with the analogy 
 of other passages; the doctrine of the 
 Apostles, i. e., Christ preached, is the 
 SeueAtos; Christ personal (ait. >Ino. 
 Xp.) the ἀκρογωνιαῖος ; Christ mystical 
 the πλήρωμα; comp. ch. i. 23. (2) 
 That the prophets of the New (Grot. al.) 
 and not of the Old Testament (Chrys., 
 Theod.) are now alluded to, seems here 
 rendered highly probable by the order of 
 the two classes (arbitrarily inverted by 
 Calv., and insufficiently accounted for by 
 Theod.), — by the analogous passages, 
 ch. iii. 5, iv. 11,—by the known pro- 
 phetic gifts in the early Church, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 19, al., —and still more by the ap- 
 parent nature of the gen. subjecti; see 
 above. No great stress can be laid on 
 
62 EPHESIANS. 
 
 ~_ 
 
 Cuap. II. 21. 
 
 aw a 5 " \ a y 5) , δι ἃ 
 ῳ των ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, οντος ακΚρογωνίαιοῦυ αὐτου 
 
 wilt la Xi rn 21 93 «e a 2 ὃ \ 7 hy i » 
 ησου βίστου, εν @ TAGA οὐἰκοοομῇ συναρμο OYOUMLEV?) αὔξει 
 
 the absence of the article; this only 
 shows that the Apostles and Prophets 
 were regarded as one class (Winer, Gr. 
 § 19. 4. d, p. 116), not that they were 
 identical (Harl.); Sharp’s rule cannot 
 be regularly applied to plurals; see 
 Middleton, Art. 111. 4. 2, p. 65 (ed. 
 Rose). This prominence of ‘ prophets’ 
 has been urged by Baur (Paulus. p. 438) 
 as a proof of the later and Montanist 
 origin of this Ep.; surely δεύτερον mpo- 
 φήτας, 1 Cor. xii. 20? is an indisputable 
 proof that such a distinct order existed 
 in the time of St. Paul. On the nature 
 of their office, see notes on ch. iv. 11. 
 
 akpoywviatov| ‘head-corner stone ;’ 
 ἀκρογων. scil. λίϑου ; ‘summus angularis 
 lapis is dicitur qui, in extremo angulo 
 fundamenti positus, duos parietes ex 
 diverso venientes conjungit et continet,’ 
 Estius ; comp. Psalm exviii. 22, Jer. li. 
 26 (Heb.), Isaiah xxviii. 16, Matth. xxi. 
 42,1 Pet. ii. 6. In 1 Cor. iii. 11, Christ 
 is represented as the ϑεμέλιος ; the image 
 is slightly changed, but the idea is the 
 same, — Christ is in one sense the sub- 
 stratum and in another the binding-stone 
 of the building ; ὁ λίϑος 6 ἀκρ. καὶ τοὺς 
 τοίχους συνέχει καὶ τοῦς δεμελίους, 
 Chrys.; see Suicer, Zhes. s. ν. and Vol. 
 11. p. 242. On the doctrinal meaning 
 and application of this attribute of 
 Christ, see the excellent discussion of 
 Jackson, Creed, xt. 51 sq. αὐτοῦ 
 "Ino. Χρ.] ‘Jesus Christ Himself, no 
 human teachers; the pronoun being ob- 
 viously referred not to ϑεμελίῳ (‘angu- 
 lari ejus,’ Beng.) or to axpoywy., as pos- 
 sibly Vulg. (‘ipso summo_ angulari 
 lapide Chr. Jesu’), but to Christ; so 
 rightly Auth., Syr., Clarom., and appy. 
 Goth.; Copt., Aith., Arm. omit. The 
 art. before “Ino. Xp. (the absence of 
 which is pressed by Beng.) may not only 
 be dispensed with (see Luke xx. 42), 
 
 but would even, as Harl. suggests, be 
 here incorrect ; it would strictly then be 
 ‘He Himself, viz. Christ’ (see Fritz. 
 Matth. iii. 4, p. 117), and would imply a 
 previous mention of Christ; whereas 
 Christ is mentioned for the first time in 
 the clause, and as in emphatic contrast 
 with those who laid the foundations ; see 
 Stier in loc., p. 394. 
 
 21. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ further and 
 more specific explanation of the preced- 
 ing clause; the pronoun referring, not 
 to ἀκρογωνιαίῳ (Cicum.), but to “Inc. 
 Xp.; ὁ τὸ πᾶν συνέχων ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 > 
 the building ;’ 12 al> ous [totum 
 go τὰ ἜΝ 
 
 wedificium] Syr., ‘omne illud zed.,’ Copt., 
 Arm. (with the distinctive n), Syr.-Phil. 
 There is here some difficulty owing to 
 the omission of the article; the strictly 
 grammatical translation of πᾶσα οἰκοδ. 
 (scil. ‘every building’) being wholly 
 irreconcilable with the context, which 
 clearly implies a reference to one single 
 building. Nor can it be readily ex- 
 plained away; for πᾶσα oix. can never 
 mean ‘every part of the building’ 
 (Chrys.), nor can oikod. (per se) be 
 regarded as implying ‘a church’ (Mey.). 
 We seem, therefore, compelled either to 
 adopt the reading of ec., and insert ἡ 
 [with AC; many mss.; Chrys. (text), 
 Theoph., but opp. to BDEFGKL; ma- 
 jority of mss.; Clem., al.J], or, with 
 more probability, to class οἰκοδομὴ in the 
 present case with those numerous nouns 
 (see the list in Winer, G'r. § 19), which, 
 from referring to what is well known 
 and defined (6. g. πᾶσα γῆ, Thucyd. 11. 
 43, see Poppo in loc. p. 233) can, like 
 proper names, dispense with the art. 
 comp. πᾶσα ἐπιστολή, Ignat. Eph. § 12, 
 Pearson, Vind. Jgnat. 11. 10. 1, and 
 Winer, Gr. § 18. 4. p. 101. It must be 
 
 πᾶσα oikodoun| fall 
 
Cuap. II. 22. 
 
 EPHESTANS. 
 
 63 
 
 » Ν ee ’ , Φ 9 Le \ id lal lal » 
 εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ, “ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς cuvoixodopeioSe εἰς 
 
 / lal lal "ἢ Ἁ 
 κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι. 
 
 admitted that there appears no other 
 equally distinct instance in the N. T. 
 (Matth. ii. 8, Luke iv. 18, Acts ii. 36, 
 vii. 22, cited by Eadie, are not in point, 
 as being either exx. of proper names or 
 abstract substt.), nor appy. even in the 
 Greek Pentateuch (most of the exx. of 
 Thiersch. Pentat. 111. 2, p. 121, admit 
 of other explanations) ; still in the pres- 
 ent case this partial laxity of usage can 
 scarcely be denied. The late and non- 
 Attic form οἰκοδομή (Lobeck, Phryn. p- 
 421, 487), used both for οἰκοδόμημα and 
 οἰκοδόμησις (Rost τι. Palm, Lez. s. y.), is 
 here perhaps adopted in preference to 
 οἶκος as less distinctly implying the 
 notion of a completed building; sce 
 Harl, zn loc. συναρμολογου- 
 μένη] ‘fitly framed together, Auth., 
 “compaginata,’ Jerome; present part.; 
 the process was still going on. The 
 rare verb συναρμολογ. (= συναρμόζειν) is 
 only found here and iv. 16. Wetst. cites 
 Anthol. 111. 32. 4, ἡρμολόγησε τάφον. 
 
 αὔ ξ εἰ] ‘groweth;’ the present marking 
 not only the actual progress, but the 
 normal, perpetual, unconditioned nature 
 of the organic increase ; see Scheuerl. 
 Synt. § 32. p. 339, 340. This increase 
 must undoubtedly be understood as ex- 
 tensive (opp. to Harl.) as well as inten- 
 sive, and as referring to the enlarge- 
 ment and development of the Church, 
 as well as to its purity or holiness ; com- 
 pare Thiersch, Apostol. Church, p. 52 sq. 
 (Transl.). The pres. αὔξω (more com- 
 mon in poetry) is not found in the LXX, 
 and in the N. T. only here and Col. ii. 
 19. ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘in the Lord 
 (Jesus Christ),’ the usual meaning of 
 Kup. in St. Paul’s Epp.; see Winer, Gr. 
 §19.1,p.113. It is difficult to decide 
 how these words are to be connected; 
 whether (a) with αὔξει, Meyer; (b) with 
 ἅγιον, Harl., Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 249, 
 
 or (6) with ναὸν ἅγιον (comp. Stier), to 
 which it is to be regarded as a kind of 
 tertiary predicate ; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 
 489 sq. Of these, (a) seems tautologous ; 
 (Ὁ) gives perhaps a greater prominence 
 to the special nature of the holiness than 
 the context requires; (6) on the con- 
 trary, as the order shows (ναὸν ἅγ., not 
 ἅγ. ναόν ; comp. Gersdorf, Beitrége, v. p. 
 334 sq.), gives no special prominence to 
 the idea of holiness, but defines almost, 
 as a further predication of manner, how 
 the whole subsists and is realized, — 
 ‘and it is a holy temple in the Lord, and 
 in Him alone;’ comp. notes on ver. 11. 
 On this account, and from the harmony 
 with ἐν Πνεύματι, ver. 22, (c) is to be 
 
 preferred. 
 22. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘in whom ye 
 also;’ further specification in ref. to 
 
 those whom the Apostle is addressing ; ἐν 
 @ not being temporal (‘dum,’ Syr., but 
 not Philox.), nor referring to the more 
 remote ναὸν ἐν Kup. (Eadie), but, as in 
 ver. 21, to the preceding ἐν Κυρίῳ, and 
 kal with its ascensive and slightly con- 
 trasting force (comp. notes on Phil. iv. 
 12) marking the exalted nature of the 
 association in which the Ephesians 
 shared ; they also were living stones of 
 the great building ; comp. Alf. in loc. 
 
 συνοικοδομεῖσϑ εἶ ‘are builded to- 
 gether ;’ clearly not imperative (Caly.), 
 as St. Paul is evidently impressing on 
 his readers what they are, the mystical 
 body they actually belong to, not what 
 they ought to be. The force of σὺν ap- 
 pears similar to that in συνέκλεισεν, Gal. 
 iii. 22 (see notes), and to refer to the close 
 and compact union of the component 
 parts of the building. Meyer aptly cites 
 Philo, de Prem. § 20, Vol. 11. p. 427 
 (ed. Mang.), οἰκίαν εὖ συνῳκοδομημένην 
 καὶ συνηρμοσμένην. The comma after 
 συνοικοδ. { Griesb.) which would refer εἰς 
 
64 EPHESIANS. 
 
 So I pray for you, believing 11 
 ye know how God revealed Σ 
 
 Cuap; Il, 1. 
 
 Τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος 6 δέσμιος 
 
 to me the mystery of the call of the Gentiles, and gave me grace to preach it, that men and angels might learn 
 Gou's manifold wisdom. Fuint uot then at my troubles. 
 
 Kato. to αὔξει, does not scem necessary. 
 ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘in the Spirit;’ tertiary 
 predication (‘and it is in the Spirit’) 
 exactly similar and parallel to ἐν Κυρίῳ, 
 ver. 21. Two other translations haye 
 been proposed: (a) ‘through the spirit,’ 
 Auth., Theophyl., Meyer; (0) ‘in a spir- 
 itual manner,’ opp. to ἐν σαρκί ; 1. e., the 
 κατοιις. iS πνευματικόν, NOt a ναὸς χειρο- 
 ποίητος, Acts vii. 48 (Olsh.). Of these 
 (a) violates the apparent parallelism 
 with ἐν Kup., and presupposes, in order 
 to account for the position of ἐν Πν., an 
 emphasis in it which does not seem to 
 exist, while again (0) introduces an idea 
 not hinted at in the context, and ob- 
 scures the reference to the Holy Trinity, 
 which here can scarcely be pronounced 
 doubtful. It has been urged by Meyer, 
 that in the interpr. here adopted, the 
 ‘continens’ and ‘contentum’ are con- 
 founded together; but see Rom. viii. 9, 
 and observe that the second ἐν refers 
 rather to the act of κατοικεῖν involved in 
 the verbal subst.; ‘we are built in Christ, 
 form a habitation of God, and are so 
 inhabited in and by the influence of the 
 Spirit;’ see Alf. in loc., and compare 
 Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 105 sq. 
 Lastly, no argument in favor of (b) can 
 be founded on the absence of the article, 
 as Πνεῦμα is used with the same latitude 
 as proper names ; see notes on Gal. y. 5, 
 p- 83. The opinion also there expressed 
 against the distinction of Harless (A. ἰ.), 
 between the ‘subjective’ and ‘ objective’ 
 Holy Spirit, seems perfectly valid. For 
 a practical sermon on this verse (‘the 
 essence of religion a disposition to 
 God’), see Whichcote, Serm, xtviit. 
 Vol. 11. p. 383. 
 
 CuarTer III. 1. τούτου xdpir| 
 ‘For this reason,’ ‘hujus rei gratia,’ 
 Vulg., Clarom.; sc. ‘because ye are so 
 
 called and so built together in Christ. 
 The exact meaning of these words will 
 of course be modified by the view taken 
 of the construction. Out of the many 
 explanations of this passage, two deserve 
 attention. (a) That of Syr. and Chrys., 
 according to which εἰμὲ is supplied after 
 ὁ δέσμ. Ἴ. X., 6 δέσμιος being the predi- 
 cate, —‘I am the prisoner of the Lord,’ 
 the prisoner κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (‘multa enim 
 erat istius captivitatis celebritas,’ Beza) ; 
 τούτου χάριν then being ‘for the sake of 
 this edification of yours,’ ch. ii, 22: (ὁ) 
 that of Theodoret, al., according to 
 which 6 δέσμιος is in apposition, and the 
 construction resumed, ver. 14; τούτου 
 χάριν then implying on this account, 
 ‘because ye are so built together’ (De 
 W.), or, more probably, as above, with 
 a wider ref. to the whole foregoing sub- 
 ject; ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενος, καί τινες ἦτε, 
 καὶ πῶς ἐκλήϑητε, καὶ ἐπὶ τίσιν ἐκλήϑητε, 
 δέομαι καὶ ἱκετεύω τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν 
 βεβαιῶσαι ὑμᾶς τῇ πίστει, Theodorct. 
 The interpretation ‘per brachylogiam,’ 
 according to which, δέσμ. εἰμι is to be 
 supplied (Wiggers, Stud. u. Avit. p. 841. 
 Ῥ. 431 note, Meyer, ed. 1), is so clearly 
 untenable, that Meyer (ed. 2) has now 
 given it up in favor of (a). This former 
 interpr. deserves consideration, but on 
 account of the virtual tautology in tour. 
 xdp. and ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, --- the analogy of ch. 
 iv. 1,— and still more the improbability 
 that St. Paul would style himself ὁ δέσ- 
 pos, when he so well knew others were 
 suffering like himself (1 Cor. iv. 9 sq.), 
 the latter is to be preferred; see Winer, 
 Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The recent expla- 
 nation of Wieseler, which makes ὁ δέσ- 
 μιος to be in apposition, but dispenses 
 with all assumption of a parenthesis, or 
 of an abbreviated structure is not very 
 satisfactory or intelligible ; see Chron. 
 Synops. p. 446. τοῦ Xp. Ἰησϑδυ) 
 
Οὐ: IIT. 2) 3. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 65 
 
 A an? ΤΉ ἃ ἘΠΕῚ ΘΟ Nal a 3 fal 29 ’ ΄ \ 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν eSvaV — ~ εἰγε ἠκούσατε THY 
 
 οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς doSelons μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, 
 
 ‘Of Jesus Christ,’ scil. ‘whom Christ 
 and His cause have made a prisoner,’ 
 Olsh.; gen. of the author or originating 
 cause of the captivity ; compare Philem. 
 13, δεσμοὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, and see Winer, 
 Gr. § 30. 20, obs. p. 170, Hartung, 
 Casus, p. 17, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. 
 ὑπὲρ tu. τῶν ἐδ νῶν] ‘in behalf of 
 you Gentiles ;’ introductory of the subject 
 of the Apostle’s calling as an Apostle of 
 the Gentiles, and resumed ver. 12. 
 
 2. εἴγε] ‘if indeed, ‘as I may sup- 
 pose,’ ‘on the assumption that;’ gentle 
 appeal, expressed in a hypothetical form, 
 and conveying the hope that his words 
 had not been quite forgotten. Evzye is 
 properly ‘si quidem, and if resolved, 
 ‘tum certe si, (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
 p- 308); it does not zn ztself imply the 
 rectitude of the assumption made (‘ εἴγε 
 usurpatur de re quz jure sumpta credi- 
 tur,’ Herm. Viger, No. 310), but derives 
 that shade of meaning from the context ; 
 see notes on Gal. iii. 4. In the present 
 case there could be no real doubt ; ‘ neque 
 enim ignorare, quod hic dicitur, poterant 
 Ephesii, quibus Paulus ipse evangelium 
 plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius ; 
 comp. ch. iv. 21, 2 Cor. v. 3, Col. i. 23. 
 No argument, then, can be fairly de- 
 duced from these words against the 
 inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians 
 (Mill, Prolegom. p. 9, De Wette), nor 
 can the hypothetical form be urged as 
 implying that the Apostle was personally 
 unknown to his readers. Thy 
 οἰκονομίαν κ. τ. λ.} ‘the dispensation 
 of the grace of God which was given to me, 
 etc.’ In this passage two errors must be 
 avoided : first, τῆς δοϑείσης must not be 
 taken, virtually or expressly (‘ per hypal- 
 lagen’), for τὴν δοϑεῖσαν, comp. Col. i. 
 25; secondly, no special meanings must 
 be assigned either to οἰκονομία or χάρις. 
 Oikovoula is not ‘the apostolic office’ 
 
 9 
 
 5 ὅτι 
 
 (Wieseler, Synops. p. 448), but, as in ch. 
 i. 10 (see notes), ‘ disposition,’ ‘ dispensa- 
 tion ;’ τῆς xapiros being the gen., — not 
 subjecti, Gacum. (who reads ἐγνώρισε, as 
 in Rec.), but, as the pass. ἐγνωρίσδε 
 seems rather to suggest, — objecti, or 
 rather the gen. of ‘the point of view,’ 
 which serves to complete the conception, 
 sc. ‘the dispensation in respect of the 
 grace of God, ete.,’ see Scheuerl. Synt. 
 § 18, p. 129, comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, 
 p- 175. This is further explained by 
 ὅτι κατὰ amor. ver. 33; οἰκονομίαν χάριτός 
 There is 
 thus no need to depart from the strict 
 meaning of χάρις ; it is not ‘munus 
 Apostolicum’ (Estius), but the assisting 
 and qualifying grace of God for the per- 
 formance of it. εἰς ὑμᾶς is well 
 translated ‘to youward, Auth.; it is not 
 ‘in vobis,’ Vulg., or even ‘for you’ (dat. 
 commodi), but with the proper force of 
 eis (ethical direction), ‘toward you,’ ‘to 
 work in you;’ compare ch. i. 19, and 
 Winer, Gr. § 49. a. p. 354. 
 
 3. ὅτι x. τ. A.] ‘that by way of revela- 
 tion;’ objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. 
 § 584) dependent on the preceding ἠκού- 
 cate x. T. A. and explanatory of the 
 nature and peculiarity of the οἰκονομ. ; 
 the emphasis obviously falling on the 
 predication of manner κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν. 
 These latter words are used in a very 
 similar, though not perfectly identical 
 manner, Gal. ii. 2 (comp. 2 Cor. vill. 8, 
 Gal. iv. 29, see note, Phil. ii. 2); there, 
 however, the allusion is rather to the 
 norma or rule, here to the manner, ‘by 
 way of revelation,’ ‘revelation-wise ;’ 
 comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 239. 
 τὸ μυστήριον) ‘the mystery,’ not of 
 redemption generally, nor of St. Paul’s 
 special call, but, in accordance with the 
 context, of that which is the evident sub- 
 ject of the passage, — the admission of 
 
 φησι thy ἀποκάλυψιν, Chrys. 
 
66 ᾿ EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cnap. IIL. 3, 4. 
 
 κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστήριον, KAY@S προέγραψα 
 
 5 ’ , 4 Ν ὰ 4 ’ , n Ἂς ΄ ie 
 ἐν ὀλίγῳ, πρὸς ὃ Suvace ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν 
 
 the Gentiles to fellowship and heirship 
 with Christ in common with the Jews; 
 μυστήριον γάρ ἐστι τὸ τὰ ἔϑνη ἐξαίφνης 
 εἰς μείζονα τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εὐγένειαν ἀναγα- 
 γεῖν, Chrys. ; see Usteri, Lehrb. p. 252. 
 On the use and meaning of the word 
 μυστήριον see notes on ch. ν. 82. 
 
 The reading ἐγνώρισε [Rec. with D?E 
 KL; many mss.; Eth. (both); Dam., 
 Theoph., al.] is distinctly inferior to the 
 text [ABCD!FG; many mss.; Syr. 
 (both), Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., 
 al.] in external authority, and seems to 
 have been an intended emendation of 
 structure. προέγραψ αἹ ‘have 
 afore written, Hamm.; ἃ translation 
 here preferable to the aoristic ‘afore 
 wrote’ (Auth.), as serving better to de- 
 fine the reference, as not being to any 
 earlier (Chrys., but not Theod., The- 
 oph.), but simply to the present Epistle ; 
 comp. ch. 1. 9 sq., ii. 13 sq. The clause 
 seems introduced to confirm the readers, 
 the ref. being, as ver. 4 clearly shows, 
 neither to κατὰ ἀποκαλ. nor to μυστήρ. 
 but to ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστ. ; it was 
 the fact of this knowledge having been 
 imparted, not the manner in which he 
 attained it, or the precise nature of it 
 that the Apostle desires to specify and 
 reiterate. To enclose this clause and 
 ver. 4 in a parenthesis ( Wetst., Griesb.), 
 is thus obviously unsatisfactory. ἐν 
 
 Oo. > 
 ὀλίγῳ] 1Δ..5.5.}5 [in paucis] Syr., 
 Ὁ Δ 
 
 ‘in brevi,’ Vulg., διὰ βραχέων, Chrys. ; 
 see Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 293. The 
 meaning, ‘a short time before,’ ‘just 
 now,’ (comp. Theod.) is distinctly un- 
 tenable: this would be πρὸ ὀλίγου: ἐν 
 ὀλίγῳ in a temporal sense can only 
 mean, as Mey. and Harl. correctly ob- 
 serve, ‘in a short space of time:’ see 
 Acts xxvi. 28, where, howeyer, as in the 
 present case, the meaning, ‘briefly,’ 
 
 ‘with a compendious form of argument’ 
 (not ‘lightly,’ Alf.; see Meyer in loc.), 
 is appy. more tenable. Stier alludes to 
 the common epistolary expression, ‘a 
 few lines.’ 
 
 4. πρὸς 8] ‘in accordance to which,’ 
 ‘agreeably to which,’ scil. the mpoyeypap- 
 μένον, not ἐν ὀλίγω (Kypke): from what 
 the Apostle had written in this Epistle 
 his insight into the mystery of Christ 
 was to be inferred by his readers; ‘ex 
 ungue leonem,’ Beng. The remark of 
 Harl. that πρὸς (with ace.) in its ethical 
 use denotes the relation of conformity 
 to, seems correct and comprehensive. 
 Whether this be in reference to cause 
 and effect (‘owing to,’ Herod. ry. 161, 
 comp. Matth. xix. 8; see exx. in Palm 
 u.;, Rost, Lex. Ss» ¥.-b., aa, Vol. 1a 
 1157), design and execution (‘in order 
 to,’ 1 Cor. xii. 7, al.), simple comparison 
 (Rom. viii. 18; Herod. 111. 34, cited by 
 Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, or, as 
 here rule and measure (see notes on Gal. 
 ii. 14) must be determined by the con- 
 text. If we add to these the indication 
 of simple mental direction (‘in regard 
 to,’ ‘in reference to,’ Heb. i. 7, see 
 Winer, Gr. § 48. ἢ. p. 360, comp. notes 
 on ch. iv. 12), the ethical uses of πρὸς 
 with ace. will be sufficiently delineated. 
 For a good and comprehensive list of 
 exx. see Rost and Palm, Lez. 5. v. Vol. 
 1. Ὁ» 1150. 5η: 
 ἀναγιν. νοῆσαι] ‘you can while read- 
 ing, or as you read, perceive ;’ the tem- 
 poral participle expressing the contem- 
 porary act, comp. Donalds. Gr. § 576. 
 The aor. νοῆσαι is appy. here used as 
 marking, not exactly the sudden and 
 transitory nature of the act (AIf.; con- 
 trast Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383), but 
 the distinct manifestations of it, the 
 single act being regarded, as it were, 
 the commencement of a continuity ; see 
 
 δύνασϑε 
 
πὰρ. III. 5. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 67 
 
 > a 7, a ews Bade heck im 5) 3 
 μου ἐν τῷ μυστηριῳ του “Χριστοῦ, ο ετέραις YEVEALS οὐκ EYVO- 
 
 ρίσϑη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀν) ρώπων, ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφϑη τοῖς ἁγίοις 
 
 esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 173. 4, Donalds. 
 Gr. § 427. d. The student must be 
 careful in pressing the aor. in this mood, 
 as so much depends on the context and 
 the mode in which the action is contem- 
 plated by the writer; see Bernhardy, 
 Synt. ἰ. c., Kriiger, Sprachl. 53. 6. 9, and 
 observe that δύναμαι and similar verbs, 
 ἔχω, δυνατός εἶμι, SéAw, are often idi- 
 omatically followed by the aor. rather 
 than the present; see Winer, § 44. 7, 
 p. 298, and the note of Matzner in his 
 ed. of Antiph. p. 153 sq. τὴν 
 σύνεσίν μον κ. τ. λ.} ‘my insight, my 
 understanding in the mystery of Christ.’ 
 The article is not needed before the 
 prep., as σύνεσις ἐν τῷ μυστ. forms a 
 single composite idea; comp. 3 Esdr. 1. 
 3, τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Κυρίου 
 (Harl.), and see notes on ch. i. 15. 
 The formula, συνιέναι ἐν (and εἰς) oc- 
 curs several times in the LXX, 2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 12, Nehem. xiii. 7, al., and thus 
 justifies the omission of the article with 
 the derivative subst.: see Winer, § 20. 
 2, p. 123. The distinction between 
 συνιέναι (‘to understand,’ ‘verstehn’), 
 and νοεῖν (‘to perceive,’ ‘merken’), is 
 noticed by Tittmann, Synon. p. 191. 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ is commonly taken as 
 a gen. objecti, ‘the mystery relating to 
 Christ,’ se. of which His reconciliation, 
 and union of the Jews and Gentiles in 
 Himself formed the subject; compare 
 Theophyl. in loc. By comparing, how- 
 ever, the somewhat difficult passage, 
 Col. i. 27, tov pvornp.... 
 Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, it would certainly seem 
 that it is rather a species of gen. materic, 
 or of identity: ‘Christus selbst ist das 
 Concretum des gottlichen Geheimnisses,’ 
 Meyer; comp. Stier zn loc., and see exx. 
 in Scheuerlein, Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83. 
 5. 6] ‘which,’ scil. which μυστήριον 
 τοῦ Xp. ver. 4; there being no parenthe- 
 
 . ὅς ἐστιν 
 
 sis (see above), but that simple linked 
 connection by means of relatives which 
 is so characteristic of this Epistle. 
 
 « / a « 
 ἑτέραις yevears] 
 
 in other genera- 
 tions, ages,’ ‘anparaim aldim,’ Goth. ; 
 dative of time ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 9, 
 p- 195; comp. notes, ch. ii. 11. Meyer, 
 maintaining the usual meaning of γενεά, 
 explains the dat. as a simple dat. com- 
 modi, and τοῖς υἱοῖς as a further explana- 
 tion. ‘This is unnecessary precision, as 
 in Col. i. 26, ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν 
 γενεῶν, the less usual meaning, ‘ age,’ 
 can scarcely be denied: see Acts xiv. 
 16, and, probably, Luke i. 50. In the 
 LXX, γενεὰ is the usual translation of 
 sis, which certainly (see Gesen. Lex. 
 s. v.), admits both meanings. In one 
 instance, Isaiah xxiv. 22, even m7 
 is so translated. The insertion of ἐν 
 before ἑτέραις (Rec.) rests only on the 
 authority of a few mss.; Copt., and 
 Syr.-Phil. 
 ἂν δ ρ.] ‘to the sons of men;’ ‘latissima 
 appellatio, causam exprimens ignoran- 
 tix, ortum naturalem;’ so Beng., who, 
 however, proceeds less felicitously to 
 refer the expression to the ancient 
 prophets. ‘This is neither fairly demon- 
 strable from the use of f=s—43, (Ezek. 
 vii. 1, al.), nor by any means consonant 
 with the present passage, where no com- 
 parison is instituted between the prophets 
 of the Old and of the New Test., but 
 between the times,—the then and the 
 The expression, viol τῶν ἀνῶρ. 
 seems ehosen to make the contrast with 
 the ἅγιοι ἀπόστ. αὐτοῦ καὶ προφ., the 
 ον 91 Ἰθευΐ-: 
 xxxiii. 1) more fully felt. ὦ 95] 
 Observe the comparison which the par- 
 ticle introduces and suggests : ἐγνωρίσϑη 
 μὲν τοῖς πάλαι προφήταις, GAN οὐχ ws νῦν" 
 
 τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν 
 
 now. 
 
 Θεοῦ ἄνϑρωποι 
 
 ov γὰρ τὰ πράγματα εἶδον [comp. 1 John 
 i. 1] ἀλλὰ τοὺς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων προέ- 
 
68 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. III. 6. 
 
 - \ 
 ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις ἐν Πνεύματι, 5 εἶναι, τὰ ἔδνη 
 
 ραψαν λόγους, Theodoret. τοῖς 
 ἁγίοις ἀποστ.] ‘to [His holy Apostles.’ 
 The epithet ἁγίοις has been very unrea- 
 sonably urged by De Wette as a mark 
 of the post-apostolic age of the epistle. 
 It is obviously used to support and 
 strengthen the antithesis to the viol τῶν 
 ἄνδρ. The Apostles were ἅγιοι in their 
 office as God’s chosen messengers, ἅγιοι 
 in their personal character as the in- 
 spired preachers of Christ; compare 
 Luke i. 70, Acts ili. 21, 2 Pet. i. 21 
 (Lachm.), where the prophets are so 
 designated. The meaning of προφῆται 
 is here the same as in ch. ii. 20, the 
 ‘N. T. prophets ;” see notes on ch. iv. 
 ΕἸ. ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘by the 
 Spirit;’? Auth., Arm. (instrumental 
 case) ; Holy Agent by whom the ἀποκά- 
 Avis was given, ἐν having here more of 
 its instrumental force; εἰ μὴ yap τὸ 
 Πνεῦμα ἐδίδαξε τὸν Πέτρον, οὐκ ἂν τὸν 
 ἐωνικὸν Κορνήλιον μετὰ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ 
 παρεδέξατο, Theophyl.; comp. Chrys., 
 who certainly appears erroneously cited 
 (De W., Eadie) as joining ἐν Mv. with 
 mpop., ‘prophets in the Spirit,’ sc. Seo- 
 πνεύστους-. This latter construction, 
 though fairly admissible (comp. Winer, 
 Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), is open to the deci- 
 sive exegetical objection that it is an 
 ‘idem per idem;’ if prophets were not 
 divinely inspired, ‘ prophets in the Spirit,’ 
 the name would be misapplied. On the 
 omission of the art. see ch. ii. 22. The 
 traces of Montanism which Baur 
 (Paulus, p. 440) finds in these words, 
 are so purely imaginary as not to de- 
 serve serious notice or confutation. 
 
 6. εἶναι τὰ Edy] ‘to wit, that the 
 Gentiles are,’ ‘esse gentes,’ Clarom., 
 Vulg., Goth., not ‘should be,’ Auth., 
 Eadie, the objective infin. here expres- 
 sing not the design but the subject and 
 purport of the mystery: τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ 
 μυστήριον τὸ εἶναι τὰ ἔϑνη συγκληρονόμα 
 
 τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, καὶ συμμέ- 
 τοχα, Theoph.; compare Donalds. Gr. 
 § 584. συνκληρονόμα k.T.A.] 
 ‘fellow-heirs and fellow-members, and fel- 
 low-partakers of the promise.’ It does not 
 seem correct to regard these three epi- 
 thets, on the one hand, as merely cumu- 
 lative and oratorical, or on the other as 
 studiedly mystical and significant (com- 
 pare Stier, who here finds a special allu- 
 sion to the Trinity). The general fact 
 of the συνκληρονομία is reasserted, in 
 accordance with the Apostle’s previous 
 expressions, both in its outward and in- 
 ward relations. The Gentiles were fel- 
 low-heirs with the believing Jews in the 
 most unrestricted sense; they belonged 
 to the same corporate body, the faithful ; 
 they shared to the full in the same spir- 
 itual blessings, the ἐπαγγελία ; see Theod. 
 in loc. The compounds σύνσωμος (‘con- 
 corporalis,’ see Suicer, 765. s. ν. Vol. 
 11. 1191) and συνμέτοχος (‘ comparti- 
 ceps,’ ch. v. 7) appear to have been both 
 formed by St. Paul, being only found in 
 this Ep. and the KEcclesiast. writers. 
 The verb συμμετέχω occurs in classical 
 Greek, 6. g. Eurip. Suppl. 648, Plato, 
 Theet. 181 c, Xenoph. Anab. vit. 8. 17. 
 Tisch. (ed. 7) now adopts the forms σὺν- 
 kAnp. and συνσωμ. with AB'DEFG, and 
 συνμετ. with ABICDIFG, — appy. on 
 right principles ; see Prolegom. p. XLVII. 
 τῆς ἐπαγγελία] ‘the promise of sal- 
 vation,’ not merely of the Holy Spirit 
 (Eadie) ; for though the promise of the 
 Spirit was one of the prominent gifts of 
 the New Covenant (Gal. iii. 14), it 
 would here be not only too restricted, 
 but even scarcely consonant with the 
 foregoing συνκληρονόμα. The addi- 
 tion of αὐτοῦ after τῆς ἐπαγγ. (Mec.) is 
 fairly supported [D?D®°EFGKL; many 
 mss.; Vulg. (some edd.), Goth., Syr.- 
 Philox. ; Theod., al.], but not found in 
 ABCD!; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Amit., 
 
Cuap. III. 7, 8. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 69 
 
 , \ ,ὔ A 
 συνκληρονόμα καὶ σύνσωμα Kal συνμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν 
 
 Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 
 
 “ov ἐγενήδην διάκονος κατὰ 
 
 τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοϑεῖσάν μοι κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ- 
 
 n / ? la $3 \ a 3 / Hf 
 γείαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. * ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων 
 
 Copt., Syr., and thus rightly rejected by 
 the best recent editors. ἐν Xp. 
 and διὰ τοῦ evayy. both refer to the 
 three foregoing epithets. The former 
 points to the objective ground of the 
 salvation, Him zx whom it centred, the 
 latter the medium by which it was to be 
 subjectively applied (Mey.): τῷ πεμφϑῆ- 
 vat καὶ πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ τῷ πιστεῦσαι" οὐ 
 γὰρ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 
 Chrysost. On the distinction between 
 ἐν and διὰ in the same sentence, see 
 Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note, and 
 comp. ch. i. 7. The reading of 
 Rec. ἐν τῷ Xp. [DEFGKL; most mss. ; 
 Clarom., Sang., Boern.; Orig. (3), al.] 
 is rejected by most recent editors in 
 favor of the text which is found in 
 ABC; some mss., and supported by 
 Aug., Vulg., Goth., Copt., al. 
 
 7. éyevhdsny] “1 became;’ this less 
 usual form is rightly adopted by Tisch., 
 Lachm., al., on the authority of ABD} 
 FG against CD?EKL, which read ἐγενό- 
 unv. The passive form, however, implies 
 no corresponding difference of meaning 
 (Riick., Waddie); γίγνομαι in the Doric 
 dialect was a deponent pass.; ἐγενήϑην 
 was thus used in it for ἐγενόμην, and 
 from thence occasionally crept into the 
 language of later writers ; see Buttmann, 
 Irreg. Verbs, 5. v. TEN—, Lobeck, Phryn. 
 p- 108, 109, and comp. notes on Col. iv. 
 11. διάκονο 5] ‘a minister,’ Col. 
 i. 23, 2 Cor. iii. 6. Meyer rightly im- 
 pugns the distinction of Harless, that 
 didk. points more to activity in relation 
 to the service, ὑπηρέτης to activity in rela- 
 tion to the master. ‘This certainly cannot 
 be substantiated by the exx. in the N. 
 Teisee! 2) Cor. vin 4,.xi6 95. 1 Tim, ive ας 
 where did. is simply used in reference to 
 
 the master, and Luke i. 2, where ὑπηρέτης 
 refers to the service. On the derivation 
 of bide. (διήκω), see Buttm. Lezil. s. v. 
 διάκτορος, ὃ 40.3; for its more remote 
 affinities [AK-ATK- ‘hbend’], Benfey, 
 Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 22. 
 dwp. τῆς xXapiTos| ‘the gift of the 
 grace ;” gen. of identity; that of which 
 the gift (the apostolic office, the office of 
 preaching to the Gentiles) consisted ; 
 compare Plato, Leg. vi11. 844, διττὰς 
 δωρεὰς χάριτος, and see Scheuerl. Synt. 
 δ 12, 1, py 82; Winer, Gr: § 50. 8, p: 
 470. τὴν δοδϑεῖσάν μοι] ‘which 
 was given to me;’ not a mere reiteration 
 of the preceding δωρεάν, but associated 
 closely with the following words which 
 detine the manner of the δόσις. The 
 reading τῆς δοϑείσης (Lachm.) is sup- 
 ported by strong external authority 
 [ABCD!FG; 10 mss.; Vulg. Clarom., 
 Copt.] but appears very likely to have 
 arisen from a conformation to ver. 2. 
 The accus. is found in D?EKL; major- 
 ity of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., al.; 
 Chrys., Theod.. al., and is adopted by 
 Tisch., and most recent critics. 
 
 Thy 
 
 κατὰ τὴν evepy.| ‘according to the 
 working or operation of his power ;’ defin- 
 ing preposit. clause, dependent, not on 
 ἐγενόμην (Mey.) but on τὴν dodeiody μοι», 
 which would otherwise seem an unneces- 
 sary addition: ‘the mention of the power 
 of God is founded on the circumstance 
 that St. Paul sees in his change of heart, 
 from a foe toa friend of Christ, an act 
 of omnipotence,’ Olsh. On the proper 
 force of κατά, sce notes, ch. i. 19. 
 
 8. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ)ὔ ‘To 
 me who am less than the least,’ Auth.; a 
 most felicitous translation. No addition 
 was required to the former period ; the 
 
70 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. III. 5, 
 
 δ. ἡ ς ΄ὔ ev ’ a mm > ie ἂν 3 / 
 ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις αὕτη, ἐν τοῖς ἔδνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασδαι τὸ aveEvyviac- 
 
 τον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 
 great Apostle, however, so truly, so ear- 
 nestly felt his own weakness and nothing- 
 ness (εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι, 2 Cor. xv. 15), 
 that the mention of God’s grace towards 
 him awakens within, by the forcible con- 
 trast it suggests, not only the remem- 
 brance of his former persecutions of the 
 church (1 Cor. xv. 10), but of his own 
 sinful nature (1 Tim. i. 15, εἰμί, not ἦν), 
 and unworthiness for so high an office. 
 Calvin and Harl. here expound with far 
 more vitality than Est., who refers this 
 ταπεινοφροσύνης ὑπερβολὴν (Chrysost.) 
 solely to the memory of his former per- 
 secutions. It is perfectly incredible how, 
 in such passages as these, which reveal 
 the truest depths of Christian experience, 
 Baur (Paulus, p. 447) can only see con- 
 tradictions and arguments against the 
 apostolic origin of the Epistle. On the 
 form ἐλαχιστ. see Winer, Gr. § 11. 2, p. 
 65, and the exx. collected by Wetst. in 
 luc., out of which, however, remove 
 Thucyd. 1v. 118, as the true reading is 
 κάλλιον. ἐν τοῖς ἔδϑν. εὐαγ- 
 γὙελ.] ‘to preach among the Gentiles ;’ 
 explanatory and partly appositional 
 clause, the emphatic ἐν τοῖς ἔῶνεσιν 
 marking the Apostle’s distinctive sphere 
 of action, and, the inf. defining the pre- 
 ceding 7 χάρις αὕτη ; see Kritger, Sprachl. 
 § 57. 10. 6, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 192, 
 Winer, Gr. ὁ 44.1, p. 284. To make 
 this clause dependent on δωρεάν, ver. 7, 
 and to regard ἐμοὶ --- αὕτη as parenthet- 
 ical (Harl.) seems a very improbable 
 connection, and is required neither by 
 grammar nor by the tenor of the pas- 
 sage. Lachm. omits ἐν with ABC ; 
 3 mss.; Copt. (A/f.), but the authority 
 for retaining it [DEFGKL; nearly all 
 mss.; Syr. (both), Clarom., Vulgate, 
 Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al.] seems 
 fairly to preponderate. πλοῦτος 
 τοῦ Χρ.] ‘riches of Christ, i. e. the 
 
 9 \ » ΄, ΄ὔ e ’ / 
 Kab φωτίσαι παντὰᾶς τις ἢ οὐκονομια 
 
 exhaustless blessings of salvation ; com- 
 pare Rom. xi. 53. It is ἀνεξιχνίαστον 
 ("En Ws Job v. 9, ix. 10) both in its 
 nature, extent, and application. 
 
 9. Kar 
 
 φωτίσαι πάντας) ‘and 
 
 Y aaa 
 to illuminate all, make all see ;’ santo 
 
 o> 
 #12 [et in lucem proferam omni 
 
 homini] Syr.; expansion of the forego- 
 ing clause as to the process (the Apostle 
 had grace given not only outwardly to 
 preach the Gospel, but inwardly to en- 
 lighten), though appy. not as to the per- 
 sons (ed. 1); as owing to its unemphatic 
 position the πάντας can scarcely be re- 
 garded more inclusive than the foregoing 
 τὰ ἐδνη; see Meyer. The significant 
 verb φωτίσαι must not be explained away 
 as synonymous with διδάξαι (De W.); 
 this derivative meaning is found in the 
 LXX, see Judges xiii. 8 (Alex.), 2 Kings 
 iv. 2, xvii. 27, 28, but not in the N. T., 
 — where the reference is always to light, 
 either physical (Luke x., xi., 36), meta- 
 phorical (1 Cor. iv. 5), or spiritual (Heb. 
 vi. 4, al.); comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét, 
 Iv. 15, Vol. 11. p. 156, note. Christ is 
 properly ὁ φωτίζων (John i.9); His apos- 
 tles illuminate ‘participatione ac minis- 
 terio,’ Estius. On the use of the word 
 in ref. to baptism, see Suicer, Thesaur. 
 Vol. 11. p. 1491. Lachm. brackets 
 πάντας as being omitted by A; some 
 mss.; Cyr., Hill., al., but without suffi- 
 cient authority. 
 μυστ.] ‘the dispensation of the mystery,’ 
 ‘dispositio sacramenti absconditi,’ Cla- 
 rom., — 5011. the dispensation (arrange- 
 ment, regulation) of the mystery (the 
 union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, 
 ver. 6), which was to be humbly traced 
 and acknowledged in the fact of its hay- 
 ing secretly existed in the primal coun- 
 sels of God, and now having been re- 
 
 οἰκονομία τοῦ 
 
Cuap. III. 10. " 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 TL 
 
 a 4 La 3 4 lal ο “ 
 τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ Θεῷ 
 
 A Ν , ! ivf a “ rn a = 
 τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι, ” ἵνα γνωρισ'δῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς 
 
 vealed to the heavenly powers by means 
 of the Church. On the meaning of 
 οἰκονομία, see notes on ch. i. 10. 
 
 The reading κοινωνία (Rec.) has only 
 the support of cursive mss., and is a 
 mere explanatory gloss. ᾿ἀπὸ 
 τῶν αἰώνων] ‘from the ages,’ scil. 
 “since the ages of the world began ;’ comp. 
 Ἐ 515, Gen. vi. 4: terminus a quo of the 
 concealment. The counsel itself was 
 formed mpd τῶν αἰώνων, Cor. il. 7; 
 the concealment of it dated ἀπὸ τῶν 
 aidvewv,—from the commencement of 
 the ages when intelligent beings, from 
 whom it could be concealed, were called 
 into existence; compare Rom. xvi. 25, 
 μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου. 
 τῳ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι] ‘who cre- 
 ated all things,’ ‘qui omnia creavit,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg., certainly not, ‘quippe 
 qui omnia creavit,’ Meyer, —a transla- 
 tion which would require the absence of 
 the article; compare notes on ch. 1. 12, 
 and see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 306. The 
 exact reason for this particular designa- 
 tion being here appended to τῷ Θεῷ has 
 been somewhat differently estimated. 
 The most simple explanation would 
 seem to be that it is added to enhance 
 the idea of God’s omnipotence; the 
 emphatic position of τὰ πάντα (‘nulla 
 re prorsus excepta,’ Est.) being designed 
 to give to the idea its widest extent and 
 application, — ‘who created all things,’ 
 and so, with His undoubted prerogative 
 of sovereign and creative power, or- 
 dained the very μυστήριον itself. A 
 reference to God’s 
 more suitably have justified the conceal- 
 ment, the reference to His omnipotence 
 
 omniscience would 
 
 more convincingly vindicates the εὐδοκία 
 according to which it was included in, 
 and formed part of his primal counsels. 
 It is not necessary to limit τὰ πάντα, but 
 the tense seems to show that it is rather 
 
 to the physical (οὐδὲν yap χωρὶς αὐτοῦ 
 πεποίηκε, Chrys.), than to the spiritual 
 creation (Calv.) 
 perhaps suggested by the longer reading 
 κτίσ. διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xp. [Ree. with D®EJK ; 
 most Syr-Phil. with asterisk ; 
 Chrys., Theod., al.], which, however, is 
 rightly rejected by most recent editors 
 with ABCDIFG; a few mss.; Syr., 
 Vulg., Goth., al; Basil, Cyr., and 
 many Ff. 
 
 10. ἵνα γνωρισϑῇ νῦν] ‘in order 
 
 This latter view was 
 
 MSs. ; 
 
 that there might be made known now ;” 
 divine object and purpose,—not of 
 either the acts specified in the partici- 
 pial clauses immediately preceding, for 
 neither the concealment of the mystery 
 (Meyer), nor the past act of material 
 creation (Harl.) could be properly said 
 to have had as its purpose and design 
 the present (viv opp. to ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων) 
 exhibition of God’s wisdom to angels, 
 —but of the general dispensation de- 
 scribed in the two foregoing verses. 
 The Apostle (as Olsh. well remarks), 
 in contrasting the greatness of his call 
 with the nothingness of his personal self, 
 pursues the theme of his labor through 
 all its stages: the ἐλαχιστότερος has 
 grace given him evayy. k. 7. Δ.» nay 
 more, φωτίσαι πάντας x.7T.A., and that, 
 too, that heaven might see and acknowl- 
 edge the πολυποίκιλος σοφία of God; 
 see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 518 
 (Bohn). ταῖς ἀρχαῖς K.T.A.J 
 ‘to the principalities and to the powers in 
 the heavenly regions,’ sc. to the good angels 
 and intelligences ; a ref. to both classes 
 (Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. τ. p. 315) being 
 excluded, not so much by ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ. 
 (Alf., for compare ch. vi. 12), as by the 
 general tenor of the passage ; evil angels 
 more naturally recognize the power, good 
 angels the wisdom of God. On the term 
 ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσ. (here to add weight to 
 
12 
 
 EPHESIANS. 3: 
 
 Cuap. III. 11. 
 
 A \ A 3 t e 
 ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος 
 
 σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 
 the enumeration each with the art.), see 
 notes ch. i. 21, and on τοῖς ἐπουρ. notes 
 on ch. i. 3, 20. διὰ τῆς ἐκκλη- 
 σίας] ‘through the Church,’ scil. ‘by 
 means of,’ the Church; διὰ τῆς περὶ 
 τῆν ἐκκλησίαν οἰκονομίας, Theod. The 
 Church, the community of believers in 
 Christ (Col. i. 24), was the means by 
 which these ministering spirits were to 
 behold and contemplate God’s wisdom : 
 comp. Calvin, in loc.,— ‘ecclesia ... 
 quasi speculum sit in quo contemplantur 
 Angeli mirificam Dei sapientiam ;’ ὅτε 
 ἡμεῖς ἐμάϑομεν, τότε κἀκεῖνοι OL ἡμῶν, 
 Chrys. That the holy angels are capable 
 of a specific increase of knowledge, and 
 of a deepening insight into God’s wis- 
 dom, seems from this passage clear and 
 incontrovertible ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 12, eis 
 ἃ emidupovow ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι, and see 
 Petavius, Theol. Dogm. Vol. 111. p. 44 
 sq., Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. i. p. 46. 
 moAutmolKidos| * manifold,’ ‘ multi- 
 formis, Clarom., VWulg.; see Orph. 
 Hymn. vt. 11, uxt. 4. This character- 
 istic of God’s wisdom is to be traced, 
 not in the παράδοξον, by which issues 
 were brought about by unlooked-for 
 means (διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία 
 κατωρϑώϑη, διὰ ϑανάτου ζωή, δι’ ἀσϑε- 
 νείας δύναμις, δι ἀτιμίας δόξα, Greg. 
 Nyss. ap. Theoph.), but in the πολύτεχ- 
 νον (Theoph.), the variety of the divine 
 counsels, which nevertheless all mysteri- 
 ously cooperated toward a single end, — 
 the call of the Gentiles, and salvation of 
 mankind by faith in Jesus Christ. The 
 use of πολυποίκ. in reference to Gnosti- 
 cism (Ireneeus, Her. 1. 4. 1) does not 
 give the slightest reason for supposing 
 (Baur, Paulus, p. 429) that the use of the 
 word here arose from any such allusions. 
 11. κατὰ mpds. τῶν αἰώνων) 
 ‘according to the purpose of the ages ;’ 
 modal clause dependent on ἵνα γνωρισϑῇ, 
 
 ll \ r a LA ἃ 5) ἢ > 
 KATA TPOSETLW τῶν αἰώνων, ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν 
 
 specifying the accordance of the revela- 
 tion of the divine wisdom with God’s 
 eternal purpose ; viv μὲν, φησί, γέγονεν, 
 οὐ νῦν δὲ ὥριστο, ἀλλ᾽ vwdsev προτετύ- 
 πωτο, Chrys. The gen. αἰώνων is some- 
 what obscure; it can scarcely be (a) a 
 gen. objecti (‘the foreordering of the 
 ages,’ Whitby, comp. Peile), or even (ὁ) 
 a gen. of the point of view (Scheuerl. 
 Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129), —for the Apostle 
 is not speaking of God’s purpose in re- 
 gard to different times or dispensations, 
 but of His single purpose of uniting and 
 saving mankind in Christ, — but will be 
 most naturally regarded as (c) belonging 
 to the general category of the gen. of 
 possession (‘the purpose which pertained 
 to, existed in, was determined on in the 
 ages’), and as serving to define the gen- 
 eral relation of time; compare Jude 6, 
 κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας, and see Winer, 
 Gr. § 30. 2, p. 169. The meaning is 
 thus nearly equivalent to that of the 
 similar expression 2 Tim. i. 9, πρόϑεσιν 
 πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ; God's pur- 
 pose existed in His eternal being and 
 was formed in the primal ages (‘a seecu- 
 lis,’ Syr.) before the foundation of the 
 world; comp. ch. i. 4. ἣν ἐποίη- 
 σεν] ‘which he wrought, ‘quam fecit,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg., Copt., ‘gatavida,’ Goth. 
 The exact meaning of ἐποίησεν is doubt- 
 ful. The mention of the eternal purpose 
 would seem to imply rather ‘constituit’ 
 (Harl., Alf.), than ‘ersecutus est’? (De 
 W., Mey.), as the general reference 
 seems more to the appointment of the 
 decree than to its historical realization 
 (see Calv., Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 
 204); still the words ἐν Xp. Ino. τῷ 
 Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν seem so clearly to point 
 to the realization, the carrying out of the 
 purpose in Jesus Christ,—the Word 
 made flesh (compare Olsh.),— that the 
 latter (Matth. xxi. 31, John vi. 38, 1 
 
 re 
 
Cuap. III. 12. 
 
 ΓΕ. A a 7 ς a 12 
 Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, εν ᾧ 
 
 Kings v. 8, Isaiah xliv. 28) must be 
 considered preferable. As, however, St. 
 Paul has used a middle term, neither 
 προέϑετο nor ἐπετέλεσε, a middle term 
 (e. g. ‘wrought,’ ‘made,’—not ‘ful- 
 filled,’ Conyb.) should be retained in 
 translation. The reading is slightly 
 doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 1 and 7) inserts 
 τῷ before Xp. with ABC!; 37. 116. al ; 
 as, however, the title 6 Xp. Inc. 6 Kup. 
 ἡμῶν does not appy. occur elsewhere 
 (Col. ii. 6 is the nearest approach to it ; 
 see Middl. Gr. Art. Append. 11. p. 495, 
 ed. Rose) and the omission is well sup- 
 ported [C3DEKL; most mss.; Ath., 
 Chrys., Theod.] we still retain the read- 
 ing of Rec., Lachm., Tisch. (ed. 2), and 
 the majority of editors. 
 
 12. Exouev] Sin whom 
 (grounded in whom) we have ;’ appeal 
 to, and proof drawn from their Christian 
 experience, the relative @ having here a 
 slightly demonstrative and explanatory 
 
 5 a 
 ἐν @ 
 
 force (ὅτι δὲ διὰ τοῦ Xp. γέγονεν ἅπαν, 
 «ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν φησί x. τ. A. Chrys., com- 
 pare Theod.), and being nearly equiva- 
 lent to ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ; sce Jelf, Gr. § 834. 
 2, Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 12, p. 293, and 
 notes on Col. i. 27. τὴν wappn- 
 σίαν] ‘our boldness,’ ‘fiduciam,’ Cla- 
 rom., Vulg.; not here ‘libertatem oris,’ 
 whether in ref. to prayer (Beng.) or to 
 preaching the Gospel (Vatabl.), as in 
 many instances (Lev. xxvi. 13, μετὰ 
 mapp. raat, 1 Mace. iv. 18, Heb. ii. 
 6, 1 John ii. 28, al.) the primitive mean- 
 ing has merged into that of ‘cheerful 
 boldness.’ (Sdppos, Zonar. Lea. p. 1508, 
 ‘Freudigkeit,’ Luth.); that ‘freedom of 
 spirit’ (‘freihals,’ Goth.), which becomes 
 those who are conscious of the redeeming 
 
 , 
 
 love of Christ; ἁγιάσας yap ἡμᾶς διὰ 
 τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος προσήγαγε ϑαῤῥοῦντας, 
 (Ecum.; see notes on 1 Lim. iii. 13. 
 
 τὴν προσαγω γῆ ν] ‘our admission; ἢ 
 οὐχ ὡς αἰχμάλωτοι, φησί, TpoTHXAN- 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 19 
 
 ’ Ke 
 
 ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν 
 
 μεν, GAN ὡς συγγνώμης ἀξιούμενοι, 
 Chrys. and sim. the other Greek com- 
 mentators ; comp. Avth. ‘ ductorem nos- 
 trum,’ and see notes on ch. ii. 18. The 
 transitive meaning there advocated is 
 appy- a little less certain in the present 
 case, on account of the union with the 
 intrans. παρῥ. ; still both lexical authority 
 and the preceding ref. to our Lord seem 
 to require and justify it; comp. Suicer, 
 Vol. 11. p. 850. How 
 ‘the use of the article before both nouns 
 signalizes them as the éwin elements of 
 an unique privilege’ (Eadie), is not 
 clear; see, on the contrary, Winer, Gr. 
 19. δὲ». 117: Lachm. omits the 
 second art., with AB; 2 mss.; but in 
 opp. to CDE (DIE τὴν προσ. «. τ. παῤῥ.) 
 FG (FG τὴν προσ. εἰς τ. app.) KL; 
 nearly all mss.; Ath., Chrys., Theod., 
 al, — authority distinctly preponderant. 
 ἐν πεποιϑήσει) ‘in confidence, μετὰ 
 
 Thesaur. 5. v. 
 
 τοῦ Sappetv, Chrys., —a noble example 
 of which is afforded by St. Paul himself 
 in the sublime words of Rom. viii. 38, 
 39 (Mey.). The present clause does 
 not qualify mpocaywyn (‘no timorous 
 approach,’ Eadie), but the predication of 
 manner, and defines the tone and frame 
 of mind (‘alacriter libenterque, Calv.) 
 in which the προσαγωγὴ is enjoyed and 
 realized. Thus, then, ἐν Xp. marks the 
 objective ground of the possession, διὰ 
 τῆς πίστ. the subjective medium by which, 
 and ἐν memow. the subjective state in 
 which it is apprehended; ‘tres itaque 
 gradus sunt faciendi, nam primum Dei 
 promissionibus credimus, deinde his ac- 
 quiescentes concipimus fiduciam ut bono 
 simus tranquilloque animo: hinc sequi- 
 tur audacia, que facit, ut, profligato 
 metu, intrepide et constanter nos Deo 
 commendemus,’ Caly. Πεποίϑησις (2 
 Kings xviii. 19) is only used in the N. 
 T. by St. Paul (2 Cor. i. 15, iii. 4, viii. 
 22, x. 2, Phil. iii. 4), and is a word of 
 
 10 
 
T4 
 
 \ \ \ / \ a 7 fa] 
 καὶ THY προσωγωγὴν ἐν πεποιδήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. III. 13. 
 
 ® 610 
 
 3 “ in 2 lal 5 a / / id \ ς lal v4 > \ 
 αὐτουμᾶν [47) EYKAKESY EV TALS λώμεσίν μου ὕπερ ULWV, TLS ἐστιν 
 
 δόξα ὑμῶν. 
 
 later Greek; see Eustath. on Odyss. 111. 
 p- 114. 41, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 294 sq. 
 πίστεως ‘faith on Him;’ 
 gen. objecti, virtually equivalent to πίστ. 
 eis αὐτόν; see Rom. iii. 22, Gal. ii. 16, 
 and compare notes in loc. It is doubtful 
 whether the deeper meaning which Stier 
 (compare Matth.) finds in the words, se. 
 ‘faith of whichs Christ is not only the 
 object, but the ground,’ can here be fully 
 substantiated. On the whole verse, see 
 three posthumous sermons of South, 
 Serm, xx1x. sq. Vol. Iv. p. 413 sq. 
 (Tegg). 
 
 13. 846] ‘On which account, ‘ where- 
 Jore,’ sc., since my charge is so im- 
 portant and our spiritual privileges so 
 
 αὐτοῦ] 
 
 great ; διότι μέγα τὸ μυστήριον τῆς κλή- 
 σεως ἡμῶν, καὶ μεγάλα ἃ ἐνεπιστεύϑην 
 ἔγω, Theoph. The reference of this 
 particle has been very differently ex- 
 plained. Estius and Meyer, with some 
 plausibility, connect it simply with the 
 preceding verse, —‘cum igitur, ad tan- 
 tam dignitatem vocati sitis, ejusque con- 
 sequend fiduciam habeatis per Chris- 
 tum; rogo vos, etc.,’ Est. As, however, 
 ver. 8—11 contain the principal thought 
 to which ver. 12 is only subordinate and 
 supplementary, the former alluding to 
 the nature and dignity of the Apostle’s 
 commission, the latter to its effects 
 and results, in which both he and his 
 converts (ἔχομεν) share, the particle 
 will much more naturally refer to the 
 The union of the 
 Apostle’s own interests and those of his 
 converts in the following words then 
 The 
 use of διὸ by St. Paul is too varied to 
 enable us safely to adduce any grammat- 
 ical considerations ; see notes on Gal. iy. 
 
 whole paragraph. 
 
 becomes natural and appropriate. 
 
 2 
 ob. 
 
 αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν) 
 ‘I entreat you not to lose heart;’ ὑμᾶς 
 
 (Eth.) not τὸν Θεόν (Theod.) being sup- 
 plied after the verb; comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, 
 Heb. xiii. 19 (2 Cor. vi. 1, x. 2, cited by 
 De W., are less appropriate), where a 
 similar supplement is required. Such 
 constructions as ‘I pray (God) that ye 
 lose not heart,’ or ‘that I lose not heart’ 
 (Syr.), are both open to the objection 
 that the object of the verb and subject of 
 the inf. (both unexpressed) are thus 
 made different without sufficient reason. 
 Moreover, such a prayer as that in the 
 latter interpretation would here fall 
 strangely indeed from the lips of the 
 great Apostle who had learnt in his suf- 
 ferings to rejoice (Col. i. 24), and in his 
 very weakness to find ground for boast- 
 ing; compare 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 5. On 
 the form ἐγκακεῖν, not ἐκκακεῖν, see notes 
 on Gal. vi. 9. ἐν ταῖς δ ,λίψε- 
 σιν κι τ. λ.] ‘in my tribulations for you,’ 
 “in (not ‘ob, Beza) tribulationibus meis,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg.; ἐν as usual denoting 
 the sphere, as it were, in which the faint- 
 heartedness of the Ephesians might pos- 
 sibly be shown; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, 
 p- 345. So close was their bond of 
 union in Christ, that the Apostle felt his 
 afflictions were theirs; they might be 
 faint-hearted in his, as if they were their 
 own. The article is not necessary before 
 ὑπέρ, aS ὥλίψεσι can be considered in 
 structural union with ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ; comp. 
 λίβεσϑαι ὑπέρ twos, 2 Cor. 1. 6; see 
 notes, ch. 1. 15. ἥτις ἐστὶ δόξα 
 ὑ μῶ ν] ‘inasmuch as it is your glory;’ 
 reason (ὑμετέρα yap δόξα x. τ. A. Theod.) 
 or rather explanation why they were not 
 to be faint-hearted ; the indef. relative 
 being here explanatory (compare i. 23, 
 notes on Gal. iv. 24, and Hartung, Casus, 
 p. 286), and referring to λίψεσιν on the 
 common principle of attraction by which 
 the relative assumes the gender of the 
 
Crap. IIT. 14, 15. 
 
 On this account (I say) I 
 pray to God the Father to 
 give you strength within, 
 and teach you the incom- 
 
 tov Πατέρα, 
 
 EPHESIANS. "5 
 
 1: T 4 / / \ U , \ 
 OUTOU χάριν κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς 
 
 5 e on a 
 
 "ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
 
 prehensible love of Christ, and fill you with God’s fulness. 
 
 predicate ; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 24. 8, p. 
 150, Madvig, Synt. § 98. The way in 
 which St. Paul’s tribulations could be 
 said to tend to the glory of the Ephe- 
 sians is simply but. satisfactorily ex- 
 plained by Chrys.; ὅτι οὕτως αὐτοὺς 
 ἠγάπησεν ὁ Ocds, ὥστε καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὑπὲρ 
 αὐτῶν δοῦναι καὶ τοὺς δούλους κακοῦν. ἵνα 
 γὰρ οὗτοι τύχωσι τοσούτων ἀγαδϑῶν [see 
 ver. 8] Παῦλος ἐδεσμεῖτο. The personal 
 reason, ‘quod doctorem habetis qui nul- 
 lis calamitatibus frangitur’ Calixt. (com- 
 pare Theod.), in which case ἥτις must 
 refer to μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, seems wholly out of 
 the question. Glory accrued to the 
 Ephesians from the official dignity, not 
 the personal fortitude (καρτερία, Theod.) 
 of the sufferer. 
 
 14. τούτου χάριν] ‘On this account, 
 sc., ‘because ye are so called and so 
 built together in Christ,’ resumption of 
 ver. 1 (ταῦτα πάντα ἐν μέσῳ τεϑεικώς, 
 ἀναλαμβάνει τὸν περὶ προσευχῆς λόγον, 
 Theod.); τούτου χάριν referring to the 
 train of thought at the end of ch. ii., 
 and to the ideas parallel to it in the 
 digression ; in brief, ἐπειδὴ οὕτως ἠγαπή- 
 ϑητε παρὰ Θεοῦ, Gicum. κάμπτω 
 τὰ γόνατα κ. τ. λ.] “1 bend my knees 
 (in prayer ) to;’ 
 the earnestness and fervency of his 
 
 expression indicative of 
 
 prayer; τὴν μετὰ κατανύξεως δέησιν ἐσή- 
 pave, Theoph., comp. Chrys. Κάμπτειν 
 γόνυ (usually κ. ἐπὶ γόνυ in the LXX) is 
 joined with the dat. in its simple sense 
 (Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, both quotations), 
 but here, in the metaphorical sense of 
 προσεύχεσϑαι, is appropriately joined 
 with πρὸς to denote the object towards 
 whom (as it were) the knees were bowed, 
 —the mental direction of the prayer ; 
 see Winer, Gr. ὁ 49. ἢ, p. 360. On the 
 posture of kneeling in prayer, see Bing- 
 ham, Antig. x11, 8. 4, and esp. Suicer, 
 
 Thesaur, Vol. τ. p. 777. The inter- 
 polation, after πατέρα, of the words τοῦ 
 Κυρίου ἡμῶν 71. X., though undoubtedly 
 ancient, and well supported [DEFGKL ; 
 nearly all mss.; Syr., Vulg., Goth., al. ; 
 Chrys., Theod., al.|, is rightly rejected 
 in favor of the text [ABC; 2 mss.; 
 Demid., Copt., Aith. (both), al.; Orig., 
 Cyr., al.] by nearly all modern editors 
 except De Wette and Eadie. 
 
 15. ἐξ οὗ] ‘from whom,’ ‘after whom ΠῚ 
 éx pointing to the origin or source whence 
 the name was derived ; see notes on Gal. 
 ii. 16, and compare Xen. Mem. tv. 5. 8, 
 ἔφη δὲ καὶ τὸ διαλέγεσϑαι ὀνομασϑῆναι etc 
 τοῦ συνιόντας κοινῇ βουλεῦεσϑαι, Hom. 
 Il. x. 08, πατρόδεν ἐκ γενεῆς ὀνομάζων. 
 Less direct origination is expressed by 
 ἀπό; comp. ὀνομαζ. ἀπό, Herod. νι. 129. 
 πᾶσα πατριά)]) ‘every race, fumily,’ 
 not ‘the whole family,’ Auth.; see Mid- 
 dleton in loc., p. 361 (ed. Rose). The 
 use of the particular term πατριὰ is evi- 
 dently suggested by the preceding πατέρα 
 (mar. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριά), its exact mean- 
 ing, however, and still more its present 
 reference, are both very debatable. With 
 regard to the first it may be said that 
 πατριὰ does not imply (a) ‘paternitas,’ 
 Syr., Vulg., al. (κυρίως πατήρ, καὶ ἀλη- 
 Sas πατὴρ 6 Θεός, Theod., compare Tho- 
 luck, Bergpr. p. 894), a translation nei- 
 ther defensible in point of etymology or 
 exegesis, but is either used in (0) the 
 more limited sense of ‘familia’ (metiot, 
 Copt., comp. Arm.), or more probably 
 (c) that of the more inclusive ‘gens’ 
 (Heb. τπῖτ 2, less commonly rass ro2, 
 compare Gesen, Lex. s. v. m2, 10); see 
 Herod. 1, 200, εἰσί τῶν Βαβυλωνίων πατ- 
 ριαὶ τρεῖς, and compare Acts iii. 25 with 
 Gen. xii, 8, where πατριὰ and φυλὴ are 
 interchanged. If, then, as seems most 
 correct, we adopt this more inclusive 
 
76 
 
 16 7 
 
 ‘ BLN Lal ’ / 
 καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, * wa 
 
 meaning, the reference must be to those 
 larger and communities into 
 which, as we may also infer from other 
 passages (comp. ch. i. 21, notes, Col. i. 
 16, notes), the celestial hosts appear to 
 be divided, and to the races and tribes 
 of men (‘queeque regionum,’ /&th.), 
 every one of which owes the very title 
 of πατριὰ, by which it is defined, to the 
 great Πατὴρ of all the πατριαὶ both of 
 angels and men; this title οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν 
 
 classes 
 
 ἀνῆλϑεν ἄνω, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνωϑεν ἦλϑεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, 
 Severian ap. Cramer, Caten. (in loc.) ; 
 see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 1238, 
 and Suicer, Thesaur. s. ν. Vol. 11. p. 
 637. ὀνομάζεται is thus taken in its 
 simple etymological sense, ‘7s named, 
 bears the name,’ scil. of matpia; “ dicitur,’ 
 Copt., al., ‘namnajada,’ Goth. ; see Mey. 
 All special interpolations, e. g. 
 ‘nominantur jfiliz Dei, (Beng., compare 
 Beza), or arbitrary interpretations, of 
 ὀνομαζ, 6. g., ‘existit, originem accipit’ 
 (Estius, al.; comp. Riick.), — meanings 
 which even καλεῖσϑαι (Eadie) never di- 
 rectly bears, — are wholly inadmissible. 
 16. ἵνα δῴη] ‘that He would give to 
 you;’ subject of the prayer being blended 
 with the purpose of making it; see 
 notes on ch. i. 17, where the unusual 
 form δῴη is also briefly discussed. The 
 reading is here somewhat doubtful. 
 Lachm. adopts δῷ with ABCFG; 3 
 mss.; Orig. (Cat.), Bas., Method., al. 
 (Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Mey.), but perhaps 
 not rightly, as it seems much more 
 probable that δῷ was a grammatical cor- 
 rection of δῴη, than that δῴη was a cor- 
 rection of δῷ arising from a remem- 
 brance of ch. 1. 17. We retain then the 
 rarer form, δῴη, with DEJK; great ma- 
 jority of mss.; Ath., Mac., Chrysost., 
 Theod., al. So Rec., Tisch., (ed. 2, 7), 
 Harl., De W., and most recent editors. 
 κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος kK. τ. A.| Saccord- 
 ing to the riches of His glory,’ according 
 
 in loc. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. III. 16. 
 δῴη ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς 
 
 to the abundance and plenitude of His 
 own perfections ; see notes on ch. i. 7. 
 
 δυνάμει] ‘with power,’ ‘with (infused) 
 strength ;’ ‘ut virtute seu fortitudine ab 
 eo accepta corroboremini,’ Estius. This 
 dative has been differently explained ; it 
 cannot be (a) the dat. of " reference to’ 
 or, more correctly speaking, of ‘ ethical 
 locality’ (see notes on Gal. i. 22, and 
 exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 48.15, 6. g. 
 χρήμασι δυνατοὶ εἶναι, ete.), for it was 
 not one particular faculty, power as opp. 
 to knowledge, ete., but the whole ‘inner 
 man,’ which was to be strengthened. 
 Harl. cites Acts iv. 33, but the exampie 
 is inapplicable. Nor again (b) does it 
 appear used adverbially (dat. of manner, 
 Jelf, Gr. § 603. 2), for this, though a 
 more plausible interpr. (see Riick.), is 
 open to the objection of directing the 
 thought to the strengthener rather than 
 to the subject in whom strength is to be 
 infused ; see Meyer in loc. It is thus 
 more correctly regarded as (c) the simple 
 instrumental dat. (Arm.) detining the ele- 
 ment or influence of which the Spirit is 
 the ‘causa medians ;’ 
 Col. i. 11, 
 &pwovr]| ‘into the inner man ;’ direction 
 and destination of the prayed-for gift of 
 infused strength; the clause being obvi- 
 ously connected with kparaws. (Vulg., 
 Goth.,—appy.) not with κατοικῆσαι 
 (Syr., Copt., /ith., and Gr. Ff.), and 
 eis not being for ἐν (Beza), nor even in 
 its more lax sense, ‘in regard of’ (Mey.; 
 comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354), but in 
 its more literal and expressive sense of 
 ‘to and into;’ ‘the inner man’ is the 
 recipient of it (6 χωρῶν, Schol. ap. 
 Cram. Caten.), the subject ‘into whom’ 
 the δύναμις is infused ; compare notes on 
 Gal. 27. The expression ὁ ἔσω 
 ἄνδρ. (Rom. vii. 22) is nearly identical 
 with, but somewhat more inclusive than 
 
 comp. ἐν δυνάμει, 
 , yv v 
 εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄν- 
 
 iii. 
 
 ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνϑρωπος (1 Pet. 
 
Cuap. III. 17. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 17 
 
 δόξης αὐτοῦ δυνάμει κραταιωδῆναι διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ εἰς 
 τὸν ἔσω avSpwrov, “ κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως 
 
 ill. 4), and stands in antithesis to ὁ ἔξω 
 ἄνϑρωπος (2 Cor. iv. 16); the former 
 being practically equivalent to the νοῦς, 
 or higher nature of man (Rom. vii. 23), 
 the latter to the σὰρξ or the μέλη ; see 
 Beck, Seelen/. 111. 21. 3, p. 68. It is 
 within this ἔσω ἄνϑρωπος that the powers 
 of regeneration are exercised (Harless, 
 Christl. Ethik, § 22. a), and it is from 
 their operation in this province that the 
 whole man (‘secundum interna specta- 
 tus,’ Beng.) becomes a νέος ἄνϑρωπος (as 
 opp. to a former state), or a καινὸς ἄν- 
 Spwmos (as opp. to a former corrupt 
 state, ch. iv. 24), and is either 6 κατὰ 
 Θεὸν κτισἣὃ εἰς (ch. iy. 24), or ὁ ava- 
 καινούμενος" εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα 
 τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (Col. iii. 10), accord- 
 ing to the point of view under which 
 regeneration is regarded; see Harless, 
 Ethik, § 24. ς. The distinction between 
 this and the partially synonymous terms 
 πνεῦμα, and vovs, may perhaps be thus 
 roughly stated: πνεῦμα is simply the 
 highest of the three parts of which man 
 is composed (see notes on 1 Thess. y. 
 23); νοῦς the πνεῦμα regarded more in 
 its moral and intellectual aspects, ‘ quate- 
 nus intelligit, cogitat, et vult’ (see notes 
 on Phil. iv. 7); ὁ ἔσω tv&p., the πνεῦμα, 
 or rather the whole immaterial portion, 
 considered in its theological aspects, and 
 as the seat of the inworking powers of 
 grace; compare Olsh. on Rom. vii. 22, 
 Opusc. Theol. p. 143 sq., Beck, Seelenl. 
 11. 13, p. 35, and on the threefold nature 
 of man generally, University Serm. v. p. 
 99—120. The attempt to connect 
 St. Paul’s inspired definitions with the 
 terminology of earlier (6 ἐντὸς ἄνδρ. 
 Plato, Republ. 1x. 589), or of later Pla- 
 tonism (6 ἔνδον &ydp. Plot. Ennead. τ. 1. 
 10), as in Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. 63, will 
 be found on examination to be untena- 
 
 ble. The dissimilarities are marked, the 
 supposed parallelisms illusory. 
 
 17. κατοικῆσαι τὸν Xp. ‘that 
 Christ may dwell in your hearts ;’ issue 
 and result (ὥστε κατοικῆσαι, Orig.), not 
 purpose (Eadie), of the inward strength- 
 ening ; the present clause not being par- 
 allel to δυνάμει κραταιωδ. (Mey.), and 
 dependent on δῴη, but as the emphatic 
 position of κατοικῆσαι seems clearly to 
 show, appended to κραταιωϑῆναι with a 
 partially climactic force, but a somewhat 
 lax grammatical connection ; see Winer, 
 Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284, compare Madvig, 
 Synt. § 153. The meaning is thus per- 
 fectly clear and simple; the indwelling 
 of Christ, the taking up of His abode 
 [κατ οικῆσαι, Matth. xii. 45, Luke xi. 
 26, Col. i. 19 (see notes), 2 Pet. iii. 13; 
 the simple form is, however, used, Rom. 
 vill. 9, 1 Cor. iii. 16] is the result of the 
 working of the Holy Spirit on the one 
 side, and the subjective reception of man 
 (διὰ τῆς πίστ.) on the other; ‘non procul 
 intuendum esse Christum fide, sed recip- 
 iendum esse animz nostre complexu,’ 
 Calv. τὸν Χριστόν] The at- 
 tempt of Fritz. (Rom. viii. 10, Vol. 11. 
 p- 118) to show that Χριστὸς is here 
 merely ‘mens quam Christus postulat,’ 
 by comparing such passages as Arist. 
 Acharn. 484, καταπιὼν Εὐριπίδην, is as 
 painful as it is unconvincing. What a 
 contrast is the vital exegesis of Chrys., 
 πῶς δὲ ὁ Xp. κατοικεῖ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, 
 ἄκουε αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἔλευ- 
 σόμεϑα ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ μονὴν παρ᾽ 
 αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν. 
 ats] ‘in your hearts;’ ‘partem etiam 
 designat ubi legitima est Christi sedes, 
 nempe cor: ut sciamus non satis esse si 
 in lingua versetur, aut in cerebro voli- 
 tet,’ Calv. On the meaning of καρδία 
 (properly the imaginary seat of the 
 
 ἐν ταῖς καρδί- 
 
78 
 
 ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, 
 
 ψυχή, and thence the seat and centre of 
 the moral life viewed on the side of the 
 affections), see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 
 Iv. ll, p. 203 sq., and notes on Phil. 
 iv. 7. 
 
 18. ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥ. καὶ τεϑ.] ‘ye 
 having been rooted and grounded in love ;’ 
 state consequent on the indwelling of 
 Christ, viz., one of fixedness and founda- 
 tion in love, the participle reverting 
 irregularly to the nominative for the 
 sake of making the transition to the fol- 
 lowing clause more easy and natural: 
 δοκεῖ μοι σαφῶς τὰ ἑξῆς ἐν σολοικίῳ 
 εἰρήσϑαι, ὡς πρὸς τὴν φράσιν. πρὸς γὰρ τὸ 
 “δῴη ὑμῖν, ἀκόλουϑον ἦν εἰπεῖν ἐῤῥιζωμέ- 
 . 6 δὲ ϑέλων 
 
 ἀποκαταστῆσα! τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον χωρὶς 
 
 νοις καὶ τεδεμελιοι μένοις. .. 
 
 coAotkias, σκέψαι εἰ μὴ βιάσεται οὕτω τὴν 
 φράσιν ἀποκοταστάς, Origen ap. Cramer, 
 Caten. The assumed transposition of 
 ἵνα (ἵνα ἐῤῥ. καὶ red. ἐξισχ., Auth., Mey., 
 —but adopted by none of the ancient 
 Vy. except Goth.), which Origen thus 
 properly rejects, cannot be justified by 
 any necessity for emphasis, or by the 
 passages adduced by Fritz (Rom. xi-31, 
 Vol. 11. p. 541), viz. Acts xix. 4, John 
 παῖ, 2951 (@orix 15; 21Corsi. 4a Gal. 
 ii. 10, 2 Thess. ii. 7, as in all of them 
 (except Thess. J. c., which is not analo- 
 gous) the premised words are not, as 
 here, connected with the subject, but 
 form the objective factor of the sentence. 
 The only argument of any real weight 
 against the proposed interpr. is not so 
 much syntuctic (for see the numerous 
 exx. of similar irregularities in Winer, 
 Gr. ὃ 63. 2, p. 620, Kriiger, Sprachil. 
 § 56. 9.4) as ereg tical, it being urged 
 that the perf. part. which points to a 
 completed state is inconsistent with a 
 prayer which seems to refer to a state of 
 progress, and to require the present part. 
 (see Meyer). The answer, however, 
 seems satisfactory, — that the clause does 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cnap. III. 18. 
 
 > SJ / : Ἦν δ᾽ Ἂ i A 
 * ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεδεμελιωμέ- 
 
 express the state which must ensue upon 
 the indwelling of Christ, before what is 
 expressed in the next clause (ἵνα ἐξισχ.) 
 can in any way be realized, and that 
 therefore the perf. part. is perfectly cor- 
 rect. The Apostle prays that they may 
 be strengthened, that the resu/t of it may 
 be the indwelling of Christ, the state 
 naturally consequent on which would be 
 fixedness in the principle of Christian 
 love. We now notice the separate 
 words. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ‘in love, — 
 not either of Christ (compare Chrysost. 
 ἀγάπη avtov) or of God (Wolf), either 
 of which references would certainly have 
 required some defining gen., but the 
 Christian principle of love, — love, ἥτις 
 ἐστὶ σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος, Col. iii. 
 4. This was to be their basis and foun- 
 dation, in which alone they were to be 
 fully enabled to realize all the majestic 
 proportions of Christ’s surpassing love 
 to man; comp. 1 John iy. 7 sq. 
 
 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, esp. when preceded 
 by prepp., being not uncommon in the 
 ΝΕ Sisco ἜΣ ΣΧ SVAner Ὑ. δ᾽ 10..} 
 109, and comp. Middleton, Greek Art. 
 vi. 1, p. 98 (ed. Rose). ep pre. 
 καὶ redeu.| It has been said that 
 there is here a mixture of metaphors ; 
 compare Olsh., Meyer, al. This is not 
 strictly true; ῥιζόω is abundantly used 
 both with an ethical (Herod. 1. 64, Plu- 
 tarch, Mfor. 6 ©) and a physical (Hom. 
 Od. x111. 163) reference, without any 
 other allusion to its primitive meaning, 
 than that of jfixedness, firmness, at the 
 base or foundation; see exx. in Rost. τι. 
 Palm, Ler. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1837, and 
 Wetst. in loc. ἵνα ἐξισχύσητ ε) 
 ‘in order that ye may be fully able ;’ object 
 contemplated in the prayer for Christ’s 
 
απαν- III. 19. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 79 
 
 ey ’ , / \ aA “ e / r x 
 vot, va ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσϑαι σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις, TL TO 
 
 x ~ A ΄, \ ΄ 
 πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάδος καὶ ὕψος, ” γνῶναί τε τὴν ὑπερβάλ- 
 
 indwelling in their hearts, and their con- 
 sequent fixedness in love; Ἅ“ἨὨ:ἐξισχύσ.᾽ 
 φησίν: ὥστε ἰσχύος πολλῆς δεῖ, Chrys. ; 
 comp. Ecclus. vii. 6, μὴ οὐκ ἐξισχύσεις 
 ἐξᾶραι ἀδικίας. καταλαβέσϑαι 
 ‘to comprehend ;’ the tense perhaps imply- 
 ing the singleness of the act (see exx. 
 Winer, Gr. § 44. 7, p. 296, but see notes 
 on ver. 4), and the voice the exercise 
 of the mental power; see esp. Donalds. 
 Gr. § 432. bb, where this is termed 
 the appropriative middle, and Kriiger, 
 Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., where it is termed 
 the dynamic middle, as indicating the 
 earnestness or spiritual energy with 
 which the action is performed. The 
 meaning of the verb (κατανοεῖσϑαι He- 
 sych.) can scarcely be doubtful; the 
 meaning ‘occupare’ (compare Goth. 
 ‘gafahan,’ Coptic taho) adopted by 
 Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), and sup- 
 ported only by one proper example, is 
 here plainly untenable, as the middle 
 yoice only occurs in the N. T. in refer- 
 ence to the mental powers ; comp. Acts 
 LV. WSs XK. B94, xxv 25. τί τὸ 
 πλάτος κ. τ. A.] ‘what is the breadth, 
 and length, and depth, and height ;’ cer- 
 tainly not ‘latitudinem quandam, ete.’ 
 Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), such a 
 use of τί implying a transposition, and 
 assigning a meaning here singularly 
 improbable. The exact force and appli- 
 cation of these words is somewhat doubt- 
 ful. Without noticing the various spir- 
 itual applications (sce Corn. a Lap., and 
 Pol. Syn. in loc.) all of which seem more 
 or less arbitrary, it may be said (1) that 
 St. Paul is here expressing the idea of 
 greatness, metaphysically considered, by 
 the ordinary dimensions of space; διὰ 
 yap τοῦ μήκ. καὶ TA. καὶ Bad. καὶ ὕψ. τὸ 
 μέγεϑος παρεδήλωσεν" ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα μεγέ- 
 Sous δηλωτικά, Theod. It is, however, 
 more difficult (2) to specify what it is of 
 
 which this greatness and dimensions are 
 predicated. Setting again aside all arbi- 
 trary references (ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ φύσις, 
 Orig., Sever., ‘contemplatio Ecclesiz,’ 
 Beng., Eadie), we seem left to a choice 
 between a reference to (a) ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ πῶς πανταχοῦ ἐκτέταται, Chrysost., 
 τῆς χάριτος τὸ μέγεδος, Theod.-Mops. ; 
 or (0) ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Xp., Caly., Mey. If 
 the preceding ἀγάπη had referred to the 
 love of God, (a) would have seemed 
 most probable; as it does not, and as its 
 general meaning there would be inappli- 
 cable here, (b) seems the most natural 
 explanation. Thus then the consequent 
 clause, without being dependent or ex- 
 planatory, still practically supplies the 
 defining gen.: St. Paul pauses on the 
 word ὕψος, and then, perhaps feeling it 
 the most apprepriate characteristic of 
 Christ’s love, he appends, without finish- 
 ing the construction, a parallel thought 
 which hints at the same conception 
 (ὑπερβάλλουσαν), and suggests the re- 
 quired genitive. The order BaSos 
 x. ὕψος, has only the support of AKL ; 
 most’ mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Orig., Chrys., 
 Theod., al. (Tisch., Meyer, Alf.) ; but is 
 appy. rightly maintained, even in opp. 
 to BCDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., 
 Syr., Goth., Copt.; Ath., Maced. (Rec., 
 Lachm.) which adopt the more natural, 
 and for this very reason, the more suspi- 
 cious order. 
 
 19. γνῶναί te] ‘and to know ;’ sup- 
 plemental clause to καταλαβέσϑαι κ. τ. A., 
 the former referring to the comprehensive 
 knowledge of essentia!s (Olsh.), the lat- 
 ter further specifying the practical knowl- 
 edge arising from religious experience. 
 It may be remarked, that though the 
 union of sentences by te is characteristic 
 of later Greek, (Bernhardy, Synt. xx- 
 17, p. 483), it is comparatively rare in 
 the Gospels. In the Epistles, but most 
 
80 
 
 λουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ 
 τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 especially in the Acts, it is of more 
 Te is to be dis- 
 tinguished from καὶ as being adjunctive 
 rather than conjunctive; like ‘que,’ it 
 appends to the foregoing clause (which 
 is to be conceived as haying a separate 
 and independent existence, Jelf, Gr. § 
 754. 6), an additional, and, very fre- 
 quently, a new thought ;—a thought 
 which, though not necessary to (Herm. 
 Viger, No. 315), is yet often supple- 
 mental to, and partially involved in the 
 first clause; comp. Acts ii. 23, Heb. 1. 3, 
 and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 57. 8, p. 517 
 (ed. 5). 
 γνώσεως ay.| ‘the knowledye-surpass- 
 ing love ;’ the gen. γνώσεως being due to 
 the notion of comparison involved in 
 ὑπερβάλλειν ; comp. Ausch. Prom. 944, 
 βροντῆς ὑπερβάλλοντα κτύπον, Arist. Pol. 
 111. 9, and see Jelf, Gr. § 504, Bern- 
 hardy, Synt. 111. 48. Ὁ, p. 169. The 
 words can scarcely be twisted into mean- 
 ing ‘the exceeding love of God in be- 
 stowing on us the knowledge of Christ’ 
 (Dobree, Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573), nor 
 can the participle ὕπερβ. be explained in 
 an infinitival sense,‘ to know that the 
 love of Christ is ἀνεξιχνίαστον (comp. 
 Harl.),—a translation untenable in point 
 of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, note, 
 Ῥ. 309), and unsatisfactory in exegesis, 
 — but, as its position shows, must be 
 regarded as simply adjectival. The sen- 
 tence then contains an oxymoron or 
 apparent paradox (comp. 1 Cor. i. 21, 
 Die Or vill. Ὁ. (Gall. nil- 19}Ὲ1 em: ave, 
 6), thus simply and satisfactorily ex- 
 plained by Chrysost. (ed. Savile) and 
 Cicum , ef καὶ ὑπερκεῖται πάσης γνώσεως 
 
 common occurrence. 
 
 τὴν ὑπερβάλλ. THS 
 
 avSpwrivns [this is too restricted] 7 ἀγάπη 
 τοῦ Xp. duws ὑμεῖς γνώσεσϑε εἰ τὸν Xp. 
 σχοίητε ἐνοικοῦντα : comp. Theophylact. 
 Γνῶναι is thus contrasted with γνώσις ; 
 the former being that knowledge which 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. III. 19. 
 
 Χριστοῦ, ἵνα πληρωϑδῆτε εἰς πᾶν 
 
 arises from the depths of religious expe- 
 rience (τὸ γνῶναι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολαῦσαι 
 λέγει, Theod.-Mops.), the knowledge 
 that is ever allied with love (Phil. i. 9) ; 
 the latter abstract knowledge, not merely 
 ἀνδρωπίνη (Chrys.), and most certainly 
 not ψευδώνυμος (Holzh.), but knowledge 
 without reference to religious conscious- 
 ness or Christian love; comp. 1 Cor. 
 viii. 1 sq., xiii. 8. ἀγάπην τοῦ 
 Χρ.] ‘love of Christ towards us ;’ gen. 
 subjecti ; not ‘love for Christ,’ 1 John ii. 
 δ..:1Ὁ. ἵνα πληρώϑητε κ. τ. λ.] 
 ‘that ye may be filled to all the fulness of 
 God ;’ object and purpose of ἐξισχύειν 
 καταλαβέσϑαι : ὥστε πληροῦσϑαι πάσης 
 ἀρετῆς hs πλήρης ἐστίν ὃ Θεός, Chrysost. 
 (ed. Sav.). There is some little diffi- 
 culty in these words, arising from the 
 ambiguity of the meaning of πλήρωμα. 
 If we adhere (a) to the more strict mean- 
 ing, ‘id quo res impletur’ (see Fritz. 
 Rom. Vol, 11. p. 469 sq., notes on Gal. 
 iv. 4), the words must imply ‘that ye 
 may be so filled as God is filled’ (Olsh.), 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ being the possessive gen , and τὸ 
 mAnp. referring, not to the essence, still 
 less to the δόξα (Harl.), but to the spirit- 
 ual perfections of God. Owing to the 
 somewhat obvious objection, that such a 
 fulness could never be completely real- 
 ized in this present state of human im- 
 perfection (1 Cor. xiii. 10 sq.), De W. 
 and Mey. adopt (δ) the secondary mean- 
 ing of πλήρωμα, scil. πλοῦτος, πλῆϑος 
 (see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 471), the 
 translation being either, ‘ut pleni fiatis 
 usque eo ut omnes Dei opes animis ves- 
 tris recipiatis’ (Fritz. 7b.), or ‘ut omni- 
 bus Dei donis abundetis’ (Est.), accord- 
 ing as Θεοῦ is regarded more as a 
 possessive gen.; or as a gen. of the orig- 
 inating cause (notes on 1 Thess. i. 6). 
 Both these latter interpretations are, 
 however so frigid and so little in har- 
 
3 
 
 Cuap. III. 20, 21. 
 
 Doxology. 
 
 EPHESIANS, 81 
 
 20 Us peat δὲ ὃ δ ωπον , a € 
 f (= VUVALEV® UTrEp TAVTA “ποίησαι υπερ- 
 
 ἴων i ’ 3 ἴω ΄ 
 εκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεγα ἢ νοοῦμεν, κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνερ- 
 ουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, “᾿ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία ἐν X 5 
 γουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, ῷ ἡ 2 ἐκκλησίᾳ ριστῷ 
 
 mony with the climactic character of the 
 passage (Suv. κρατ. διὰ τοῦ Πν...... 
 H@TOLK ρινς «ἐς ἵνα πληρωῦ. εἰς πᾶν τὸ 
 πλήρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ), and the apparently well 
 considered use of εἰς (not ἐν instrumental 
 or an ablatival dat.), that we do not hes- 
 itate to adopt (a), and urge, with Olsh., 
 that where Christ the living Son of God 
 dwells, there surely πᾶν τὸ πλήρ. τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ is already; comp. Col. ii. 19. 
 
 εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρ!] ‘to all the fulness;’ 
 ‘in omnem plenitudinem,’ Clarom., Vul- 
 gate; εἰς not implying ‘accordance to’ 
 (Eadie), but with its usual and proper 
 force, denoting the end (here quantita- 
 tively considered ), or limit of the πλήρω- 
 ats; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v. εἰς, 
 111., Vol. 1. p. 803, compare Bernhardy, 
 Synt. vy. 11. b, p. 218. 
 
 20. τῷ δὲ δυναμ έν ῳ] ‘Now to Him 
 that is able ;’ concluding doxology, not 
 without some antithesis (δὲ) between 
 Him who is the subject of the present 
 verse, and the finite beings who are the 
 subjects of the preceding verses. 
 ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι] ‘to do (effect, 
 complete) beyond all things ;’ ‘ periphrasis 
 Dei Patris emphatica,’ Vorst. That 
 ὑπὲρ cannot here be taken adverbially 
 seems almost self-evident; the order 
 would thus be needlessly artificial and 
 the sentence tautologous; comp. Winer, 
 Gr. § 50. 7. 2, p. 376. 
 περισσοῦ ὧν κ. τ. λ.] ‘superabun- 
 dantly byond what we ask or think ;’ 
 second member explanatory of the pre- 
 ceding, ὧν not referring to πάντα, but 
 forming with αἰτούμ. and νοοῦμ. a fresh 
 and more specific subject: ὅρα δὲ δύο 
 ὑπερβολάς. τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι τὰ εἰρη- 
 
 ὑὕπερεκ- 
 
 μένα, καὶ ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ποιῆσαι ἃ ποιεῖ, 
 ἔνι γὰρ καὶ πλείονα ποιοῦντα τῶν αἰτηϑέν- 
 τῶν κεφάλαια, μὴ πλουσίως μήτε δαψιλῶς 
 ἕκαστον ποιῆσαι, (οι, The cumula- 
 
 tive compound ὑὕπερεκ. occurs 1 Thess. 
 iii. 10 (comp. notes) v. 13, and belongs 
 to a class of compounds (those with 
 ὑπέρ), for which the Apostle seems to 
 have had a somewhat marked predilec- 
 tion ; compare ὑπερνικάω, Rom. viii. 37 ; 
 ὑπερπερισσεύω, Rom. vy. 20, 2 Cor. vii. 
 4; ὑπερλίαν, ib. xi. 5; ὑπερυψόω, Phil. 
 ll. 9; ὑπεραυξάνω, 2 Thess. i. 3 ὑπερ- 
 πλεονάζω, 1 Tim. i. 14; and see Fritz. 
 Rom. ν. 20, Vol. 1. p. 351. It is notice- 
 able that ὑπὲρ occurs nearly thrice as 
 many times in St. Paul’s Epp. and the 
 Ep. to the Heb. as in the rest of the N. 
 T., and that, with a few exceptions 
 (Mark vii. 37, Luke vi. 38, etc.), the 
 compounds of ὑπὲρ are all found in St. 
 Paul’s Epp. The gen. ὧν is governed 
 by ὑπερεκπ. as γνώσεως by ὑπερβάλλου- 
 σαν, ver. 19; comp. Bernh. Synt. 111. 34, 
 p- 139 sq. αἰτούμεϑα i) νοοῦ- 
 μεν] ‘we ask or think;’ not only the 
 requests we actually prefer, but all that 
 it might enter into the mind to conceive; 
 “cogitatio latius patet quam preces’ Ben- 
 gel; comp. Phil. iv. 7. THY 
 ἐνεργΎ. ἐν ἡ μῖν] ‘which worketh in us, 
 se. in our souls’, ‘que operatur in nobis,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg.; ἐνεργ. not being here 
 passive (Hamm., Bull, Exam. 11. 3), but 
 middle (Syr., Goth., ASth., Arm.), as in 
 Gal. v. 6, where see notes. On the con- 
 structions of évepyéw, see notes on Gal. 
 ii. 8, and on the distinction between the 
 uses of act. (mainly in personal ref.) 
 and middle (mainly in non-personal 
 ref.), Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231. The 
 δύναμις, which so energizes, is the power 
 of the Holy Ghost; comp. ver. 16, Rom. 
 viii. 26. 
 
 21. αὐτῷ] ‘to Him;’ rhetorical repe- 
 tition of the pronoun, — not, however, 
 in accordance with ‘Hebrew usage’ 
 (Eadie), but in agreement with the sim- 
 
 11 
 
82 EPHESIANS. Cuap. ITI, 21. 
 
 3 a N lo) A a 
 Inood, εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων: ἀμήν. 
 
 91. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7), Harl, De Wette, Mey., 
 al., with D2 [E, Χρ. Ἰ ἐν τῇ éxx.] KL; great majority of mss.; Goth., Syr. (both), 
 al.; Chrys., Theod., Dam. (text), Theoph., Gicum.; Vig. The variations can be 
 so satisfactorily accounted for that there seems little doubt that this is the true read- 
 Assuming it to be so, the preéminence due to Christ would first have sug- 
 gested a change of order (compare E): the insertion of καὶ would have easily fol- 
 lowed, as in D1FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug., Boern.; Ambrst.; it would thus have 
 acquired such a footing in the text, as to be maintained even when the right order 
 
 ing. 
 
 was observed. 
 
 We have hence the fairly attested, though appy. spurious, reading, 
 
 ἐν τῇ ex. καὶ ἐν Xp. I. in ABC; 73, 80, 213; Vulg., Copt., Arm.; Dam. (comm.) ; 
 
 Hier., Pel. (Lachm., Riickert.). 
 
 ple principles of emphasis ; see Bernh., 
 Synt. vi. 11. ¢, p. 290. ἡ δόξα] 
 ‘the glory that is due to Him, and re- 
 dounds to Him from such gracious deal- 
 ings towards us;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5. 
 ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. ἐν Xp. “Ina.] ‘in the 
 Church, in Christ Jesus ;’ the first mem- 
 ber denoting the outward province, the 
 second the inward and spiritual sphere 
 in which God was to be praised. The 
 second member ἐν Xp. Inc. is thus not 
 for διὰ Xp. (Theoph.), nor for σὺν Xp. 
 (Cicum.), but retains its proper mean- 
 ing, specifying, not exactly the manner 
 (De W.), but the true element in which 
 alone praise was duly to be ascribed to 
 God; ‘if any glory come from us to 
 God it is by [in] Christ,’ Sanders (cited 
 by Wordsw. in loc.). The ordinary ex- 
 planation, ‘the Church (which is) in 
 Christ Jesus,’ is objectionable, not so 
 much on account of the absence of the 
 article (for comp. 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. 
 i. 1), as on account of the then appy. 
 superfluous character of the words (the 
 exxA. here mentioned could only be the 
 Christian Church), which in our present 
 interpr. echo the preceding τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 (ver. 19) with special and appropriate 
 force; contrast Alf zn loc., who still par- 
 tially connects the two members; but 
 comp. Syr., which by its omission of the 
 relative here, and its insertion in Thess. 
 Il. cc., seems not obscurely to fayor our 
 
 present view. Lachm. and Riick. 
 insert καὶ (καὶ ἐν Xp. Ino.) with a fair 
 amount of authority (see crit. note), — 
 but contrary to critical probability; as 
 the insertion of the copula seems more 
 naturally due to emendation (observe 
 the variations zm loc.), than its omission 
 to an error in transcription. eis 
 πάσας γενεάς κ. τ. λ.] ‘to all the gen- 
 erations of the age of the ages ;’ compare 
 Dan. vii. 18, ἕως αἰῶνος τῶν αἰῶνων, 3 
 Esdr. iv. 38, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, 
 and see notes on (ταί. i. ὅ. The cumu- 
 lative expression is somewhat peculiar, 
 It is not improbable, as Grotius suggests, 
 that the two formulz expressive of end- 
 less continuity, γενεαὶ γενεῶν, Luke 1. 50, 
 and αἰῶνες τῶν aidvwy, are here blended 
 together. The use of γενεαὶ suggests 
 the use of the singular αἰών, as the con- 
 ception of the successive generations 
 composing the entirety of the aidy is 
 thus more clearly presented, while again 
 the subjoined plural marks that αἰὼν as 
 also composed of a series of αἰῶνες (gen. 
 of the content) of which it is the sum 
 and aggregation. Harless finds a differ- 
 ence between the two expressions αἰῶνες 
 τῶν αἰώνων and αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων, the for- 
 mer being rather eatensive, and convey- 
 ing the idea of πάντες αἰῶνες, the latter 
 being rather intensive, ‘ seeculum szeculo- 
 rum, quod omnia szcula in se continet’ 
 (Drus.), and more strictly in accordance 
 
ΘῊΡ iV 1: 
 
 Walk worthy of your voca- 
 tion in lowliness, in love, 
 and especially in unity; 
 there is but one body, one 
 Spirit, one Lord, and one God. 
 
 with the Hebrew superlative. This is in- 
 genious, but appy. of doubtful application, 
 as in actual practice the difference between 
 the two expressions is hardly apprecia- 
 ble. Baur (Paulus, p. 433) finds in this 
 expression distinct traces of Gnosticism : 
 it is unnecessary to refute such utterly 
 foregone conclusions. 
 
 CuarTer IV. 1. παρακαλῶ οὖν) 
 “1 exhort you then;’ commencement of 
 the practical portion of the Epistle 
 (comp. Rom. xii. 1), following naturally 
 and with an appropriate retrospective 
 reference (οὖν) to what has preceded ; 
 οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἐπιδείξας τῆς elas evepye- 
 σίας τὸν πλοῦτον, ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδη προτρέπει 
 τῆς ἀρετῆς, Theod. The meaning of 
 mapakad@ will thus be both here and in 
 Rom. /. 6. more naturally ‘hortor’ 
 (παρακ. τὸ προτρέπω, ws ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, 
 Thom. M. p. 684, ed. Bern.) than ‘ obse- 
 cro,’ (Clarom., Vulg., Arm., and most 
 Vy.),—a meaning which it sometimes 
 bears, but which would seem inapplicable 
 in the present context; see Fritz. Rom. 
 Vol. 111. p. 4, and, for a general notice 
 of the word, Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. 
 Ρ. 127 sq.; comp. also notes on 1 Thess. 
 Ver lilte The evract reference of οὖν 
 is more doubtful; Meyer refers it to the 
 verse immediately preceding, Winzer 
 and Alford (Rom. ἰ. ce.) to the whole 
 doctrinal portion of the Ep.; the former 
 view, however, seems too narrow, the 
 latter too vague. The more natural ref. 
 is appy. to those passages in the preced- 
 ing chap. which relate to the spiritual 
 privileges and calling of the Ephesians, 
 e. g. ver. 6, 12, but especially to 14 sq., 
 in which the tenor of the prayer inci- 
 dentally discloses how high and how 
 great that calling really was. On the 
 true force of this particle, see Klotz, 
 
 EPHESIANS. 83 
 
 IV. Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν 
 Κυρίῳ, ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς 
 
 Devar. Vol. 11. p. 117, Donalds. Gr., ὃ 
 548. 31, and comp. notes on Piil. ii. 1. 
 
 6 δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘the prisoner 
 in the Lord,’ i. e., as paraphrased by 
 Fritz., ‘ego vinctus in Christi castris ;’ 
 not παρακ. ἐν Kup., a construction at 
 variance both with the grammatical 
 order of the words, and the apparent 
 force of the exhortation; see Winer, Gr. 
 § 20. 2, p. 123. St. Paul exhorts not 
 merely as the prisoner, but as the pris- 
 oner in the Lord; ‘a vinculis majorem 
 5101 auctoritatem vindicat,’ Calv.; comp. 
 Gal. vi. 17. Thus ἐν Kup. is not for διὰ 
 Kup. (Chrysost., Theod.), or σὺν Kup. 
 (CEcum.), but denotes the sphere in 
 which captivity existed, and out of which 
 it did not exist; ‘in Domini enim vincu- 
 lis constrictus est, qui ἐν Κυρίῳ ay vinc- 
 tus est,’ Fritz. Rom. viii. 1, Vol. 11. p. 
 82 sq.; comp. notes on Gal. i. 34. The 
 distinction between this and 6 δέσμ. τοῦ 
 Xp., ch. iii. 1, seems to be that in the lat- 
 ter the captivity is referred immediately 
 to Christ as its author and originator, in 
 the former to the union with Him and 
 devotion to His service. It must be 
 conceded, that occasionally ἐν Κυρίῳ 
 appears little more than a kind of quali- 
 tative definition (comp. Rom. xvi. 8, 13, 
 1 Cor. iv. 17, Phil. i. 14, al.) ; still the 
 student cannot be too much put on his 
 guard against the frigid and even unspir- 
 itual interpretations into which Fritz. 
 has been betrayed in his elaborate note 
 (Rom. /. c. Vol. 11. p. 82 sq.) on this 
 and the similar formula ἐν Χριστῷ. 
 On the nature of this union with 
 Christ compare Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. 
 1πτι p. 702. ἧς ἐκλήϑητεϊ 
 ‘wherewith ye were called,’ ‘qua vocati 
 estis,’ Clarom., Vulg., Goth.; ἧς here 
 appy. standing for 7 (comp. 2 Tim. i. 9, 
 but not 1 Cor. vii. 20 [De W.], as there 
 
84 
 
 ἐκλήδητε, 
 
 ἐν precedes), and so slightly violating 
 the usual law of attraction, unless, fol- 
 lowing the analogy of such phrases as 
 κλῆσιν καλεῖν, TapakAnow mapak., We 
 suppose the relative standing as usual 
 for the accus. ἤν; compare Winer, Gr. § 
 24.1, p. 189. De W. indeed denies the 
 existence of such a phrase as κλῆσιν 
 καλεῖν, but see Arrian, pict. p. 122 
 (Raphel), καταισχύνειν τὴν κλῆσιν ἣν 
 κέκληκεν. 
 
 2. μετὰ πάσης ταπ.] ‘with all 
 lowliness ;’ dispositions with which their 
 moral walk was to be associated (comp. 
 Col. iii. 12), μετὰ (‘ with, Vulg., Goth., 
 not ‘in,’ Copt.) being used with ref. to 
 the mental powers and dispositions with 
 which an action is, as it were, accompa- 
 nied; comp. Luke i. 39, 2 Cor. vii. 15, 
 and see Winer, Gr. § 47. h. p. 337. Σὺν 
 denotes rather coherence (Kriiger, Sprachl. 
 § 68. 13, 1), not uncommonly with some 
 collateral idea of assistance ; compare 1 
 Cor. v. 4. On the use of πάσης, 
 comp. notes, ch. i. 8; and on the mean- 
 ing of the late word ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘the 
 esteeming of ourselves small, because we 
 are so,’ ‘the thinking truly, and, because 
 truly, therefore lowlily of ourselves,’ see 
 Trench, Synon. ὃ xuit., and Suicer, 
 Thesaur. s. v., where several definitions 
 of Chrysostom are cited. Most of these 
 openly or tacitly ascribe to the ταπει- 
 voppwy a consciousness of greatness 
 (tam. ἐστίν, ὅταν μεγάλα Tis ἑαυτῷ 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 συνειδὼς μηδὲν μέγα περὶ αὑτοῦ φαν- 
 τάζηται); this, however, as Trench ob- 
 serves, is alien to the true sense and 
 spirit of the word. πρᾳύτητοΞ]) 
 “meekness,’ in respect of God, and in the 
 face of men; see Trench, Synon, ὃ 
 xuit., Tholuck, Bergpr. (Matth. v. 5), 
 p- 82 sq., and notes on Gal. vy. 23. The 
 less definite meaning of ‘gentleness’ is 
 appy. maintained by some of the Vy. 
 (Vulg. ‘mansuetudine’ Goth. ‘qairrein’ 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 2. 
 
 2 \ / , \ sl. \ 
 μετα TAGNS ταπεινοφροσύνης και πρᾳυτήῆτος, μετὰ 
 
 [comp. Lat. cicur], Arm., al.), and also 
 by the Greek commentators (ἔσο ταπει- 
 νὸς ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρᾳος, ἔστι γὰρ ταπεινὸν 
 μὲν εἶναι, ὀξὺν δὲ καὶ ὀργίλον, Chrysost. ; 
 compare Theophyl. on Gal. v. 3); the 
 deeper and more biblical sense is, how- 
 ever, distinctly to be preferred. A 
 good general definition will be found in 
 Stobeeus, Floril. 1. 1 (18). The 
 reading πρᾳύτητος, though only sup- 
 ported by BC; mss., is appy. to be pre- 
 ferred to πραότητος (Rec., Lachm. with 
 ADEFGL; majority of mss.), as the 
 best attested form in the dialect of the 
 New Test. see Tischend. Prolegom. p. L. 
 μετὰ pakpodsupmtas] ‘with long suf- 
 fering ;’ separate clause more fully elu- 
 cidated by the following words, ἀνεχόμε- 
 vot x. τ᾿ A. Two other constructions 
 have been proposed; (a) the connection 
 of μετὰ μακρ. with avex. (Est. Harl.) so 
 as to form a single clause ; (>) the union 
 of all the clauses in one single sentence. 
 The objections to (a) are, (1) that avex. 
 is the natural expansion of μετὰ μακρ., 
 —(2) that undue emphasis must thus 
 (owing to the position) be ascribed to 
 μετὰ wakp.,— (3) that the parallelism of 
 the participial clauses would be need- 
 lessly violated; to the latter that the 
 passage of the general ἀξίως περιπ.) into 
 the special ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλ.) becomes sudden 
 and abrupt, instead of being made easy 
 and gradational by means of the inter- 
 posed prepositional clauses ; comp. Mey. 
 The fine word μακροϑυμία 
 (‘ long-suffering,’ ‘forbearance,’ Goth. 
 ‘usbeisnai’), implies the reverse of ὀξυ- 
 ϑυμία (James i. 19), and is well defined 
 by Fritz. (Rom. τι. 4, Vol. 1. p. 98) as 
 ‘clementid, qua ire temperans, delictum 
 non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit 
 peenitendi locum relinquas.’ The gloss 
 of Chrys. (on Cor. xiii. 4), μακρόϑυμος 
 διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται, ἔπειδὴ μακράν τινα καὶ 
 μεγάλην ἔχει ψυχήν (compare Clarom. 
 
 in loc. 
 
Cuap. IV. 3. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 85 
 
 μακροδυμίας, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγώπῃ, ἣἧ σπουδάζοντες 
 
 ‘magnanimitate’), is too inclusive and 
 general; that of Beza, ‘irz cohibitione,’ 
 too limited and special. ave x d- 
 μενοι x. τ. A.| ‘forbearing one another 
 in love;’ manifestation and exhibition of 
 the μακροϑυμία; compare Col. iii. 13. 
 
 . The relapse of the participle from its 
 
 proper case into the nom. is here so per- 
 fectly intelligible, and natural, that any 
 supplement of ἐστὲ or γίνεσϑε (Heins., 
 al.) must be regarded as wholly unneces- 
 sary; see notes on ch. iii. 18, and Elsner, 
 Obs. Vol. 11. p. 211 sq. ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
 is referred by Lachm. and Olsh. to σπου- 
 da¢ovres. Such a punctuation, though 
 supported by Origen (Caten.), seems 
 wholly inadmissible, as disturbing the 
 symmetry of the two participial clauses, 
 and throwing a false emphasis on ἐν 
 ἀγάπῃ. 
 
 3. σπουδάς. τηρεῖν] ‘using dili- 
 gence to keep ;’ participial member paral- 
 lel to the foregoing, specifying the inward 
 feelings (Mey.) by which the ἀνέχεσϑαι 
 is to be characterized, and the inward 
 efforts by which it is to be promoted ; 
 οὐκ ἀπόνως ἰσχύσομεν εἰρηνεύειν, Theoph. 
 For two good discussions of this verse, 
 though from somewhat different points 
 of view, see Laud, Serm. νι. Vol. 1. p. 
 155 sq. (A. C. Libr.), and Baxter, 
 Works, Vol. xvi. p. 879 (ed. Orme). 
 τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ Πν.] ‘the unity of 
 the Spirit,’ scil. ‘wrought by the Spirit’ 
 (τὴν ἑνότ., ἣν τὸ Πνεῦμα ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν, 
 Theoph., comp. Chrysost., GQicum.), τοῦ 
 Πν. being the gen. of the originating 
 cause (Scheuerl. Synt., § 17.1, p. 125), 
 not the possessive gen. (as appy. Origen, 
 Caten.), or both united (as Stier, see 
 Vol. 11. p. 18), neither of which seem 
 here so pertinent; see notes on 1 Thess. 
 i. 6, and on Col. i. 23. That the ref. is 
 to the personal Holy Spirit, seems so 
 clear that we may wonder how such 
 able commentators as Calvin and Estius 
 
 could regard τὸ Πν. as the human spirit, 
 and acquiesce in an interpr. so frigid as 
 ‘animorum concordia,’ ‘animorum inter 
 vos conjunctio.” De Wette, — whose 
 own interpr. ‘die Einheit des kirchlichen 
 Gemeingeistes’ (comp. Theod.-Mops., 
 Πνεῦμ., τὸ ἀναγεννῆσαν σῶμα), is very 
 far from satisfactory, urges ἑνότης πίσ- 
 Tews, ver. 13 (compare Origen), but the 
 two passages are by no means so closely 
 analogous as to suggest any modifica- 
 tion of the simple personal meaning here 
 assigned to Πνεῦμα; see Laud, Serm. vt. 
 Vol. 1. p. 162 (A. C. Libr.). ἐν 
 Tw συνδέσμῳ THs εἰρήνη] ‘in 
 the bond of peace;’ element or principle 
 in which the unity is maintained, viz. 
 ‘peace ;’ τῆς εἰρήν. being not the gen. 
 objecti (‘that which binds together, main- 
 tains, peace,’ Riickert, ‘vinculum quo 
 pax retinetur,’ Beng., scil. ἀγάπη, Col. 
 iii. 14), but the gen. of identity or apposi- 
 tion; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, p.470. The former 
 interpretation is plausible, and appy. as 
 ancient as the time of Origen (τῆς aya- 
 ms auvdcovons κατὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἑνουμέ- 
 vous, ap. Cram. Caten. p. 165), but de- 
 rives very doubtful support from Col. 
 l.c., where ἀγάπη is specified, and was 
 perhaps only due to the assumption that 
 ἐν was here instrumental (διά Cicum.), 
 and that συνδ τῆς εἰρ. was a periphrasis 
 for the agent (ἀγάπη) supposed to be 
 referred to. Ἔν, however, correctly de- 
 notes the sphere, the element in which the 
 ἑνότης is to be kept and manifested (see 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 845), thus pre- 
 serving its parallelism with ἐν in ver. 2, 
 and conveying a very simple and _per- 
 spicuous meaning: the Ephesians were 
 to evince their forbearance in love, and 
 to preserve the Spirit-given unity in the 
 true bond of union, the ‘irrupta copula’ 
 of peace. The etymological identity 
 of σύνδεσμος and εἰρήνη must not be 
 
86 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 4, 5. 
 
 A U fa 3 A ’ an 5 
 τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης. 
 
 ἐὲν σῶμα καὶ ἕν Πνεῦμα, casas καὶ ἐκλήϑδητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι 
 
 τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν' 
 
 pressed (Reiners, ap. Wolf) as the deri- 
 vation of εἰρήνη from EIPQ ‘necto’ is 
 less probable than from EIPQ ‘dico;’ 
 see Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 7, 
 Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 799. 
 4. ἐν σῶμα] ‘There is one body ;’ 
 assertory declaration of the unity per- 
 vading the Christian dispensation, de- 
 signed to illustrate and enhance the fore- 
 going exhortation; the simple verb ἐστί, 
 not γίνεσϑε or ἐστέ (οἵπερ ἐστέ, Camer.), 
 being appy. the correct supplement; see 
 Winer, Gr., ὃ 64. 2, p. 546. The con- 
 nection of thought between ver. 3 and 4 
 is somewhat doubtful. That the verse 
 is not directly hortatory, and connected 
 with (Zachm.), dependent on (‘ut sitis,’ 
 Syr. Est. 2), or in apposition to (‘exis- 
 tentes,’ Est. 1) what precedes, seems 
 clear from the parallelism with ver. 5 
 and 6; still less does it introduce a 
 reason for the previous statement by an 
 ellipse of γάρ (Eadie), all such ellipses 
 being wholly indemonstrable; ‘nulla in 
 re magis pejusque errari quam in ellipsi 
 particularum § solet,’ Herm. Viger Ap- 
 pend 11. p. 701 (ed. Valpy). It seems 
 then only to contain a simple assertion, 
 the very unconnectedness of which adds 
 weight and impressiveness, and seems 
 designed to convey an echo of the former 
 warning ; ‘remember,— there is one 
 body, ete.;’ comp. Hofm. Sehrift. Vol. 
 11. p. 108. In the explanation of 
 the sentiment, the Greek commentators 
 somewhat vacillate; we can, however, 
 scarcely doubt that the σῶμα implies the 
 whole community of Christians, the 
 mystical body of Christ (ch. ii. 16, Rom. 
 xii. 5, Col. i. 24, al.), and that the 
 Πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit which dwells 
 in the Church (Eadie), and by which 
 the σῶμα is moved and vivified (1 Cor. 
 xii, 13) ; comp. Jackson, Creed, xii. 3. 
 
 διε ΄, ! ἢ ἃ ΄ 
 εἷς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα: 
 
 4, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 1, p. 249, and 
 Wordsw. in loc. On this text, see a 
 good treatise by Barrow, Works, Vol. 
 Vil. p. 626 sq. καὺ ὦ 9] ‘evenas;’ 
 illustration and proof of the unity, as 
 more especially afforded by the unity of 
 the hope in which they were called. On 
 the later form καϑώς, see notes on Gal. 
 lii. 6. καὶ ἐκλήϑητε ἐν μιᾷ 
 ἐλπ.] ‘ye were also called in one hope,’ 
 ‘vocati estis in una spe,’ Clarom., 
 Vulg., Arm.; καὶ marking the accord- 
 ance of the calling with the previously- 
 stated unity (‘unitas spiritus ex unitate 
 
 spei noscitur,’ Cocc.), and ἐν being nei- _ 
 
 ther equiv. to ἐπὶ (Chrys.) or eis (Riick.), 
 nor even instrumental, but simply speci- 
 fying the moral element in which as it 
 were the κλῆσις took place; compare 
 Winer, Gr., § 50. 5, p. 370. Meyer 
 adopts the instrumental sense; as, how- 
 ever, there are not here, as in Gal. i. 6 
 (see notes), any prevailing dogmatical 
 reasons for such an interpretation, and 
 as the two remaining passages in which 
 καλεῖν is joined with ἐν (1 Cor. vii. 15, 1 
 Thess. iv. 7) admit a similar explana- 
 tion, it seems most correct to adhere to 
 the strict, and so to say, theological mean- 
 ing of this important preposition; we 
 were called ἐπ᾽ ἐλευϑερίᾳ (Gal. v. 13), 
 and εἰς ζωήν αἰώνιον (1 Tim. vi. 12), 
 but ἐν εἰρήνῃ (1 Cor. vii. 15), ἐν aye 
 ασμῷ (1 Thess. iv. 7) and ἐν ἐλπίδι ; 
 compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 15, p. 
 146. τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν] ‘of 
 your calling, sc. arising from your call- 
 ing; κλήσεως being not the gen. of pos- 
 session (Eadie, Alf.), but of the origin or 
 originating cause; κοινὴ ἐστὶν ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς 
 ἐκ τῆς κλήσεως γενομένη, Cicum.; see 
 notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. 
 
 5. εἷς Κύριο 95] ‘one Lord,’ se. Christ ; 
 placed prominently forward, as the Head 
 
 » 
 
ΓΑ 
 
 Cuap. IV. 6. 
 
 > 
 
 EPHESIANS. ST 
 
 \ A. 
 
 6? Θ \ \ ‘ , ς \ ὃ \ ΄ ae) 
 εἰς εος Και TAT) P πάντων, ὁ ETL TAUVTWMV καὶ OLA TTAVT@MV καὶ EV 
 
 of His one body, the Church, and the 
 one divine object toward whom faith is 
 directed, and into whom all Christians 
 are baptized ; comp. Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 
 27, and for a good sermon on this text 
 Barrow, Serm. xx11. Vol. v. p. 261 sq. 
 
 "μία mlortes] ‘one faith;’ not the 
 
 ‘fides que creditur,’ and still less the 
 ‘regula fidei,’ Grot., —this meaning in 
 the N. T. being extremely doubtful, see 
 notes on Gal. i. 23, — but the ‘ fides qua 
 creditur,’ the ‘fides salvifica,’ which was 
 the same in its essence and qualities for 
 all Christians (Mey.). That this, how- 
 ever, must not be unduly limited to the 
 feeling of the individual, sc. to faith in 
 its utterly subjective aspect, seems clear 
 from the use of μία, and the general 
 context. As there is one Lord, so the 
 μία πίστις is not only a subjective recog- 
 nition of this eternal truth (Usteri, Lehrb. 
 11. 1. 4, p. 238), but also necessarily 
 involves a common objective profession 
 of it; comp. Rom. x. 10; and see Stier, 
 Vol. 1. p. 33, Pearson, Creed, Art. Iv. 
 Vol. 1. p. 399 (ed. Burt.). év 
 βάπτισμα] ‘one baptism;’ a still fur- 
 ther ‘consequentia’ to εἷς Κύριος ; as 
 there was one Lord and one faith in 
 Him, so was there one and one only 
 baptism into Him (Gal. iii. 27), one and 
 one only inward element, one and one 
 only outward seal. Commentators have 
 dwelt, perhaps somewhat unprofitably, 
 upon the reasons why no mention is 
 made of the other sacrament, the εἷς 
 ἄρτος (1 Cor. x. 17) of the Holy Com- 
 munion. If it be thought necessary to 
 assign any reason, it must certainly not 
 be sought for in the mere historical fact 
 (Mey.), that the Holy Communion was 
 not at that time so separate and distinct 
 in its administration (compare Bingham 
 Antiq. xv. 7.6, 7, Waterland, Hucharist, 
 Ch. τ. Vol. 1v. p. 475) as Holy Baptism, 
 for the words of inspiration are for all 
 
 times, but must be referred to the funda- 
 mental difference between the two sacra- 
 ments. The one is rather the symbol of 
 union (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 284); the 
 other, from its single celebration and 
 marked individual reference, presents 
 more clearly the idea of unity, — the idea 
 most in harmony with the context; see 
 Kahnis, Abend. p. 276, 249. 
 
 6. εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ] ‘one God 
 and Father ;’ climactic reference to the 
 eternal Father (observe the distinct men- 
 tion of the three Persons of the blessed 
 Trinity, ver. 4, 5, 6) in whom unity finds 
 its highest exemplification ; ‘etiamsi bap- 
 tizamur in nomen Patris, Filii, et Spiritus 
 Sancti, et filium unum Dominum nomi- 
 namus, tamen non credimus nisi in unum 
 Deum,’ Coce. On this solemn designa- 
 tion, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and for a dis- 
 cussion of the title ‘Father,’ Pearson, 
 Creed, Art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 35 sq. (ed. 
 Burt.), Barrow, Creed, Serm. x. Vol. 
 Ivy. p. 493 sq. 6 ἐπὶ πάντων͵ 
 ‘who is over all;’ 6 κύριος καὶ ἐπάνω πάν- 
 των, Chrysost.; the relation expressed 
 seems that of simple sovereignty, not 
 only spiritual (Calv.), but general and 
 universal (δεσποτείαν σημαίνει, 'Theod.) ; 
 comp. Rom. ix. 5, and see Winer, Gr. 
 § 50. 6, p. 370, where the associated 
 reference to ‘protection’ (ed. 5), is now 
 rightly excluded ; this would have been 
 more naturally expressed by ὑπέρ; see 
 Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 28. It is unne- 
 cessary to remark that the three clauses 
 are no synonymous formule (Koppe), 
 but that the prepositions mark with scru- 
 pulous accuracy the threefold relation in 
 which God stands to his creatures; see 
 notes on Gal. i. 1, and Winer, Gr. l. c., 
 and Stier, Vol. 1. p. 44. The gen- 
 der of πάντων is doubtful. It seems 
 arbitrary (Clarom., Vulg.) to regard the 
 first πάντων and πᾶσιν as masc., the sec- 
 ond πάντων as neuter, as there is nothing 
 
88 
 
 Further, Christ gives His 
 grace in measure to each, 
 as the Scripture testifies. 
 
 in the context or in the meaning of the 
 prepp. to require such a limitation ; the 
 gender of one may with propriety fix 
 that of the 
 tainly seems masculine, πάντων may be 
 assumed of the same gender; so Copt., 
 which by the omission of hob seems here 
 to express a definite opinion. In Rom. 
 ix. 5, πάντων is commonly (and prop- 
 erly) interpreted as neuter (opp. to Fritz. 
 in loc. Vol. 11. 272), there being no lim- 
 itation or restriction implied in the con- 
 text. The reading is very doubtful ; 
 ἡμῖν (Rec. duty with mss.; Chrys. com- 
 ment., al.) is added to πᾶσιν with DEF 
 GKL; mss.; Clarom, Vulgate, Syr. 
 (both), Goth.; Did., Dam., al.,— but 
 seems more rightly omitted with ABC ; 
 10 mss.; Copt., ith. (both); Ath., 
 Greg.-Naz., Chrys. (text), al., as a not 
 improbable gloss; so Lachm., Tisch., 
 and appy. the majority of recent edi- 
 tors. 
 
 rest. As πᾶσιν then cer- 
 
 διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν) 
 ‘through all and in all” These two last 
 clauses are less easy to interpret, on ac- 
 count of the approximation in meaning 
 Of these διὰ is 
 referred (a) by the Greek expositors to 
 God (the Father), in respect of his provi- 
 
 of the two prepositions. 
 
 dence (ὁ προνοῶν καὶ διοικῶν, Chrysost.) ; 
 (b) by Aquinas (ap. Est.), al, to God 
 the Son, ‘per quem omnia facta sunt,’ 
 comp. Olsh., — a very inverted interpre- 
 tation; (6) by Calvin, Meyer, al. ‘to 
 the pervading charismatic influence and 
 presence of God by means of the Holy 
 Spirit’ This last interpretation seems 
 at first sight most in unison with the 
 strict meaning of both prepp , διὰ point- 
 ing to the influence of the Spirit which 
 passes through (‘transcurrit,’ Jerome) and 
 pervades all hearts [operative motion], ἐν 
 His indwelling (6 οἰκῶν, Chrysost.) and 
 informing influence [operative rest] ; see 
 ed. 1; still as the three Persons of the 
 blessed Trinity have been so lately spec- 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 7. 
 
 πᾶσιν. ‘Evi δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις 
 
 ified, as references to this holy Truth 
 seem very noticeably to pervade this Ep. 
 (see Stier, Eph. Vol. 1. p. 35), and as 
 the ancient interpr. of Irenzeus (‘super 
 omnia (1) quidem Pater, ... . per omnia 
 (4) autem Verbum,.....in omnibus 
 autem nobis Spiritus,’ Her. v. 18; com- 
 pare Athan. ad. Serap. ὃ 28, Vol. 1. p. 
 677, ed. Bened.), seems to have a just 
 claim on our attention, it seems best and 
 safest to maintain that allusion in the 
 present case (opp. to Hofm. Schriftb. 
 Vol. 1. p. 184), and to refer διὰ πάντων 
 to the redeeming and reconciling influ- 
 ences of the Eternal Son which pervade 
 all hearts, while ἐν πᾶσιν, as above, 
 marks the indwelling Spirit; see Stier 
 in loc., and comp. Waterl. Def. of Que- 
 ries, Vol. 1. p. 280. 
 
 7. ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ judy] ‘ But to 
 each of us,’ ‘to each one individually ;’ 
 further inculeation of this unity in what 
 might at first sight have seemed to mili- 
 tate against it: δὲ neither being transi- 
 tional (comp. Eadie), nor encountering 
 any objection (Grot., comp. Theoph.), 
 but merely suggesting the contrast be- 
 tween the individual and the πάντες pre- 
 viously mentioned (ver. 6). In the 
 general distribution of gifts (implied 
 in the 6 Θεὸς ἐν πᾶσιν), no single 
 individual is (1 Cor. xii. 
 11, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ) ; each has his 
 peculiar gift, each can and ought to 
 contribute his share to preserving ‘the 
 unity of the Spirit; ἡ so in effect Chrys., 
 who in the main has rightly felt and 
 explained the connection, τὰ πάντων 
 
 overlooked 
 
 κεφαλαιωδέστερα, φησί, κοινὰ πάντων ἐστί, 
 τὸ βάπτισμα κ. τ. A. εἰ δέ τι ὁ δεῖνα 
 πλέον ἔχει ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι, μὴ ἄλγει; 
 see also Theod.-Mops. in (oc. 
 
 ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρι] ‘the grace was given,’ 
 se. by our Lord after His ascension ; 
 χάρις, however, not being simply equiv- 
 alent to χάρισμα (= " gift of grace, Peile), 
 
σαι ΕΝ 8. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 89 
 
 κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. "“ διὸ λέγει ᾿Δναβὰς 
 
 but, as De W. rightly observes, retaining 
 some shade of a transitive force, and 
 denoting the energizing grace which 
 manifests itself in the peculiar gift; 
 comp. Rom. xii. 6. The omission 
 of the art. (Lachm. with BDIFGL; 5 
 mss.; Dam.) is due appy. to an error in 
 transcription, caused by the preceding ἡ, 
 by which it became absorbed, and is 
 retained by Tisch. (with ACD3EK; 
 great majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod., 
 al.), and most recent editors. 
 
 κατὰ τὸ μέτρον k. τ. λ.7 ‘according 
 to the measure of the gift of Christ, scil. 
 ‘in proportion to the amount of the gift 
 which Christ gives,’ καϑὼς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
 δωρεὰν ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν 6 δεσπότης ἐπεμέ- 
 τρῆσε Χριστός, Theod.-Mops.; δωρεᾶς 
 being thus a simple possessive gen. (the 
 measure which the gift has, which be- 
 longs to and defines the gift), and Χρισ- 
 τοῦ the gen. of ablation (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 
 451), or, more specifically, of the agent, 
 the giver (comp. δωρεὰς χάριτος, Plato, 
 Leg. vi11. 844 D, and see notes on 1 
 Thess. i. 6) not of the receiver (Oeder 
 ap. Wolf),— an idea which is in no sort 
 of harmony with the context, ἔδωκεν 
 δόματα, ver. 8; see 2 Cor. ix. 15. Stier 
 very infelicitously (in point of grammar) 
 endeavors to unite both. 
 
 8. διὸ λέγει] ‘ On which account He 
 saith ;? on account of this bestowal of 
 the gift of Christ, and that in differing 
 measures, — ὅτι, φησίν, ἣ χάρις δωρεά 
 ἐστι τοῦ Χρ. καὶ αὐτὸς μετρήσας ἔδωκεν, 
 ἄκουε, φησί, τοῦ Δαυίδ, (οπιπι. The 
 difficulties of this verse, both in regard 
 to the connection, the source, and the 
 form of the citation, are very great, and 
 must be separately, though briefly no- 
 ticed. (1) Connection. There is clearly 
 no parenthesis; verse 8 is to be closely 
 connected with verse 7, and regarded as 
 a scriptural confirmation of its asser- 
 tions. These assertions involve two 
 
 12 
 
 separate moments of thought, (a) the 
 primary, that each individual has his 
 peculiar and appropriate gifts, further 
 elucidated and exemplified, ver. 11; (2) 
 the secondary, that these gifts are con- 
 Jerred by Christ. The intrinsic, though 
 not so much contextual importance of 
 (Ὁ) induces the Apostle to pause and 
 add a special confirmation from Scrip- 
 ture. The cardinal words are thus so 
 obviously ἐδόϑη, δωρεά, ἔδωκε δόματα, 
 that it is singular how so good a com- 
 mentator as Olsh. could have supposed 
 the stress of the citation to be on τοῖς 
 ἄνῶρ. (2) The source of the cita- 
 tion is not any Christian hymn (Storr, 
 Opusc. 111. p. 809), but Psalm Ixvii., 
 —a psalm of which the style, age, pur- 
 port, and allusions have been most dif- 
 ferently estimated and explained (for 
 details see Reuss, /eviti. Psalm), but 
 which may, with high probability, be 
 deemed a hymn of victory in honor of 
 Jchova, the God of Battles (Hengst. 
 opp. to J. Olsh.), of high originality 
 (Hitzig opp. to Ewald), and composed 
 by David on the taking of Rabbah 
 (Hengst. opp. to Reuss, J. Olsh.). We 
 have therefore no reason whatever to 
 entertain any doubt of its inspired and 
 prophetic character; compare Phillips, 
 Psal.ns, Vol. 11. p. 79. (3) The 
 form of citation is the real difficulty ; 
 the words of the Psalm are anpd 
 DIS2 rhs, in LXX, ἔλαβες δόματα 
 ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ [-ποις, Alex., Compl., Ald 1. 
 The difference in St. Paul’s citation is 
 palpable, and, we are bound in candor 
 to say, does not appear diminished by 
 any of the proposed reconciliations ; for 
 even assuming that -7> = ‘danda sum- 
 sit,’ ‘he took only to give’ (comp. Gen. 
 xvi. 9, xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, xlii 16, and 
 see Surenhus. BiBA. Καταλλ., p. 585), 
 still the nature of the gifts, which in one 
 case were reluctant (see Hengst.), in the 
 
90 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. LY. 8. 
 
 els ὕψος ἡχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς avSpo- 
 
 other spontaneous, appears essentially dif- 
 ferent. We admit, then, frankly 
 and freely, the verbal difference, but 
 remembering that the Apostle wrote 
 under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
 we neither imperfect 
 memory, precipitation (Riick.), arbitrary 
 change (Calv., compare Theod.-Mops.), 
 accommodation (Morus), nor Rabbinical 
 interpretation (Meyer), but simply the 
 fact, that the Psalm, and esp. 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 substitution of ἔδωκε for the more 
 dubious -p> succinctly, suggestively, 
 and authoritatively unfolds; comp. notes 
 on Gal. iii. 16. We now proceed to the 
 grammatical details. λέγει] ‘He 
 saith,’ sc. 6 Θεός, not ἣ ypaph. This lat- 
 ter nominative is several times inserted 
 by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, 1x. 17, x. 11, 
 Gal. iv. 30, 1 Tim. v. 18), but is not 
 therefore to be regularly supplied when- 
 ever there is an ellipsis (Bos, £llips. 
 p- 54), without reference to the nature 
 of the passage. The surest, and in fact 
 only guide, is the context; where that 
 affords no certain hint, we fall back upon 
 the natural subject, 6 Θεός, whose words 
 the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii. 
 16. ἀναβὰς eis bwWos| ‘ Having 
 ascended on hiyh;’? not ‘ascendens,’ Cla- 
 rom., Vulgate, but ‘quum ascendisset,’ 
 Beza, — the reference being obviously to 
 Christ’s ascent into heaven (Barrow, 
 Creed, Vol. v1. p. 358, Pearson, Creed, 
 Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 323, ed. Burt.), and 
 the aor. part. here being temporal, and, 
 according to its more common use, de- 
 noting an action preceding [never, in the 
 N. T. subsequent to, see Winer, Gr. § 45. 
 6. b, p. 816] that of the finite verb; see 
 Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, Kriiger, 
 Sprachl. § 56.10. 1. Our Lord, it may 
 
 recognize here 
 
 be urged, gave the Holy Spirit before 
 his ascension (John xx. 22); but this 
 was only an ‘arrha Pentecostes,’ Beng., 
 a limited (Alford), and preparatory gift 
 of the Holy Spirit; see Liicke in Joc. 
 On this text, as cited from Psalm Ixviii., 
 see a good sermon by Andrewes, Serm. 
 vir. Vol. 111. p. 221 (A. C. Libr.). 
 
 ἠχμαλώτ. αἰχμαλωσίαν) ‘He led 
 captivity captive, ‘captivam duxit capti- 
 vitatem,’ Clarom., Vulg.; the abstract, 
 aixuadwo. being used for the concrete 
 αἰχμαλώτους (comp. Numbers xxxi. 12, 
 9. Chron’ xxvilis 11.189; and see vex 
 Jelf, Gr. ὃ 353), and serving by its con- 
 nection with the cognate verb to enhance 
 and slightly intensify ; compare Winer, 
 Gr. § 32. 2. p. 201, and see the copious 
 list of exx. in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 498 
 sq. Who constituted this αἰχμαλωσία 
 has been much discussed. That the 
 captives were not (a) Satan’s prisoners 
 (ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ διαβόλου τυραν- 
 vida κατεχομένους, Theod.-Mops., comp. 
 Just. Mart. Trypho, ὃ 39, p. 128, ed. 
 Otto, and Theod. zn loc.) seems clear 
 from the subsequent mention of ἀνϑρώ- 
 mots, Which (though not so in the origi- 
 nal) seems here to refer to a different 
 class to the captives. Nor (b) can they 
 be the souls of the righteous in Hades 
 (Estius, compare Evang. Nicod. § 24, in 
 Thilo, Codex Apocryph. p. 747), as, set- 
 ting aside other reasons (‘captivos non 
 duci in libertatem, sed hostes, in captivi- 
 tatem,’ Calov.), the above interpr. of the 
 part. ἀναβὰς seems seriously opposed to 
 such a view. If, however, (c) we regard 
 ‘the captivity’ as captive and subjugated 
 enemies (Meyer, De W.), the enemies 
 of Christ,— Satan, Sin, and Death, — 
 we preserve the analogy of the compari- 
 son (compare Alf.), and gain a full and 
 forcible meaning: so rightly Chrysost., 
 αἰχμάλωτον yap τὸν τύραννον ἔλαβε [not 
 κατήργησε, Which with regard to Death 
 
Cuap. IV. 9. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 91 
 
 9 Ν δὲ ’ E ἌΣ 5 Ψ Nae, \ , ’ \ / 
 ποις. ὃ τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ OTL καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατωτερα 
 
 is yet future, 1 Cor. xv. 26] τὸν διάβολον 
 λέγω καὶ τὸν ϑάνατον, kal Thy ἀράν, καὶ 
 τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ; comp. Cicum, 3, Theoph. 
 ἔδωκεν δόματα] ‘He gave gifts,’ sc. 
 spiritual gifts; comp. ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις, ver. 
 7, and as a special and particular illus- 
 tration, Acts ii. 33. The reading is 
 very doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 7) prefixes 
 καὶ with BC!(C?)D3KL; nearly all mss. ; 
 Goth., Syr. (both), al.; Orig., Chrys., 
 Theod., al. Ree., Alf.; Lachm. on the 
 contrary omits with AC?D!EFG; mss.; 
 Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Iren. (interpr.), 
 Tertull., al. (Tisch. ed. 2); and appy. 
 rightly, as an insertion for the sake of 
 keeping up the connection seems more 
 probable than a conformation to the 
 LXX. where the καὶ is omitted. 
 
 9. τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη) ‘Now (δὲ here 
 marking a slight explanatory transition, 
 Hartung, Partik., δέ, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. 
 165) that He ascended,’ scil. ‘now the 
 predication of His ascent;’ not ‘the 
 word ἀνέβη, —as ἀναβάς, not ἀνέβη, pre- 
 cedes. ΤῸ evince still more clearly the 
 truth and correctness of the Messianic 
 application of the words just cited, St. 
 Paul urges the antithesis implied by 
 ἀνέβη, Viz. κατέβη, a predication only 
 applicable to Christ; compare Hofm. 
 Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 344, where this 
 and the preceding verses are fully inves- 
 tigated. τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ κ.τ.λ.] 
 ‘what is τὲ (‘what does it imply,’ Matth. 
 ix. 13, John xvi. 17, comp. notes on Gal. 
 iii. 19), except that He also (as well as 
 ἀνέβη) descended ;’ the tacit assumption, 
 as Meyer observes, being clearly this, — 
 that He who is the subject of the cita- 
 tion is One whose seat was heaven, — no 
 man, but a giver of gifts to men; espe- 
 cially comp. John iii. 13. The 
 insertion of πρῶτον after κατέβη (Rec. 
 with BC?KL; most mss.; Aug., Vulg., 
 Goth.; Theod., al.) seems clearly to 
 have arisen from an explanatory gloss, 
 
 and that of μέρη after κατώτερα, though 
 better supported (Rec., Lachm., with 
 ABCD°KL; nearly all mss.; Vulg., 
 al.) to be still fairly attributable to the 
 same origin. eis τὰ κατώτερα 
 τῆς γῆ 5] ‘to the lower (parts) of the 
 earth, ‘in loca que subter terram,’ Copt., 
 ‘subter terram,’ ith. This celebrated 
 passage has received several different 
 interpretations, two only of which, how- 
 ever, deserve serious consideration, and 
 between which it is extremely difficult to 
 decide; (a) the ancient explanation, 
 according to which τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς 
 ΞΞ- τὰ καταχϑόνια, and imply ‘Hades’ 
 (ποῦ δὲ κατέβη ; εἰς τὸν ἅδην: τοῦτον γὰρ 
 κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς λέγει, κατὰ τὴν 
 κοινὴν ὑπόνοιαν, Theoph.), the gen. not 
 being dependent on the comparative 
 (Riick., — still less compatible with his 
 insertion of μέρη), but being the regular 
 possessive gen.; (b) the more modern 
 interpretation, adopted by the majority 
 of recent commentators, according to 
 which τῆς γῆς is regarded as the gen. of 
 apposition (see esp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, 
 p: 410), and the expression as equivalent 
 to εἰς τὴν Katwtépay ynv. Both sides 
 claim the comparative κατώτερα, --- (the 
 VaN1 ΠῚ pressed by Olshaus. is 
 appy- equally indeterminate with the 
 Greek), — the one as suggesting a com- 
 parison with the earth, ‘a lower depth 
 than the earth;’ the other as suggested 
 by the comparison with the heaven (Acts 
 li. 19, John viii. 23, — but in this latter 
 passage κάτω reaches lower than the 
 earth, Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. 1v. p. 447 
 sq.); comp. Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 
 345. These arguments must be nearly 
 set off against one another, as the posi- 
 tive would have been most natural in 
 the latter case, the superlative perhaps 
 in the former. As, however, the superl. 
 would have tended to fix the locality 
 (comp. Nehem. iv. 13) more detinitely 
 
92 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 10. 
 
 a (oe ἘΝ 1 & / awh 2 Ἀν ed \ ς ΄ δι 
 τῆς γῆς: ὁ καταβάς, αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πὰν- 
 
 than was suitable to the present context, 
 and as the use of the term ᾷδης would 
 have marred the antithesis (γῆ opp. to 
 οὐρανός), it does not seem improbable 
 that the more vague comparative was 
 expressly chosen, and that thus its use is 
 more in favor of (a) than (b). When to 
 this we add the full antithesis that seems 
 to lie in ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν, ver. 10 
 (‘sublimiora cxelorum’ opp. to ‘ inferiora 
 terrarum,’ Tertull.), surely more than a 
 mere expansion of eis ὕψος (Winer, 
 Mey.), and also observe the sort of 
 exegetical necessity which ἵνα πληρώσῃ 
 τὰ πάντα (ver. 10) seems to impose 
 on us of giving the fullest amplitude to 
 every expression, we still more incline 
 to (a), and with Ireneus (Her. v. 31, 
 comp. Iv. 22), Tertullian (de Animd, c. 
 55), and the principal ancient writers 
 (see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 
 269, and ref. on Vol. 11. p. 195, ed. 
 Burt.), recognize in these words an allu- 
 sion, not to Christ’s death and _ burial 
 (Chrys., Theod.), but definitely to His 
 descent into hell; so also Olsh., Stier, 
 Alf., Wordsw., and Baur (Paulus, p. 
 431), but it is to be feared that the judg- 
 ment of the last writer is not unbiassed, 
 as he urges the ref. as a proof of the 
 gnostic origin of the Epistle. On 
 this clause and on ver. 10 see a good 
 sermon by South, Serm. (Posth.) 1. Vol. 
 111. p. 169 sq. (Lond. 1843), and for a 
 general investigation of the doctrine of 
 Christ’s descent into hell, aud its connec- 
 tion with the last things, Guder, Lehre 
 von der Erscheinung J. C. unter den Tod- 
 ten, Bern, 1853. 
 
 10.6 tataBdas| ‘ He that descended ;’ 
 emphatic, as its position shows; the ab- 
 sence of any connecting or illative parti- 
 cle gives a greater force and vigor to the 
 conclusion. It may be observed that 
 αὐτὸς is not ‘the same,’ Auth.,—as no 
 instance of an omission of the article, 
 
 though occasionally found in the earlier 
 (Herm. Opusec. Vol. 1. p. 332), and fre- 
 quently in Byzantine authors, occurs in 
 the N. T., but is simply the emphatic 
 ‘ He,’ — od γὰρ ἄλλος κατελήλυϑε καὶ 
 ἄλλος ἀνελήλυϑεν, Theod.; see Winer, 
 Gr. § 22. 4. obs. p. 135. πάντων 
 τῶν οὐραν ὧν] ‘all the heavens,’ ‘ clos 
 omnes penetravit ascendendo, usque ad 
 summum cxlum,’ Est.; ὑψηλότερος τῶν 
 οὐρανῶν, Heb. vii. 26, compare ib. iv. 4. 
 There is no necessity whatever to con- 
 nect this expression with the ‘seven 
 heavens’ of the Jews (comp. Wetst. on 
 2 Cor. xii. 2, Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, 
 p- 387); the words, both here and in 
 Heb. Ul. cc., have only a simple and gen- 
 eral meaning, and are well paraphrased 
 by Bp. Pearson, —‘ whatsoever heaven 
 is higher than all the rest which are 
 called heavens, into that place did He 
 ascend,’ Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 320 
 (ed. Burton). ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ 
 πάντα] ‘in order that He miyht fill all 
 > more general purpose involved 
 in the more special ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς 
 avspwmos (ver. 8), though structurally 
 dependent on the preceding participle. 
 The subjunctive with ἵνα, after a past 
 tense, is correctly used in the present 
 case, to denote an act that still contin- 
 ues ; see Herm. Viger, No. 350, and esp. 
 Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618, who has 
 treated this and similar uses of the subj. 
 with ἵνα after preterites, with considera- 
 ble acumen; for exx. see Gayler, Partic. 
 Neg. p. 176, who has also correctly seized 
 the general principle, ‘subjunctivum usur- 
 pari si preevalet consilium, aut respectus 
 ad eventum habendus,’ p. 165. Great 
 caution, however, must be used in apply- 
 ing these principles to the N. T., as the 
 general and prevailing use of the subj. 
 both in the N. T. and in later writers 
 makes it very doubtful whether the finer 
 distinction of mood was in all such cases 
 
 things ; 
 
Cuap. IV. 11. 
 
 [οἷ > A “ 
 των τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα. 
 
 He appointed divers min- 
 
 EPHESIANS. 93 
 
 A 
 1 Καὶ αὐτὸς 
 
 ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν a ἮΝ ὺς δὲ 
 istering orders, till we all ν TOUS μεν ATTOOTOAOUS, TOUS OE προφήτας, 
 come to the unity of faith, and in truth and love grow up into Christ, the head of the living body, the 
 
 Church. 
 
 as the present distinctly felt and in- 
 tended. 
 to limit πᾶντα πληροῦν, the solemn predi- 
 cate of the Deity (Jerem. xxiii. 22, see 
 Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775), to 
 the gift of redemption (Riick.), or to 
 confine the comprehensive τὰ πάντα to 
 the faithful (Grot.), or to the church of 
 Jews and Gentiles (Meier) ; the expres- 
 sion is perfectly unrestricted, and refers 
 not only to the sustaining and ruling 
 power (τῆς δεσποτείας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνεργείας, 
 Chrys.), but also to the divine presence 
 (‘praesentia et operatione sua se ipso,’ 
 Beng.) of Christ. The doctrine of the 
 ubiquity of Christ’s Body derives no 
 support from this passage (Form. Con- 
 cord. p. 767), as there is here no reference 
 to a diffused and ubiquitous corporeity, 
 but to a pervading and energizing omni- 
 presence ; compare Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 
 390, Vol. 11. p. 139, and notes on ch. i. 
 20. The true doctrine may perhaps be 
 thus briefly stated :— Christ is perfect 
 God, and perfect and glorified man; as 
 the former he is present everywhere, as 
 the latter he can be present anywhere ; 
 see Jackson, Creed, Book x1. 3, and 
 comp. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. vi. p. 164- 
 
 1l. «kat ἰοῦ τ 65] ‘and He,’ ‘jah 
 silba,’ Gothic; ἐμφατικῶς δὲ εἶπε τὸ, 
 αὐτός, Theophyl. There is here no αἱ- 
 rect resumption of the subject of ver. 7, 
 as if ver. 8—10 were merely parenthet- 
 ical, but a regression to it, while at the 
 same time the αὐτὸς is naturally and 
 emphatically linked on to the αὐτὸς in 
 the preceding verse. This return to a 
 subject, without disturbing the harmony 
 of the immediate connection or the nat- 
 ural sequence of thought, constitutes one 
 of the high excellences, but at the same 
 time one of the difficulties in the style of 
 the great Apostle. ἔδωκ εν] ‘gave,’ 
 
 It is not necessary either 
 
 ‘dedit,’ Clarom., Vulg., al.; not merely 
 Hebraistic (3742, Olsh.), and equivalent 
 to ἔϑετο (Acts xx. 28, 1 Cor. xii. 28), 
 ‘dedit Ecclesi id est posuit in Eccl.’ 
 (Est.), but in the ordinary and regular 
 meaning of the word, and in harmony 
 with ἔδόϑη, ver. 7, δόματα, ver. 8; comp. 
 notes on ch, ii. 22. ἀποστόλου 5] 
 ‘ Apostles, —in the highest and most 
 special sense ; comp. notes on Gal. i. 1. 
 The chief characteristics of an Apostle 
 were an immediate call from Christ 
 (compare Gal. i. 1), a destination for all 
 lands (Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xi. 28), 
 and a special power of working miracles 
 (2 Cor. xii. 12); see Eadie zn loc., who 
 has grouped together, with proof texts, 
 the essential elements of the Apostolate. 
 mpoontas| ‘Prophets,’ —not only in 
 the more special sense (as Agabus, Acts 
 xi. 27), but in the more general one of 
 preachers and expounders, who spoke 
 under the zmmedzate impulse and influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit, and were thus 
 to be distinguished from the δίδάσκαλοι ; 
 ὃ μὲν προφητεύων πάντα ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύμα- 
 τος φϑέγγεται: 6 δὲ διδάσκων ἐστὶν ὅπου 
 καὶ ἐξ οἰκείας διανοίας διαλέγεται, Chrys. 
 on 1 Cor. ν. 28; see Thorndike, Relig. 
 Assemblies, ch. v. 1 sq. Vol. 1. p. 182 sq. 
 (A. C. Libr.), and comp. notes on ch. ii. 
 20. εὐαγγελιστάΞ]) ‘ Evange- 
 lists,’ —not τοὺς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γραψάντας 
 (Cicum., Chrys. 2), but τοὺς εὐαγγελι- 
 (ouévous (Chrys. 1), preachers of the Gos- 
 pel who περιϊόντες ἐκήρυττον (Theod.), 
 and yet, as μὴ περιϊόντες πανταχοῦ 
 (Chrys.), were distinguished from the 
 Apostles, to whom they acted as subor- 
 dinates and missionaries ; compare Acts 
 viii. 14, and see Thorndike, Relig. As- 
 sembl. 1v. 87, Vol. 1. p. 176, ib. Right of 
 Church, 11. 30, Vol. 1. p. 451, Hofim. 
 Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 249. 
 
94 
 
 \ \ 5 7 \ \ / oN 7 
 τοὺς δὲ evayyertaTas, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας Kal διδασκάλους, 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 12. 
 
 12 ΑΝ 
 σρος 
 
 a e ’ ” / > > Ν a 
 τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν TOD 
 
 ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλου 5] ‘Pas- 
 tors and Teachers.’ It has been doubted 
 whether these words denote different 
 classes, or are different names of the 
 same class. The absence of the disjunc- 
 tive τοὺς δὲ (arbitrarily inserted in Syr. 
 but altered in Syr.-Phil.) seems clearly 
 to show that both mom. and διδάσκ. had 
 some common distinctions, — probably 
 that of being stationary rather than mis- 
 sionary, οἱ καϑήμενοι καὶ περὶ Eva τόπον 
 ἠσχολημένοι, Chrysost. — which plainly 
 separated them from each of the preced- 
 ing classes. Thus far they might be said 
 to form one class; but that the individu- 
 als who composed it bore either or both 
 names indifferently, is very doubtful. 
 The ποιμένες (a term probably including 
 ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι, Fritz. Fritzsch. 
 Opusc. p. 43 sq.) might be, and perhaps 
 always were διδάσκαλοι (comp. 1 Tim. 
 ill. 2, Tit. i. 9, Martyr. Polyc. § 16, see 
 Thorndike, Selig. Assembl. 1v. 40, Vol. 
 I. p. 170), but it does not follow that the 
 converse was true. The χάρισμα of 
 κυβέρνησις is so distinct from that of 
 διδασκαλία, that it seems necessary to 
 recognize in the dddon. a body of men 
 (searcely a distinct class) who had the 
 gift of διδαχή, but who were not invested 
 with any administrative powers and au- 
 thority ; see esp. Hooker, Hecl. Pol. v. 
 78. 8, and compare Neander, Planting, 
 Vol. 1. p. 149 (Bohn). 
 
 12. πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν κ. 
 τ. Δ.} ‘with a view to the perfecting of the 
 saints, for the work of ministration, for the 
 building up of the body of Christ ;’ more 
 ultimate and more immediate end of the 
 gifts specified in the preceding verse. It 
 is extremely difficult to fix the exact 
 shade of meaning which these prepp. 
 are intended to convey. It seems clear, 
 however, (a) that there is no ‘ trajection,’ 
 Grot.;— nor again (b) that the three 
 
 members are to be regarded as merely 
 parallel, and codrdinately dependent on 
 ἔδωκε (ἕκαστος οἰκοδομεῖ, Exact. καταρ- 
 τίζει, ἕκαστ. διακονεῖ, Chrys.), for πρὸς 
 and εἰς must thus be regarded as synony- 
 mous (Syr., Goth, Arm); and though 
 St. Paul studied prepositional variations 
 (see Winer, Gr. § 50. 6, p. 372), it still 
 does not appear from the exx. usually 
 cited that he did so except for the sake 
 of definition, limitation, or presentation 
 of the subject in a fresh point of view; 
 see notes on Gal. i. 1. Moreover, as 
 Mey. justly observes, the second mem- 
 ber, εἰς ἔργον κ. τ. A., would thus much 
 more naturally and logically stand first. 
 It also seems (c) nearly equally unsatis- 
 factory, with /Eth. (expressly; Vulg., 
 Clarom., Copt. are equally ambiguous 
 with the Greek), De W., al., to connect 
 eis—eis closely with πρός, as we are 
 thus compelled to give διακονία the less 
 usual, and here (after the previous ac- 
 curate definitions) extremely doubtful 
 meaning of ‘christliche Dienstleitung,’ 
 De W., ‘genus omnium functionum in 
 Ecclesia,’ Aret.; see below. It seems, 
 then (d) best and most consonant with 
 the fundamental (ethical) meaning of 
 the prepositions to connect eis—els with 
 ἔδωκε, and,—as eis, with the idea of 
 destination, frequently involves that of 
 attainment (see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 625. 3, Kriiger, 
 Sprachl. § 68. 21.5, and comp. Hand, 
 Tursell. ‘in, 111. 28, Vol. 111. 23), — to 
 regard eis—eis as two parallel members 
 referring to the more immediate, πρὸς to 
 the more ultimate and final purpose of 
 the action ; comp. Rom. xv. 2, ἀρεσκέτω 
 εἰς τὸ ἀγαϑὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, Which seems 
 to admit a similar explanation, and see 
 notes on Philem. 5. For distinctions 
 between eis, πρός, and ἐπί see notes on 2 
 Thess. ii. 4, and between εἰς, πρός, and 
 κατά, notes on Tit. 1.1. We may thus 
 
Cnap. IV. 13. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 95 
 
 7 A , A 3 , [ , 
 σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ™ μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς 
 
 \ € td fol , rn la r la) la) 
 τὴν EVOTHTA τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως TOD υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 a 
 
 paraphrase: ‘He gave apostles, etc., to 
 fulfil the work of the ministry and to 
 build up the body of Christ, His object 
 being to perfect his. saints;’ compare 
 Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 109, where 
 the same view is practically maintained. 
 τὸν καταρτισμόν] ‘the perfecting,’ 
 τὴν τελείωσιν, Theophyl.; comp. κατάρ- 
 τισι, 2 Cor. xiii. 9; the nature of this 
 (definite) perfecting is explained ver. 13. 
 The primary (ethical) meaning of καταρ- 
 τίζειν, ‘reconcinnare’ (Rost τι. Palm, 
 Lex. s. v.}, appears only in Gal. vi. 1 
 (comp. notes) ; in all other passages in 
 the N. T. of ethical reference (e. g. Luke 
 vi. 40, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Heb. 
 xiii. 21, 1 Pet. vy. 10), the secondary 
 meaning, ‘to make &ptuos,’ ‘to make 
 perfect, complete’ (τελειοῦν, Hesych.), 
 appears to be the prevailing meaning ; 
 compare καταρτίζειν τριήρεις, Diod. Sic. 
 XII. 70, see exx. in Schweigh, Lez. 
 Polyb. s. vy. Any allusion to ‘the ac- 
 complishment of the number of the 
 elect,’ Pelag. (compare Burial Service), 
 would here be wholly out of place. 
 
 ἔργον διακονία 5] ‘the work of (the) 
 ministry ;’ scil. ‘for the duties and func- 
 tions of διάκονοι in the Church.’ As the 
 meaning of both these words has been 
 unduly strained, we may remark briefly 
 that ἔργον is not pleonastic (see Winer, 
 Gr. § 65.7, p. 541), or in the special 
 sense of ‘building’ (compare 1 Cor. iii. 
 13), but has the simple meaning of ‘ busi- 
 ness,’ ‘function’ (1 Tim. iii. 1), — not 
 ‘res perfecta,’ but ‘res gerenda,’ in exact 
 parallelism with the use of οἰκοδομή. 
 Again, διακονία is not ‘service’ gen- 
 erally, but, as its prevailing usage in the 
 N. T.. (Rom. xi..13, 2. Cor. iv. 1, al.) 
 and especially the present context sug- 
 gest, “spiritual service of an official na- 
 ture ;’ see Meyer in loc., Hofm. Schrifib. 
 Vol. 11. 2, p. 109. The absence of both 
 
 articles has been pressed (Eadie, Peile), 
 but appy. unduly ; διακονία may possibly 
 have been left studiedly anarthrous in 
 reference to the ditferent modes of exer- 
 cising it alluded to in ver. 11, and the 
 various spiritual wants of the Church 
 (Hamm.); ἔργον, however, seems clearly 
 definite in meaning, though by the prin- 
 ciple of correlation (Middleton, Art. 111. 
 3, 6) it is necessarily anarthrous in form. 
 οἰκοδ. τοῦ σώματοϑ»])] ‘building up 
 of the body,’ parallel to, but at the same 
 time more nearly defining the nature of 
 the ἔργον. The article is not required 
 (as with καταρτ.), as it was not any abso- 
 lute, definite process of edifying, but 
 edifying generally that was the object. 
 The observation which some commenta- 
 tors make on ‘the confusion of meta- 
 phors’ is nugatory ; as τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Xp. 
 has a distinct metaphorical sense, so has 
 oikodouyn. On the nature of Christian 
 οἰκοδομή, see Nitzsch, Theologie, § 39, 
 Vol. 1. p. 205. 
 
 15. μέχρι καταντήσωμ εν] ‘until 
 we come to, arrive at;’ specification of 
 the time up to which this spiritual con- 
 stitution was designed to last. Several 
 recent commentators (Harl., Meyer, al.) 
 notice the omission of ἂν as giving an 
 air of less uncertainty to the subj.; see 
 notes on Gal. iii. 19. As a general prin- 
 ciple this is of course right (see Herm. 
 Partic. ἄν, 11. 9, p. 109 sq., Hartung, 
 Partik. ty, 3, Vol. 11. p. 291 sq.); we 
 must be cautious, however, in applying 
 the rule in the N. 'T., as the tendency of 
 latter Greek to the nearly exclusive use 
 of the subj., and esp. to the use of these 
 temporal particles with that tense, with- 
 out ἄν, is very discernible; see Winer, 
 Gr. § 41. 3, p. 265. The use of the 
 subj. (the mood of conditioned but ob- 
 jective possibility), not fut. (as Chrys.), 
 shows that the καταντᾶν is represented 
 
90 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Crip sryes: 
 
 εἰς ἄνδρω τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας TOD πληρώματος Tod, Χρισ- 
 
 not only as the eventual, but as the ez- 
 pected and contemplated result of the 
 ἔδωκε; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 36. 1, p. 
 393, Jelf, Gr. § 842. 2, and compare 
 Schmalfeld, Synt. § 128, p. 280. This 
 use of the subj. deserves observation. 
 
 The meaning of καταντᾶν with ἐπὶ or eis 
 (only the latter in the N. T.) has been 
 unduly pressed; it has no necessary 
 reference to former wanderings or di- 
 verse starting-points (Zanch., Vatabl. ap. 
 Poli Syn.), but simply implies ‘ pervenire 
 ad’ (‘occurrere,’ Vulg., Clarom.), with 
 ref. only to the place, person, or point 
 arrived at ; see notes on Phil. iii. 11, and 
 compare exx. in Schweigh. Lex, Polyb. 
 S. V. 
 
 whole of us ; 
 
 οἱ πάντ ες] ‘weall, ‘the 
 scil. all Christians, implied 
 in the τῶν ἁγίων, ver. 12. It is difficult 
 to agree with Ellendt (Lex. Soph. s. v. 
 mas, 111. 1, Vol. 11. p. 519) in the asser- 
 tion that in the plural the addition or 
 omission of the article, ‘cum  sensus 
 fert,’ makes no difference. The distine- 
 tion is not always obvious (see Middle- 
 ton, Art. v11.1), but may generally be 
 deduced from the fundamental laws of 
 the article. εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα 
 τῆς πίστ.] ‘to the unity of the faith ;’ 
 ‘that oneness of faith’ (Peile, see 
 Wordsw.), which was the aim and ob- 
 ject towards which the spiritual efforts of 
 the various forms of ministry were all 
 
 3, 
 
 directed ; ἕως ἂν δειχϑῶμεν πάντες μίαν 
 [rather, τὴν μίαν] πίστιν ἔχοντες: τοῦτο 
 γάρ ἐστιν ἑνότης πίστεως ὅταν πάντες ἕν 
 ὦμεν, ὅταν πάντες ὁμοίως τὸν σύνδεσμον 
 καὶ τῆ" 
 ἐπιγνώσεως κ. τ. λ.] ‘and of the 
 (true) knowledge of the Son of God ;’ 
 further development, — not only faith in 
 the Son, but saving knowledge of Him; 
 the gen. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ being the gen. 
 objecti (Winer, Gr. § 30. obs. p. 168), 
 and 
 The καὶ is thus not ‘ exegetice positum ’ 
 
 ἔπιγινώσκωμεν, Chrys. 
 
 belonging to both substantives. 
 
 (Caly.), but simply copulative ; the for- 
 mer interpr. though grammatically ad- 
 missible (see on Gal. vi. 16), would here 
 be contextually untenable, as πίστις and 
 ἐπίγνωσις (see notes on ch. 1. 17) obvi- 
 ously convey different ideas (Mey.), and 
 are terms by no means mutually explan- 
 atory ; ‘cognitio perfectius quiddam fide 
 sonat,’ Beng. Such sentences as 
 the present may serve to make us care- 
 ful in obtruding too hastily on every 
 passage the meaning of πίστις ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp. 
 alluded to on ch. ili. 12, and noticed in 
 notes'on Gal. ii. 16. 
 τέλειον] ‘to a perfect, full-grown, man ;’ 
 metaphorical apposition to the forego- 
 ing member, the concrete term being 
 probably selected rather than any ab- 
 
 eis ἄνδρα 
 
 stract term (ἡ τελειοτέρα Tay δογμάτων 
 [better τοῦ Χριστοῦ] γνῶσις, Theoph.), 
 as forming a good contrast to the follow- 
 ing νήπιοι (ver. 14, compare 1 Cor, xiii. 
 9), and as suggesting by its singular the 
 idea of the complete unity of the holy 
 personality further explained in the next 
 clause, into which they were united and 
 consummated. Instances of a similar 
 use of τέλειος are cited by Raphel, Annot. 
 Vol. 11. p. 447; see esp. Polyb. Hist. v. 
 29.2, where παιδίον νήπιον and τέλειον 
 ἄνδρα stand in studied contrast to each 
 other. eis μέτρον k.T.A.] ‘to 
 the measure of the stature of Christ’s ful- 
 ness,’ 7. e., ‘of the fulness which Christ 
 has,’ τοῦ Xp. being the gen. subjecti ; 
 see esp. notes ch. iii. 19, and on the ac- 
 cumulation of genitives, Winer, Gr. § 
 30. 3, obs. 1, p. 172; comp. 2 Cor, iv. 4. 
 Tt is doubtful whether ἡλικία is to be re- 
 ferred (a) to age (John ix. 21, so clearly 
 Matth. vi. 27), or (b) to stature (Luke 
 xix. 3), both being explanations here 
 equally admissible; see Bos, Everett. p. 
 183. In the former case, τοῦ πληρ. τ. 
 Xp. will be the qualifying, or rather char- 
 acterizing gen. (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16, 3, 
 
Cuap. IV. 14. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 97 
 
 A 4% / 5 ΄ , \ t 
 TOU, ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι, κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι 
 
 Ῥ. 115, and notes on ch. i. 10), and will 
 more nearly define τῆς jAu., — ‘the age 
 when the fulness of Christ is received ; ’ 
 in the latter the gen. is purely possessive. 
 The antithesis (τέλειοι---νήπιοι) seems in 
 fayor of (a); still, — as both words are 
 metaphorical, — as μέτρον is appropri- 
 ately used in reference to ‘stature’ (see 
 esp. Lucian, Jmag. 6, cited by Wetst. ; 
 even in Hom. Od. xviii. 217, ἥβης μέτρ. 
 is associated with the idea of size), and 
 still more, as the separate words πλή- 
 ρωμα, αὐξήσωμεν, etc., no less than the 
 context ver. 16, all suggest ideas of 
 matured growth in respect of magnitude, 
 —the latter interpr. (0) seems most 
 probable and satisfactory; so Syr., Goth. 
 (‘vahstaus’), Copt. (maze), appy. Zth., 
 and our own Auth. Version. It 
 has been considered a question whether 
 the Apostle is here referring solely to 
 present (Chrysost.), or to future life 
 (Theod.). The mention of πίστις, and 
 the tenor of ver. 14, 15, incline us to the 
 former view; still it is probable (see 
 Olsh.) that no special distinction was 
 intended. St. Paul regards the Church 
 as one; he declares its issue and destina- 
 tion as ἑνότης and τελειότης; on the 
 realization of this, whensoeyer and where- 
 soever, the functions of the Christian 
 ministry will cease. 
 
 14. ἵνα μηκέτι κ. τ. A.] ‘in order 
 that we may be no longer children ;’ pur- 
 pose contemplated in the limitation as 
 to duration of the gifts specified in ver. 
 11 sq. The connection is not perfectly 
 clear. Is this verse (a) codrdinate with 
 ver. 13, and immediately dependent on 
 11, 12 (Harl.), or (6) is it subordinate to 
 it, and remotely dependent on ver. 11, 
 12% The latter seems most probable ; 
 ver. 13 thus defines the ‘terminus ad 
 quem’ which characterizes the functions 
 of the Christian ministry; ver. 14 ex- 
 plains the object, viz., our ceasing to be 
 
 νήπιοι, contemplated in the appointment 
 of such a ‘terminus,’ and thence more 
 remotely in the bestowal of a ministry 
 so characterized ; see Meyer in loc., who 
 has ably elucidated the connection. 
 
 For a sound sermon on this text in ref- 
 erence to the case of ‘ Deceivers and 
 Deceived,’ see Waterl. Serm. xx1x. Vol. 
 V. p. 717 sq. μηκέτι] ‘no longer ;’ 
 τὸ “μηκέτι᾽ δείκνυσι πάλαι τοῦτο παϑόν- 
 τας, Chrys. This is not, however, said in 
 reference to Ephesians only, but as the 
 context (πάντες, ver. 13) suggests, in 
 ref. to Christians generally. Eadie some- 
 what singularly stops to comment on 
 the use of ‘ μηκέτι not οὐκέτι ;’ surely to 
 ἵνα in its present sense, ‘ particula μὴ 
 consentanea est,’ Gayler, Partik. Neg. p. 
 168. KAvOwyiCdpevor| ‘tossed 
 about like waves’ (‘usvagidai’ Goth., 
 compare Syr., Arm.),—not ‘by the 
 waves.’ Stier, assuming the latter to be 
 the true meaning of the pass. (‘meta- 
 phor from a ship lying at hull,’ Bramh. 
 Catching Lev. ch. 3, Vol. tv. p. 592), 
 adopts the middle (comp. ‘ fluctuantes,’ 
 Vulg.) to avoid the then incongruous 
 κλυδ. ἀνέμῳ. The exx. however, ad- 
 duced by Wetst. and Krebs, viz., Aris- 
 ten. Hpist. 1. 27, κλυδωνίζεσϑαι ἐκ τοῦ 
 πόδου, Joseph. Antig. 1x. 11. 3, ταρασ- 
 σόμενος καὶ κλυδωνιζόμενος, confirm the 
 passive use and the former meaning ; 
 comp. James i. 6. ἀνέμῳ τῆς 
 διδασκαλία 5] ‘wave of doctrine.” The 
 article does not show ‘the prominence 
 which teaching possessed in the Church’ 
 (Eadie), but specifies διδασκαλία in the 
 abstract, every kind and degree of it; 
 see Middleton, Art. v. 1, p. 89 sq. (ed. 
 Rose). On the apparent distinction be- 
 tween διδασκαλία and διδαχή, see on 2 
 Tim. iv. 2. ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ 
 k. τ. A.] ‘in the sleight of men,’ ---- of men, 
 not the faith and knowledge of the Son 
 of God, ver. 13. Ἔν may be plausibly 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cnap. IV. 14. 
 
 \ > ey 2 A / 2 A ΄ lal ’ , 5 
 παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνδρώπων, ἐν 
 
 considered instrumental (Arm., Mey.) ; 
 as, however, this would seem pleonastic 
 after the instrumental, or what Kriiger 
 (Sprachl. § 48. 151 sq.) more inclusively 
 terms the dynamic dat. ἀνέμῳ (see Heb. 
 xiii. 9), and would mar the seeming 
 parallelism with ἐν ἀγάπῃ (ver. 15), the 
 prep. appears rather to denote the ele- 
 ment, the evil atmosphere, as it were, in 
 which the varying currents of doctrine 
 exist and exert their force ; so Clarom., 
 Vulg., Copt., /£th.-Pol., and perhaps 
 Goth., but see De Gabel. in loc. 
 
 The term κυβεία (ἈΞ Ὁ} Heb.), properly 
 denotes ‘playing with dice’ (Plato, 
 Phedr. 274 D, πεττείας καὶ κυβείας, see 
 Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), and thence, by an 
 easy transition, ‘sleight of hand,’ ‘fraud’ 
 (πανουργία, Suid.; comp. κυβεύειν, Ar- 
 rian, pict. 11. 19, 111. 21, cited by 
 Wetst.) ; 
 τῇδε κἀκεῖσε μεταφέρειν τοὺς ψήφους καὶ 
 πανούργως τοῦτο ποιεῖν, Theod.; see 
 Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 181, 
 Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775. 
 
 ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς k. τ: A] ‘in 
 
 ἴδιον δὲ τῶν κυβευόντων τὸ 
 
 craftiness tending to the deliberate system 
 of error, ‘in astutia ad cireumyentionem 
 erroris,’ Vulg.; appositional and partly 
 explanatory clause to the foregoing. 
 The Auth. Ver. (comp. Syr.) is here too 
 paraphrastic, and obscures the meaning 
 of both πρὸς and peSodefa. The former 
 is not equivalent to κατά, Riick., ‘with,’ 
 Peile, but denotes the aim, the natural 
 tendency, of πανουργία (compare notes on 
 Tit.i. 1); the pedsodeta τῆς mA. is that 
 which πανουργία has in view (compare 
 πρὸς τὸν καταρτ. ver. 12), and to which 
 it is readily and naturally disposed. As 
 πανουργία is anarthrous, the omission of 
 the art. before πρὸς (which induces Rick. 
 incorrectly to refer the clause to pepépe- 
 vot) is perfectly regular ; see Winer, Gr. 
 § 20. 4, p. 126. The somewhat 
 rare term μέϑοδεία, a δὶς λεγόμ. in the 
 
 N. T. (see ch. vi. 11), must have its 
 meaning fixed by μεϑοδεύω. This verb 
 denotes, ‘the pursuit, etc., of a settled 
 plan’ — (a) honestly (Diod. Sic. 1. 81, 
 μ- Thy ἀληϑείαν ἐκ τῆς ἐμπειρίας), or () 
 dishonestly (Polyb. Fr. Hist. ΧΧΧΥΤΙΙ. 
 4.10), and hence comes to imply ‘decep- 
 tion,’ ‘fraud,’ with more or less of plan 
 (2 Sam. xix. 27); comp. Chrys. on Eph. 
 vi. 11, μεϑοδεῦσαί ἐστι τὸ ἀπατῆσαι καὶ 
 διὰ συντόμου (μηχανῆς Sav.) ἑλέιν ; see 
 also Miinthe, Obs. p. 367. Thus then 
 μεϑοδεία is ‘a deliberate planning or sys- 
 tem,’ (Peile; τὴν μηχανὴν ἐκάλεσεν, 
 Theod.),’ the further idea of ‘fraud’ 
 (τέχνη ἢ δόλος, Suid., ἐπιβουλή, Zonar.) 
 being here expressed in πλάνης; see 
 Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 329. 
 The reading is doubtful; Tisch. (ed. 7) 
 adopts the form μεϑοδίαν with BIDIFG 
 KL; and several mss., but appy. on 
 insufficient authority ; changes in orthog- 
 raphy which may be accounted for by 
 itacism or some mode of erroneous tran- 
 scription must always be received with 
 caution ; comp. Winer, Gir. ὃ 5. 4, p. 47. 
 πλάνη 5 has not here (nor Matth. xxvii. 
 64, 2 Thess. ii. 11) the active mean- 
 ing of ‘misleading’ (De W., compare 
 
 > y 
 Syr. ead? [ut seducant], nor even 
 
 necessarily that of ‘delusion’ (Harl.), 
 but its simple, classical, and regular 
 meaning, ‘error’ — ‘erroris,’ Vulgate, 
 ‘airzeins,’ Goth. The gen. is obviously 
 not the gen. objecti (Riick.), but subjecti, 
 — it is the πλάνη which pedsodever, — and 
 thus stands in grammatical parallelism 
 with the preceding gen. τῶν av3p. The 
 use of the article must not be over- 
 looked; it serves almost to personify 
 πλάνη, not, however, as metonymically 
 for ‘Satan’ (Bengel), but as ‘ Error’ in 
 its most abstract nature, and thus renders 
 the contrast to 7 ἀλήϑεια implied in ἀλη- 
 Sevovtes, more forcible and significant. 
 
Cuap. IV. 15. 
 
 “ \ \ / a / 
 πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν μεδοδείαν τῆς πλάνης, 
 
 1ὅ. ἀληϑεύοντες δέ] ‘but holding 
 the truth, walking truthfully ;? participial 
 member attached to αὐξήσωμεν, and with 
 it grammatically dependent on ἵνα (ver. 
 14),—the whole clause, as the use of 
 δὲ (after a negative sentence) seems dis- 
 tinctly to suggest (comp. Hartung, Par- 
 tuk. δέ, 2. 11, Vol. 1. p. 171), standing 
 in simple and direct opposition to the 
 whole preceding verse (esp. to the con- 
 eluding πλανή, De W.), without, how- 
 ever, any reference to the preceding ne- 
 gation, which would rather have required 
 ἀλλά; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
 
 8, 361, Donalds. Cratyl. § 201. The 
 meaning of ἀληϑεύειν is somewhat 
 doubtful. On the one hand, such trans- 
 
 Jations as ‘ yeritati operam dare’ (Calv.) 
 and even ‘ Wahrheit /esthalten’ (Riick.) 
 are lexically untenable (see Rost u. 
 Palm, Ler. 8. v. &And. Vol. 1. p. 97); 
 on the other, the common meaning, 
 ‘veritatem dicere’ (Gal. iv. 16), seems 
 clearly exegetically unsatisfactory. It 
 is best then to preseve an intermediate 
 sense, ‘walking in truth’ (Olsh.) or (to 
 preserve an antithesis in transl. between 
 πλάνης and ἀληδ.) ‘holding the truth,’ 
 Scholef. (Hints, p. 100), — which latter 
 interpr., if ‘holding’ be not unduly 
 pressed, is almost justified by Plato, 
 Theet. 202 B, ἀληϑεύειν τὴν ψυχὴν 
 [‘verum sentire,’ Ast] περὶ αὐτό; so in 
 effect, but somewhat too strongly, Vulg., 
 Clarom., Goth., ‘veritatem facientes,’ 
 and sim. Copt. 
 connection of these words has been much 
 discussed. Are they to be joined — (a) 
 with the participle (Syr., 4Zth., Theoph., 
 G&cum.), or — (Ὁ) with the finite verb 
 (Theod., — who, however, omits ἀληδ. 
 and appy. Chrys., τῇ ἀγάπῃ συνδεδεμέ- 
 vot)? It must fairly be conceded that 
 the order, the parallelism of structure with 
 that of ver. 14, and still more the vital 
 association between love and the truest 
 
 ἐν ἀγάπῃ] The 
 
 EPHESIANS. 9009 
 
 u 
 
 © adySevovtes δὲ ἐν 
 
 form of truth (see Stier in /oc.), are argu- 
 ments of some weight in favor of (a) ; 
 still the absence of any clear antithesis 
 between ἐν ἀγ. and either of the preposit. 
 clauses in ver. 14 forms a negative argu- 
 ment, and the concluding words of ver. 
 16 (whether ἐν ay. be joined immediately 
 with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται Mey., or with οἶκο- 
 dounv) supply a positive argument in 
 favor of (b), of such force, that this lat- 
 ter connection must be pronounced the 
 more probable, and certainly .the one 
 most in harmony with the context; 
 compare ch. i. 4. The order may have 
 arisen from a desire to keep αὐτὸν as 
 near as possible to its relative. 
 αὐτόν] ‘into Him,’ Auth. Ver.; εἰς not 
 implying merely ‘in reference to’ (Mey.); 
 —a frigid and unsatisfactory interpreta- 
 tion of which that expositor is too fond 
 (comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27), nor ‘for’ 
 (Eadie), nor even simply ‘unto,’ ‘to the 
 standard of’ (Conyb.; comp. εἰς ἄνδρα 
 τέλειον, ver. 13), but retaining its fuller 
 and deeper theological sense ‘into,’ so 
 that avg. with εἰς conveys both ideas, 
 ‘unto and into. The growth of Chris- 
 tians bears relation to Christ both as its 
 centre and standard ; while the limits of 
 that growth are defined by ‘the stature 
 of the fulness of Christ,’ its centre is 
 also, and must be, in Him; comp. some 
 profound remarks in Ebrard, Dogmatik, 
 § 445 sq. τὰ πάντα] ‘in all the 
 parts in which we grow’ (Mey.), ‘in all 
 the elements of our growth ;’ the article 
 being thus most simply explained by 
 the context. It now need scarcely be 
 said that no ‘supplement of kata’ 
 (Eadie, Stier) is required ; τὰ πάντα is 
 the regular accus. of what is termed the 
 quantitative object (Hartung, Casus, p. 
 46), and serves to characterize the extent 
 of the action; see Madvig, Gr. § 27, 
 Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 5. 4. ὅς 
 ἐστιν κ' τ. λ.} ‘who ts the Head, even 
 
 > 
 ees 
 
100 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuar. LV. 16. 
 
 > / ᾽ fe ’ τ \ \ 4 “ ’ ς / 
 ἀγάπῃ αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν Ta πάντα, Os ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χρισ- 
 
 . - a - ΄ \ ΄ 
 τός, " ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμε- 
 
 Christ.’ There is here neither transpo- 
 sition (Grot., comp. Syr.), nor careless- 
 ness of construct. for εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν Xp. 
 (Pise.). Instead of the ordinary form 
 of simple, or what is termed parenthetic 
 apposition (see exx. Kriiger, Sprachil. 
 ὁ 57. 9), the Apostle, not improbably for 
 the sake of making ἐξ οὗ, ver 16, per- 
 fectly perspicuous (De W.), adopts the 
 relatival sentence, with the structure of 
 which the apposition is assimilated ; see 
 exx. Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. 4, p. 424 (ed. 5), 
 and Stalb. Plat. Apol. 41 a. The 
 reading is somewhat doubtful ; Rec. pre- 
 fixes the art. to Xp. with DEFGKL; 
 most mss.; Chrys., Theod. (De Wette, 
 Mey.), — but appy. on authority inferior 
 to that for its omission, viz. ABC, 3 
 mss.; Did., Bas., Cyr., al. (Zachm., 
 Tisch., Alf.). Internal arguments can- 
 not safely be urged, as the preponder- 
 ance of instances of real omission (58) 
 over those of insertion (31) is not very 
 decided; see the table drawn up by 
 Rose in his ed. of Middleton, Gr. Art. 
 Append. 11. p. 490 sq., and Gersdorf, 
 Beitrége, 111. p. 272 sq. Under any cir- 
 cumstances the position of the word at 
 the end of the verse gives it both force 
 and emphasis. 
 
 16. ἐξ οὗ] ‘from whom,’ Auth., ‘ex 
 quo,’ Syr., Vulgate, Clarom., — not ‘in 
 quo,’ Eth. (both) ; ἐξ οὗ, as the instruc- 
 tive parallel, Col. ii. 19, clearly suggests, 
 being joined with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, and 
 ἐκ, with its proper and primary force of 
 origin, source, denoting the origin, the 
 ‘fons augmentationis,’ Beng. ; see notes 
 on Gal. ii. 16. It is not wholly uninter- 
 esting to remark that the force of the 
 metaphor is enhanced by the apparent 
 physiological truth, that the energy of 
 vital power varies with the distance from 
 the head ; see Schubert, G'esch. der Seele, 
 
 § 22, p.. 270 (ed,.1). συναρμο- 
 
 λογούμενον) ‘being fitly framed to- 
 gether ;’ pres. part., the action still going 
 on; see notes ch, ii. 21. συνβι- 
 
 G a Me 
 βαζόμεν ον] ‘compacted, ἐἰιρδαο 
 [et colligatur] Syr., ‘connexum,’ Vulg., 
 Clarom., ‘gagahaflib,’ Goth., — or more 
 literally and with more special reference 
 to derivation [BA-, Batvw], ‘put together ;’ 
 compare Col. ii. 19, and in a figurative 
 sense, Acts ix. 22, xvi. 10. The differ- 
 ence of meaning between συναρμ. and 
 συνβ. has been differently stated. <Ac- 
 cording to Bengel, the first denotes the 
 harmony, the second the solidity and firm- 
 ness of the structure. Perhaps the 
 more exact view is that which the sim- 
 ple meanings of the words suggest, viz., 
 that συνβ. refers to the aggregation, ov- 
 vapu. to the inter-adaptation of the com- 
 ponent parts. The external author- 
 ity for the form συνβιβ. [AB(?)CD!IFG] 
 is appy. sufficient to warrant the adop- 
 tion of this less usual form; see Tisch. 
 Prolegom. p. XLv1t. διὰ Taons 
 apis] ‘by means of every joint,’ ‘per 
 omnem juncturam,’ Vulg., Clarom., and 
 sim. all the ancient Vy. Meyer still 
 retains the interpr. of Chrys., Theod., 
 ἁφὴ = αἴσϑησις, and connects the clause 
 with αὔξ. ποιεῖται; but the parallel pas- 
 sage, Col. ii. 19, τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων 
 (observe esp. the omission of the 2d arti- 
 cle, Winer, § 19. 4) leaves it scarcely 
 doubtful that the meaning usually as- 
 signed (comp. Athen. 111. 202 τ, Plat. 
 
 Anton. 27) is correct, and that the clause 
 
 is to be connected with the participles. 
 
 τῆς ἐπιχορηγίαΞ5] ‘of the (spiritual ) 
 supply ;’ the article implying the specific 
 émixop. which Christ supplies, τῆς χορη- 
 ylas τῶν χαρισμάτων, Chrysost.; on the 
 meaning of the word compare notes on 
 Gal. iii. 5. The gen. is not the gen. of 
 apposition (Riick., Harl.), nor a mere 
 
Cuap. IV. 16. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 101 
 
 νον dia πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς 
 
 / ἴω “-“ 
 ἑκάστου μέρους τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν 
 
 n 3 
 ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη. 
 
 Hebraistic genitive of quality, ‘joint of 
 ministry ’ = ‘ministering joint’ (Peile, 
 Green, Gramm. N. T. p. 264; compare 
 Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b), but a kind of 
 gen. definitivus, by which the predom- 
 inant use, purpose, or destination of the 
 ἁφὴ is specified and characterized ; see 
 Heb. ix. 21, σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας, and 
 compare the exx. cited by Winer, Gir. § 
 30. 2, B, p. 170. The suggestion of 
 Dobree (Advers. Vol. τ. p. 573), partly 
 adopted by Scholef., that ἐπιχ. may be 
 ‘materia suppeditata,’ is not very satis- 
 factory or tenable; see Phil. i. 19. 
 
 kat’ ἐνέργειαν k. τ. λ.] ‘according 
 to energy in the measure of (sc. commen- 
 surate with) each individual part ;’ τῷ μὲν 
 δυναμένῳ πλέον δέξασϑαι, πλέον, τῷ δὲ 
 These words 
 may be connected either (a) with émyo- 
 pnylas, —the omission of the art. is no 
 objection (Riick.), as ἡ ἐπιχ. κατ᾽ ἐνέργ. 
 may form one idea (Winer, Gr. § 20, 2, 
 p- 123), or (0) with the participles, or 
 yet again (c) with the finite verb. As 
 the expressions of the clause far more 
 appropriately describe the nature of the 
 growth than either the mode of compac- 
 tion or the degree of the supply, the lat- 
 ter construction is to be preferred. Kat’ 
 évépy. is then a modal predication, ap- 
 pended to ποιεῖται, defining the nature of 
 the αὔξησις ; this growth is neither abnor- 
 mal nor proportionless, but is regulated 
 by a vital power which is proportioned 
 to the nature and extext of the separate 
 parts. Dobree (Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573) 
 strongly condemns this translation, but, 
 as it would seem, without sufficient rea- 
 son. His own translation, which con- 
 nects κατ᾽ évépy. with ἑνὸς ἑκ. μέρ. and 
 
 ἐλάττω, ἔλαττον, Chrys. 
 
 isolates ἐν μέτρῳ, impairs the force of the 
 deep and consolatory truths which the 
 ordinary connection suggests. For a 
 
 good practical application see Eadie in 
 loc. The reading μέλους is fairly 
 supported [AC; Vulg., Copt., Syr., al. ; 
 Cyr., Chrys., al.], but is appy. rightly 
 rejected by most recent editors, as a 
 gloss on μέρους suggested by the preced- 
 ing σῶμα and the succeeding σώματος. 
 
 τὴν αὔξ. τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται] 
 ‘promotes, carries on, the growth of the 
 body,’ — σώματος being probably added 
 for the sake of perspicuity, and so prac- 
 tically taking the place of the reciprocal 
 pronoun ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 22. 2, p. 
 130, Kriiger, Xenoph. Anab. p. 27. 
 Stier, perhaps not incorrectly, finds in 
 the repetition of the noun an enuncia- 
 tion of a spiritual truth, echoed by éav- 
 Tod, — that the body makes increase of 
 the body, and so is a living organism ; — 
 that its growth is not due 
 tions from without, but to 
 from within; comp. Harless. 
 
 to agerega- 
 vital forces 
 
 The 
 not to he 
 insisted on as confirming this (Alf.), this 
 form appy. being not so much reflexive 
 (Wordsw.), as dntensive and indicative 
 of the energy with which the process 
 is carried on; see Kriiger, Spruchl. § 
 compare Donalds. Gr. 432. 
 
 middle ποιεῖται is perhaps 
 
 BD: ν ΤῸ 
 2 
 
 ἃ εἰς οἰκοδομήν ἐν ἀγ.} 
 ‘for building up of itself in love ;’ 
 o o> Me 
 σιλ..λ5 SoS) od Loomu59 
 wv wv Δ » 2 
 
 [ut in caritate perficiatur adificium ¢jus| 
 Syr. end and object of the αὔξησιν ποιεῖ- 
 ται; love is the element in which the 
 edification takes place. Meyer connects 
 ἐν ἀγάπῃ with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, to har- 
 monize with ver. 15, but without suffi- 
 cient reason, and in opp. to the obvious 
 objection that αὔξησιν ποιεῖται is thus 
 associated with two limiting prepositional 
 clauses, and the unity of thought propor- 
 tionately impaired ; comp. Alf. in loc. 
 
102 
 
 Do not walk as darkened, 
 hardened, and feelingless 
 heathens. Put off the old, 
 and put on the new man. 
 
 17. τοῦτο οὖν λεγω] ‘ This, I say 
 then ;’ this, sc. what follows ; connecting 
 the verse with the hortatory portion 
 commenced ver. 1—3, by resumption on 
 the negative side (μηκέτι περιπατεῖν) of 
 the exhortation previously expressed on 
 the positive side, ver. 1—3 (aapak. ἀξίως 
 περιπατῆσαι), but interrupted by the di- 
 gression, ver. 4—16; πάλιν ἀνέλαβε τῆς 
 On 
 this resumptive force of οὖν, see Klotz, 
 Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, and notes on Gal. 
 iii. 5. The illative force advocated by 
 Eadie after Meyer (ed. 1), is here im- 
 probable, and rightly retracted by Meyer 
 (ed. 2); comp. Donalds. Gr. § 548. 31. 
 μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘testify, sol- 
 emnly declare, (‘quasi testibus adhibitis ’) 
 in the Lord, —not‘ per Dominum,’ (μάρ- 
 τυρα δὲ τὸν Κύριον καλῶ, Chrysost. ; see 
 Fritz.-Rom. ix. 1, Vol. 11. p. 241), nor 
 even as specifying the authority upon 
 (‘tanquam Christi discipulus,’ 
 Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 84), but, as usual, 
 defining the element or sphere in which 
 the declaration is made; compare Rom. 
 ix. 1, ἀλήϑειαν λέγω ἐν Xp.; 2 Cor. ii. 
 17, ἐν Xp. λαλοῦμεν (scarcely correctly 
 translated by Fritz. ‘ut homines cum 
 Christo nexi’), 1 Thess. iv. 1, παρακα- 
 λοῦμεν ἐν Κυρίῳ, and see notes in loc. 
 By thus sinking his own personality, the 
 solemnity of the Apostle’s declaration is 
 greatly enhanced. 
 see notes on Gal. vy. 8, and compare 
 Raphel. Annot. Vol. 11. p. 478, 595. 
 μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν) ‘that ye 
 subject and sub- 
 stance of the hortatory declaration ; see 
 
 παραινέσεως τὸ προοίμιον, Theod. 
 
 which 
 
 On this use of papr. 
 
 9 
 
 no longer (must ) walk : 
 
 Acts xxi. 21, λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς 
 τὰ τέκνα. In objective sentences of this 
 nature (see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.) 
 the infinitive frequently involves the 
 same conception that would have been 
 expressed in the direct sentence by the 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 17. 
 
 Ἂν A 5 , \ 
 “ Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ, 
 
 / ς a al 
 μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν KaS@S Kal τὰ λουπὰ 
 
 imperative, and is usually (but incor- 
 rectly) explained by an ellipsis of δεῖν ; 
 see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, p. 371, Lobeck, 
 Phryn. 753 sq., and compare Heindorf 
 on Plato, Protag. 346 B. kal τὰ 
 λοιπὰ ἔϑνη])] ‘the rest of the Gentiles 
 > with tacit reference to their own 
 former state when unconverted ; the καὶ 
 introducing a comparison or gentle con- 
 trast between the emphatically expressed 
 ὑμᾶς and the ἔϑνη, of which but lately 
 they formed a part; see notes on verses 
 4, 32, and on Phil. iv. 12. The term 
 λοιπὰ is here rightly used, as the Ephe- 
 sians, though Christians, still fell under 
 the general denomination of Gentiles ; 
 it serves also to convey a hint reminding 
 them what they once were, and what 
 they now ought not to be; see Wolf in 
 loc. The external authority for striking 
 this last word (λοιπὰ) out of the text 
 [Lachm. with ABDIFG; 5 mss., Cla- 
 rom., Sang., Aug., Boern., Vulg., Copt., 
 Sahid., Ath. (both); Clem., Cyr., al.] 
 is rather strong; still as the probability 
 of its being left out from being imper- 
 fectly understood, seems so much greater 
 than the probability of its being a con- 
 formation to ch. ii. 3 (Mill, zn loc., and 
 Prolegom. p. LX), we may perhaps safely 
 retain the adject. with D?D°EKL; great 
 majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., 
 al.; Chrys., Theod. (Zisch. ed. 2 and 7, 
 ΑΓ, al.). 
 A.] ‘in the vanity of their mind ;’ sphere 
 of their moral walk ; comp. Rom. i. 21, 
 
 also ; 
 
 ἐν ματαιότητι K.T. 
 
 ἐματαιώϑησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν. 
 Chrys. rightly explains the words by τὸ 
 περὶ τὰ μάταια ἠσχολῆσϑαι, but is prob- 
 ably not correct in restricting them to 
 idolatry, as μάταιος and ματαιόω do not 
 necessarily involve any such reference ; 
 compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. 65. The 
 reference seems rather to that general 
 nothingness and deprayation of the νοῦς 
 
Cuap. IV. 18. 
 
 NK A 3 , a lal 
 ἔϑνη περυπατεῖ EV ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν, 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 103 
 
 5.3 A 
 * ἐσκοτισμένοι TH 
 
 διανοίᾳ ὄντες, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς TOD Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν a 
 avoia S$, ἀπὴ ριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ THY ἄγνοιαν 
 
 (the higher moral and intellectual ele- 
 ment), which was the universal charac- 
 teristic of heathenism ; see Usteri, Lehrb. 
 1. 3, p. 85 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, 
 2 Tim. iii. 8. 
 
 18. ἐσκοτισμένοι bytes] ‘being 
 darkened:’ participial clause defining 
 their state, and accounting for the pre- 
 ceding assertion (see Donalds. Gr. § 
 616); ἐσκοτ. (opp. to πεφωτισμένοι, ch. 
 i. 18; comp. Rom. i. 21, xi. 10, 1 Thess. 
 y. 4) referring to their state of moral 
 darkness, and ὄντες (rightly referred by 
 Tisch., Lachm., to ἐσκοτ., not to ἀπηλλ. 
 [Eadie], — a punctuation which mars 
 the emphatic parallelism of the initial 
 perf. participles) marking, somewhat 
 pleonastically after the perf. part., its 
 permanent and enduring state; comp. 
 Winer. Gr. § 45. 5. p. 311. The ap- 
 parently conjugate nature of the clauses 
 (comp. ὄντες5---οὖσαν) has led Olsh. and 
 others to couple together ἐσκοτ. κ. τ. A. 
 and διὰ τὴν ἄγν. as relating to the intel- 
 lect, ἀπηλλ. xk. τ. A. and διὰ τὴν πώρ. as 
 relating to the feelings. This, however, 
 though at first sight plausible, will not 
 be found logically satisfactory. The 
 being ἐσκοτ. x. τ. A. could scarcely be 
 said to be the consequence of their ἄγ- 
 voia (‘ignorance’ simply, Acts iii. 17, 
 xvii. 30. and appy. 1 Pet. 1.14), but ra- 
 ther vice versa, whereas it seems perfectly 
 consistent to say that their alienation 
 was caused by their ignorance, and still 
 more by the ensuing mépwors. Hence 
 the punctuation of the text. The 
 reading ἐσκοτισμένοι is not perfectly cer- 
 tain; the more classical ἐσκοτωμένοι is 
 found in AB; Ath. (Zachm., Tisch. ed. 
 7), but has not sufficient support to war- 
 rant its being received in the text. 
 
 TH διανοίᾳ) ‘in their understanding,’ 
 ‘in their higher intellectual nature,’ 
 διέξοδος λογική (Orig.; comp. Beck, 
 
 Seelenl. 11. 19, p. 58); see ch. i. 18, ii. 
 3, and Joseph. Antig. 1x. 4. 8, thy διά- 
 νοιαν ἐπεσκοτισμένου. The dat. (‘of 
 reference to’) denotes the particular 
 sphere to which the ‘darkness’ is lim- 
 ited ; see notes on Gal. i. 22, Winer, Gr. 
 § 31.3, p. 244. The distinction between 
 this dat. and the ace., as in Joseph. J. c., 
 is not very easy to define, as such an 
 accus. has clearly some of the limiting 
 character which we properly assign to 
 the dat.; see Hartung, Casus, p. 62. 
 Perhaps the acc. might denote that the 
 darkness extended over the mind, the dat. 
 that it has its seat in the mind; see 
 Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4.1. 
 ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι] ‘being alienated 
 from, ἀλλότριοι καδεστῶτες, Theod.- 
 Mops. ; see notes on ch. ii. 12. 
 
 τῆς ζωῆς TOD Θεοῦ] ‘from the life 
 of God.’ This is one of the many cases 
 (see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. obs. p. 168) 
 where the nature of the gen., whether 
 objecti or subjecti, must be determined 
 solely from exegetical considerations. 
 As ζωὴ appears never to denote ‘ course 
 of life’ (e. 9. τὴν ἐν ἀρετῇ ζωὴν Theod.) 
 in the N. T., but ‘the principle of life’ 
 as opp. to Sdvatos (comp. Trench, Syn. 
 ὃ XXv11), Tod Θεοῦ will more naturally 
 be the gen. subj. or auctoris, ‘the life 
 which God gives:’ comp. δικαιοσύνη 
 Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 17 with δικ. ἐκ. ©., Phil. 
 iii. 9. It is, however, probable that we 
 must advance a step farther, and regard 
 the gen. as possessive. This (unique) 
 expression will then denote not merely 
 the παλιγγενεσία, but in the widest doc- 
 trinal application, ‘the life of God’ in 
 the soul of man; comp. Olsh. and Stier 
 an loc., and see esp. the good treatise on 
 (wh in Olsh. Opuse. 
 ἐν αὐτοῖς seems intended to point out 
 the indwelling, deep-seated nature of the 
 ἄγνοια, and to form a sort of parallelism 
 
 Thy οὖσαν 
 
104 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. LY. 19. 
 
 5 aA \ WV , a y a 
 τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ THY πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, "5 οἵτι- 
 
 νες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν 
 
 to τῆς καρδ. αὐτῶν. Meyer (compare 
 Peile) conceiving that the words indicate 
 the subordination of διὰ τὴν map. to διὰ 
 τὴν ἄγν. removes the comma after αὐὖ- 
 τοῖς. This is certainly awkward: St. 
 Paul’s more than occasional use of co- 
 ordinate clauses (e. g. Gal. iv. 4) leads 
 us to regard both members as dependent 
 on ἀπηλλ. (Orig.), and structurally in- 
 dependent of each other, though, as the 
 context seems to suggest, the latter may 
 be considered slightly explanatory of the 
 former, and (like ἀπηλλ.) expressive of 
 a state naturally consequent; sec esp. 
 Orig. in Cram. Caten. p. 175. π ώ- 
 ρωσιν]} ‘callousness,’ ‘hardness,’ — not 
 ‘cxcitatem,’ Syr. (both), Clarom., Vuig., 
 τη. (both), Arm. (Suid. πώρωσις, ἣ τυ- 
 φλωσις), but ‘obdurationem’ Copt. (thom, 
 — which however includes both signifi- 
 cations), ‘daubipos,’ Goth.,—7 ἐσχάτη 
 ἀναλγησία, Theod. The word πώρωσις 
 is not derived from πωρός ‘cxecus’ (‘ vox, 
 ut videtur, a grammaticis ficta,’ Fritz. 
 Rom. xi.7, Vol. 11. p. 452), and certainly 
 not from πόρος (διαφράττειν), as appy. 
 Chrys., but from πῶρος, ‘tuffstone,’ and 
 thence from the similarity of appearance, 
 a ‘morbid swelling’ (Aristot. Hist. An. 
 111. 19), the ‘callus’ at the extremity of 
 fractured bones (Med. Writers). The 
 adject. πωρός, in the sense of ταλαίπωρος 
 (Hesych.), is cognate with πηρός, and 
 derived from TAQ, πάσχω ; comp. Pha- 
 yor. Helog. 150. b, p. 396 (ed. Dind.). 
 19. οἵτιν ε5]} ‘who as men;’ explana- 
 tory force of ὕστις ; see notes on Gal. ii. 
 4, iv. 24. ἀπηλγηκ ότ ες] ‘being 
 past feeling,’ Auth.,— an admirable trans- 
 lation. The use of the semi-technical 
 term mépwots, suggests this appropriate 
 continuation of the metaphor. There is 
 then no reference to mere ‘ desperatio,’ 
 comp. Polyb. Hist. 1x. 40. 9, ἀπαλγοῦν- 
 Tes ταῖς ἐλπίσι, and exx. in Raphel, An- 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 not. Vol. 11. p. 479), as Syr., Vulg., 
 Goth., — but possibly with the reading of 
 1) E, al. ἀπηλπικότες, -τ-- nor even to that 
 feelingless state which is the result of it 
 (Cicero, Kpist. Fam. 11. 3, ‘desperatione 
 obduruisse ad dolorem,’ aptly cited by 
 Beng.), but, as the context shows, to 
 that moral apathy and deadness which 
 supervenes when the heart has ceased to 
 be sensible of the ‘stimuli’ of the con- 
 science ; τὸ δὲ ἀπηλγηκότες ὥσπερ τῶν 
 ἀπὸ πάϑους Tivds μέρη πολλάκις τοῦ σώμα- 
 TOS νενεκρωμένων, οἷς ἄλγος οὐδὲν ἐκεῖ- 
 sev ἐγγίνεται, Theod.-Mops. The gloss 
 of Theoph. κατεῤῥαϑυμηκότες (compare 
 Chrys.), adopted by Hamm. on Rom. i. 
 29, but here appy. retracted, is untenable, 
 as it needlessly interrupts the continuity 
 of the metaphor. 
 selves,’ as Meyer well says, with frightful 
 It has been observed by 
 Chrys. and others that there is no oppo- 
 sition here with Rom. i. 26, παρέδωκεν 
 The progress of sin is 
 represented under two aspects, or rather 
 two stages of its fearful course. By a 
 perverted exercise of his free-will, man 
 plunges himself into sin; the deeper de- 
 mersion in it is the judicial act (no mere 
 συγχώρησις, Chrys.) of God; compare 
 Wordsw. in loc. τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ) 
 ‘Wantonness.’ On the meaning and der- 
 ivation of this word, see notes on Gal. v. 
 19, and comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ xv. 
 
 eis ἐργασίαν] ‘to working;’ consci- 
 ous object of the fearful self-abandon- 
 ment: épyac., φησίν, ἔϑεντο TO πρᾶγμα. 
 ... Opas πῶς αὐτοὺς ἀποστερεῖ συγγνώμης, 
 Chrys. πάση 9] ‘of every kind, 
 whether natural or unnatural ; μοιχεία, 
 πορνεία, παιδεραστία, Chrys. As St. 
 Paul most commonly places πᾶς before, 
 and not, as here, after the abstract (an- 
 arthrous) subst., it seems proper to ex- 
 press in transl. the full force of πάσης: 
 
 éautovs| ‘them- 
 
 emphasis. 
 
 αὐτοὺς 6 Θεός. 
 
Cuap. IV. 20, 21. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 105 
 
 > / / 3, / 20 ς fal \ by e/ ’ A 
 ἀκαδαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάδετε 
 
 \ , 2] " ᾿ἣς ἐν b] 4 \ 5 > a b) / 
 TOV Χριστόν, ΕεἰὙΥΕ AUTOV ἠκούσατε και EV avT@ ἐδιδάχϑητε 
 
 comp. notes ch. i. 8. ἐν πλεο- 
 νεξίᾳ] ‘in (not ‘with’) covetousness ;’ 
 ἐν marking the condition, the prevailing 
 state or frame of mind in which they 
 wrought the ἀκαῦ. The word πλεονεξία 
 (‘amor habendi,’ Fritz., ‘boni alieni ad 
 se redactio,’ Beng. on Rom. i. 29), is 
 here explained by Chrysostom and sey- 
 eral Greek Ff. (see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 
 11. p. 750), followed by Hammond (in a 
 valuable note on Rom. i. 29) and by 
 Trench, Synon. XX1v., as ἀμετρία, ‘im- 
 moderate, inordinate desire.’ In sup- 
 port of this extended meaning the recital 
 of πλεονεξία with sins of the flesh, 1 
 Cor. v. 11, Eph. v. 3, Col. iii. 5, is pop- 
 ularly urged by Trench and others, but 
 appy-, as a critical examination of the 
 passages will show, without full conclu- 
 siveness. For example, in 1 Cor. v. 10, 
 τοῖς πόρνοις ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρ- 
 παξιν (Tisch., Lachm.), the use of the dis- 
 junct. ἢ between πόρν. and πλεον. opp. to 
 the conjunct. καὶ between πλεον. and apr., 
 and esp. the omission of the art. before 
 (Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. d, p. 116) 
 tend to prove the very reverse. Again, 
 in Eph. v. 3, πορνεία is joined with ἄκα- 
 ϑαρσία by καί, while πλεονεξ. is disjoined 
 from them by #; see notes. Lastly, in 
 Col. iii. 5, the preceding anarthrous, 
 unconnected nouns, πορν., ἀκαῦ., mdd., 
 have no very close union with καὶ τὴν 
 πλεονεξίαν κ. τ. X., from which, too, they 
 are separated by ἐπιϑυμίαν κακήν; see 
 notes in loc. While, therefore, we may 
 admit the deep significance of the spir- 
 itual fact that this sin is mentioned in 
 connection with strictly carnal sins, we 
 must also deny that there are grammat- 
 ical or contextual reasons for obliterat- 
 ing the idea of covetousness and self-seek- 
 tng, Which seems bound up in the word ; 
 see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 3. 2, 
 Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark). 
 
 e 
 apt. 
 
 20. ὑμεῖς δέ] ‘But you;’ with dis- 
 tinct and emphatic contrast to these 
 unconverted and feelingless heathen. 
 οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάδετεϊ ‘did not thus 
 learn Christ ;?—but on principles very 
 different ; the οὕτως obviously implying 
 much more than is expressed (‘litotes’ ); 
 τὰ τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ παντάπασιν evay- 
 tia, Theodoret. This use of μανῷ. with 
 an accus. persone is somewhat difficult to 
 explain, and is probably unique. Raphel 
 (Annot. Vol. τι. p. 480) cites Xenoph. 
 Hell. 11.1.1, but the example is illusory. 
 The common interpr. Χριστὸς = ‘ doc- 
 trina Christi’ (Grot., Turner) is frigid 
 and inadmissible, and the use of éudSere 
 in the sense of ‘learnt to know,’ scil. 
 ‘who He is and what He desires’ 
 (Riick.), has not appy. any lexical au- 
 thority. We can only then regard Xp. 
 as the object which is learnt (or heard, 
 ver. 21), the content of the preaching, so 
 that the hearer, as it were, ‘takes up into 
 himself and appropriates the person of 
 Christ Himself’ (Olsh.) ; comp. the sim- 
 ilar but not identical expression, παρα- 
 λαμβάνειν τὸν Χριστὸν Ἴησ., Col. ii. 6; 
 see notes in loc. 
 
 21. εἴγε] ‘if indeed, ‘tum certe si;’ 
 not ‘since,’ Eadie; see notes, ch. ii. 2, 
 Hartung, Partitk. Vol. 1, p. 407 sq. 
 The explanation of Chrysost. ov ἀμφι- 
 βάλλοντος ἐστί, ἀλλὰ καὶ σφόδρα διαβε- 
 βαιουμένου, is improved on by Cicum., 
 ὡσεὶ εἶπεν, ἀμφιβάλλω γὰρ ef τις τὸν Xp. 
 ἀκούσας καὶ διδαχϑεὶς ἐν αὐτῷ τοιαῦτα 
 πράττει. αὐτὸν ἠκούσατ ε] ‘ye 
 heard Him ;’ αὐτὸν being put forward 
 with emphasis ; —‘if indeed it was Him, 
 His divine voice and divine Self that 
 you really heard ;’ Alf. pertinently com- 
 pares John x. 27, but obs. that the αὐτὸν 
 is here used in the same sort of inclusive 
 way as τὸν Χριστόν, ver. 20. No argu- 
 ment can fairly be deduced from this 
 14 
 
100 
 
 y a? la) 
 Kaos ἐστιν ἀλήδεια ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 
 that St. Paul had not himself instructed 
 the readers (De W.); see on,ch. iii. 2. 
 ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him;’ not ‘by Hin,’ 
 Arm., Auth., or ‘illius nomine,’ Beng., 
 but, as usual, ‘in union with Him;’ see 
 Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. Meyer calls 
 attention to the precision of the lan- 
 guage, αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε pointing to the 
 first reception, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχ. to the fur- 
 ther instruction which they had received 
 as Christians. Both are included in the 
 foregoing ἐμάϑετε τὸν Χριστόν. 
 
 καϑώς ἐστιν GANS. kK. τ. λ.] ‘as, 
 or according as, is truth in Jesus.’ The 
 meaning and connection of this clause 
 are both obscure, and have received 
 many different interpretations, most of 
 which involve errors affecting one or 
 more of the following particulars, — the 
 meaning of καϑώς (Riick.), the position 
 of ἐστίν (Olsh.), the meaning of aandera 
 (Harl.), the absence of the art. before it 
 (Auth.), the designation of Christ by 
 His historical rather than official name 
 (Mey.), and finally the insertion of ὑμᾶς 
 (De W.). It is extremely difficult to 
 assign an interpretation that shall ac- 
 count for and harmonize all of these 
 somewhat conflicting details. Perhaps 
 the following will be found least open to 
 exception. The Apostle, having men- 
 tioned the teaching the Ephesians had 
 received (ἐδιδάχϑ.), notices first (not 
 parenthetically, Beza) the form and 
 manner, and then the substance of it. 
 Kadws x. τ. A., is thus a predication of 
 manner attached to ἐδιδ., and implies, 
 not ‘as truth is in Jesus’ (Olsh.), which 
 departs from the order and involves a 
 modification of the simple meaning of 
 ἀλήδ.; nor (as it might have been ex- 
 pressed) ‘as is truth,’ abstractedly, — 
 but, ‘as is truth —in Jusus,’ embodied, 
 as it were, in a personal Saviour and in 
 the preaching of His cross. The sub- 
 stance of what they were taught is then 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. LY. 22. 
 
 99 5 , e A SN \ 
 “ ATOSETSAL ὑμᾶς, KATA τὴν 
 
 specified, not without a faint imperative 
 force, by the infin. with ὑμᾶς; the pro- 
 noun being added on account of the 
 introduction of the new subject Ἰησοῦ 
 (Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 288), or more 
 probably to mark their contrast, not 
 only with the Gentiles before mentioned, 
 but with their own former state as im- 
 plied in τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. Mey, 
 following QCEcum. 2, connects the inf. 
 with ἐστὶν ἀλήδ., a construction not 
 grammatically untenable (Jelf, Gr. ὁ 
 669, comp. Madvig. Synt. ὃ 164. 3), but 
 somewhat forced unsatisfactory. 
 Stier, after Beng., regards aod. a re- 
 sumption of unex. περιπ. ver. 17, but yet 
 is obliged to admit a kind of connection 
 with e616. «. τ. A. 
 
 and 
 
 22. ἀποϑέσϑαι twas] ‘that ye put 
 off ;’ objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. ὁ 
 584) dependent on ἐδιδ., and specifying 
 the purport and substance of the teach- 
 ing; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 48. a. obs. p. 349, 
 and compare Orig. in Cramer Caten. 
 The metaphor is obviously ‘a vestibus 
 sumpta,’ Beza (Rom. xiii. 12, Col. iil, 
 12), and stands in contrast to ἐνδύσ. ver. 
 24; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 8, p. 220. 
 The translation of Peile, ‘that you have 
 put off,’ is very questionable, as the aor. 
 is here only used in accordance with the 
 common law of succession of tenses 
 (Madvig, Synt. § 171, sq.), and perhaps 
 with reference [comp. ἐνδύσασϑαι ver. 24, 
 as opp. to ἀνανεοῦσϑαι] to the speedy, 
 single nature of the act; but compare 
 notes on ch. iii. 4, and on 1 Thess. v. 27. 
 Equally untenable is the supposition 
 that the inf. is equivalent to the imper. 
 (Luther, Wolf); not, however, because 
 ὑμᾶς is attached to it (Eadie, for see 
 Winer, Gr. § 44. 3), but because this 
 usage is only found (excluding Epic 
 Greek) in laws, oracles, ete., or in 
 clauses marked by an especial warmth 
 or earnestness ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 
 
CHap. ΤΥ. 22; 98. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 107 
 
 προτέραν ἀναστροφήν, τὸν παλαιὸν avSpwrov τὸν φδειρόμενον 
 \ > δ a > 9° rn lal ΄ 
 κατὰ τὰς ἐπιδυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης, “ὃ ἀνανεοῦσϑαι δὲ τῷ Πνεύματι 
 
 1χ. 9, p. 358. But few certain instances, 
 é.g. Phil. iii. 16 (see notes in loc.), are 
 found in the language of the N. T. 
 κατὰ τὴν προτ. ἀναστρ.] ‘as con- 
 cerns your former conversation,’ ‘quoad 
 pristinam vivendi, concupiscendi, et pec- 
 candi consuetudinem,’ Corn. a Lap. ; 
 specification of that with regard to 
 which the ἀποϑέσϑαι τὸν παλ. ἄνϑρ. was 
 especially carried out; κατὰ here not 
 haying its more usual sense of measure, 
 but, as the context seems to require, the 
 less definite one of reference to ; compare 
 Rom. ix. 5, and see Rost τι. Palm, Lez. 
 s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1599. The construction 
 τὸν Tad. avdp. κατὰ κ. τ. A. (Jerome, 
 (icum.) is opposed to the order, and to 
 all principles of perspicuity, — not, how- 
 ever, positively to ‘the laws of language,’ 
 Eadie, for compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 19, 
 2,— and is distinctly untenable. The 
 expressive word ἀναστροφὴ is confined 
 (in its present sense) to the N. T. (Gal. 
 i. 15, 1 Tim. iy. 12, al.), to the Apocry- 
 pha (Job. iv. 14, 2 Mace. ν. 8), and to 
 later Greek (Polyb. Hist. rv. 82, Arrian, 
 Epict. τ. 9); compare Suicer, Thes. Vol. 
 11. p-.522- τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνϑρω- 
 πον] ‘the old man,’ i. 6. our former 
 unconverted self; personification of our 
 whole sinful condition before regenera- 
 tion (Rom. vi, 6, Col. iii. 9), and op- 
 posed to the καινὸς or νέος ἄνϑρωπος 
 (ver. 24, Col. iii. 10), the καινὴ κτίσις 
 (Gal. vi. 15), or, if regarded in another 
 point of view (compare Chrys.), to the 
 ἔσω ἄνδρ. ch. iii. 16, Rom. vii. 22; see 
 Harless, Hthik. § 22, p. 97, and compare 
 Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 352. 
 φϑειρόμενον)]Ἵ ‘which waxeth 
 corrupt,’ del φϑείρεται, Origen (Cram. 
 Caten.) ; further definition and specifica- 
 tion of the progressive condition of the 
 παλαιὸς ἄνῶρ., ---- πού however with any 
 causal force (ed. 1), as this would be 
 
 τὸν 
 
 expressed either by a relative clause (see 
 on 1 Tim. ii. 4), or a part. without the 
 article. The tense of the part. (pres., — 
 not imperf., Beng.) must here be no- 
 ticed and pressed, as marking that inner 
 process of corruption and moral disinte- 
 gration which is not only the character- 
 istic (Auth ) but the steadily progressive 
 condition of the mad. ἄνϑρ.; contrast 
 κτισϑέντα ver. 24, Meyer refers φϑειρ. 
 to ‘eternal destruction’ (comp. Hows.), 
 regarding the pres. as involving a future 
 meaning. This is tenable (see Bern- 
 hardy, Synt. x. 2, p. 371), but seems 
 inferior to the foregoing, as drawing off 
 attention from the true, present nature 
 of the progressive @Sopd; compare Gal. 
 vi. 8, and see notes zn loc. κατὰ 
 has here no direct reference to instru- 
 mentality (sc. = διά, Gicum., ὑπό, The- 
 oph., compare Syr.), but, as the partial 
 antithesis κατὰ Θεὸν (ver. 24) suggests, 
 its usual meaning of ‘ accordance τὸ ;’ in 
 which, indeed, a faint reference to the 
 occasion or circumstances connected 
 with, or arising from the accordance 
 may sometimes be traced; see notes on 
 Phil. ii. 8, and on Tit. iii. 5. Κατὰ τὰς 
 ἐπιὸ. 1s, however, here simply ‘in accord- 
 ance with the lusts,’ ‘secundum desid- 
 
 aes - f 
 eria,’ Vulg., Ἰδιρας ναὶ [secundum 
 concupiscentias] Syr.-Phil., 7. e. just as 
 the nature and existence of such lusts 
 imply and necessitate ; compare Winer, 
 Gr. § 49. d, p. 358. 
 ΤΉ 5] ‘of Deceit ;’ gen. subjecti, ἣ ἀπάτη 
 being taken so abstractedly (Middleton, 
 Gr. Art. ν. 1, 2) as to be nearly personi- 
 fied (Mey.). The paraphrase ἐπιϑυμίαι 
 ἀπατηλαί (Beza, Auth.) is very unsatis- 
 factory, and mars the chbvious antithesis 
 tO τῆς ἀληϑείας ver. 24. 
 
 23. ἀνανεοῦσϑαι δέ] ‘and that ye 
 be renewed ;’ contrasted statement on the 
 
 a / 
 τῆς ἀπά- 
 
108 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV, 23, 24. 
 
 a ‘ « lal 94 Ἂς 5 δύ 4 ‘ \ ” Ν 
 του VOOS υμῶὼν και €voucadsab TOV Καίνον ἄνδρωπον τον 
 
 positive side (‘dé alii rei aliam adjicit, ut 
 tamen ubivis quedam oppositio declar- 
 etur,’ Klotz, Devar., Vol. 11. p. 362) of 
 the substance of what they had been 
 taught, previously specified on its nega- 
 tive side (ver. 22). It has been doubted 
 whether dvaveodoSa is pass. or middle. 
 The act. is certainly rare (Thom. M. p. 
 52, ed. Bern.; comp. Aq. Psalm. xxix. 
 2); still, as Harless satisfactorily shows, 
 the middle, both in its simple and meta- 
 phorical sense, is so completely devoid 
 of any reflexive force (comp. even avav- 
 gov σεαυτόν, Antonin. 1v. 3), and is prac- 
 tically so purely active in meaning, that 
 no other form than the passive (opp. to 
 Stier), can possibly harmonize with the 
 context ; comp. ἀνακαινοῦσϑαι 2 Cor. iv. 
 16, Col. iii. 10, and see Hofm. Schriftb. 
 Vol. 11. 2,p. 269. The meaning of ἀνά, 
 restoration to a former, not necessarily a 
 primal state, is noticed by Winer (de Verb. 
 c. Prep. 111. p. 10), and the distinction 
 between ἀνανεοῦσϑαι (‘recentare, — more 
 subjective, and perhaps with prevailing 
 ref. to renovation,) and ἀνακαινοῦσδαι 
 (‘renovare,’ — more objective, and per- 
 haps with prevailing ref. to regeneration) 
 by Tittmann, Synon. p. 60; comp. 
 Trench, Synon. ὃ Xv11I., and see notes 
 on Col. iii. 10. τῷ Πνεύματι 
 τοῦ νοός] ‘by the Spirit of your mind.’ 
 Tn this unique and somewhat ambiguous 
 expression, the gen. vods may be ex- 
 plained either as (a) appositive, ‘ spiritus 
 qu mens vocatur’ August. de Trin. 
 xiv. 16; so appy. Taylor, Duct. Dub. τ. 
 1. 7, comp. ib. on Repent. 11. 2. 12 : — (δ) 
 partitive, ‘the governing spirit of the 
 mind’ De W., Eadie, τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ νόος 
 πνευματικήν, Theodoret ;— or (6) pos- 
 sessive, ‘the (Divine) Spirit, united with 
 the human πνεῦμα (comp. Hooker, Hcl. 
 Pol. τ. 7.1), with which the νοῦς, as sub- 
 ject, is endued, and of which it is the 
 receptaculum ;’ τῷ Πν. τῷ ἐν TE νῷ, 
 
 Chrysost. Of these (a) is manifestly, 
 as Bp. Bull designates it, ‘a flat and 
 dull interpretation ;’ (0), even if not 
 metaphysically or psychologically doubt- 
 ful, is exegetically unsatisfactory ; (c) on 
 the contrary, now adopted by Mey., has 
 a full scriptural significance; τὸ Tv. is 
 the Holy Spirit, which by its union with 
 the human πνεῦμα, becomes the agent 
 of the ἀνακαίνωσις τοῦ νοός Rom. xii. 2, 
 and the νοῦς is the seat of His working, 
 —where ματαιότης (ver. 17) once was, 
 but now καινότης. The dat. is thus not, 
 as in (a) and (0) a mere dat. ‘ of refer- 
 ence to’ (ver. 17), but a dat. znstrumenti, 
 —scil. διὰ Πν. ἐστι ἀνακαίνισις, Gicum., 
 ὅπερ avaveot ἡμᾶς, Origen (ap. Cram. 
 Caten.) ; see Tit. iii. 5, and comp. Col- 
 lect for Christmas Day. This 
 interpr. is ably defended by Bull, Disc. 
 V. p. 477 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844) ; 
 see also Waterl. Regen. Vol. v. p. 434, 
 Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 8, p. 227, and Fritz. 
 
 Nov. Opuse. Acad. p. 224. The only 
 modification, or rather explanation 
 
 which it has seemed necessary to add to 
 the view in ed. 1, is that τῷ Tv. (as 
 above stated) is not the Holy Spirit 
 regarded exclusively and per se, but as 
 in a gracious union with the human 
 spirit. With this slight rectification, the 
 third interpr. seems to have a very strong 
 claim on our attention; contr. Wordsw. 
 in loc. ; comp. also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- 
 chol. 1v. 5, p. 144. 
 
 24. καὶ ἐνδύσασϑαι] ‘and put 
 on;’ further and more distinct state- 
 ment on the positive side corresponding 
 to the ἀποϑέσϑαι on the negative; the 
 change of tense (aor.) being appy. in- 
 tentional; see notes on ver. 22. The 
 arguments of Anabaptists based on this 
 verse are answered by Taylor, Liberty 
 of Proph. § 18. ad. 31. It is very im- 
 probable that there is here any allusion 
 to baptism: the ‘putting on the new 
 
Crap. IV. 24, 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 109 
 
 \ \ / > , \ e / a > / 
 κατὰ Θεὸν κτισϑέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληδείας. 
 
 man.’ refers to the renovation of the heart 
 afterwards ; comp. Waterl. Regen. Vol. 
 vy. p. 434. The metaphorical and dog- 
 matical meaning is investigated in Sui- 
 cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 11138. 
 τὸν καινὸν ἄνϑρ.] ‘the new man.’ 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe that 
 the kaw. ἄνῶρ. is not Christ (Zanch. ap. 
 Pol. Syn.), but is in direct contrast to 
 τὸν mad. ἄνῶρ., and denotes ‘the holy 
 form of human life which results from 
 redemption,’ Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 3. 
 ad. fin., Vol. 11. p. 392 (Clark) ; comp. 
 Jol. iii. 10, where νέος ἄνῶρ. stands in 
 contrast to a former state (Wordsw. aptly 
 compares Matt. ix. 17, Mark 11. 22, Luke 
 v. 38), as καινὸς here to one needing re- 
 newal ; see notes in loc., and Harl. Ethik, 
 ὁ 22, p.97. The patristic interpretations 
 are given in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 
 352. τὸν κατὰ © κτισϑὃ.] 
 ‘which after God hath been created,’ — not 
 ‘is created,’ Auth., but ‘ qui creatus est,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg., sim. Copt., with the 
 proper force of the aor. in ref. to the 
 past creation in Christ: the new man is, 
 as it were, a holy garb or personality not 
 created in the case of each individual be- 
 liever, but created once for all (‘initio rei 
 Christian,’ Beng.), and then individu- 
 ally assumed. The key to this impor- 
 tant passage is undoubtedly the striking 
 parallel, Col. iii. 10, τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαι- 
 νούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ KTI- 
 σαντος αὐτόν; from which it would al- 
 most seem certain (1) that κτισϑέντα 
 in our present passage contains an al- 
 lusion to Gen. i. 27, and suggests a spir- 
 itual connection between the first crea- 
 tion of man in Adam and the second 
 new creation in Christ; and (2) that 
 κατὰ Θεόν, as illustrated by κατ᾽ εἰκ. 
 k. τ. A. Col. l.c., is rightly explained as 
 ‘ad exemplum Dei:’ comp. Gal. iv. 28, 
 Gen. i. 27, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. ἃ, 
 p- 358. Thus, then, from this passage, 
 
 compared with that from Col. we may 
 appy. deduce the great dogmatic truth, 
 — ‘ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id 
 est, secundum imaginem et similitudi- 
 nem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu re- 
 ciperemus,’ Ireneus, Her. 111. 20, p. 
 245 (ed. Grabe) ; see notes on Ool. l. c. 
 The justice of this deduction is doubted 
 by Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 8, Vol. τι. 
 p- 392), but without sufficient reason ; 
 see esp. the admirable treatise of Bp. 
 Bull, State of Man, etc., p. 445 sq. (Eng- 
 lish Works, Oxf. 1844), and Delitzsch, 
 Bibl. Psychol. 11. 2, p.51. On the na- 
 ture and process of this revival of the 
 image of God, see Jackson, Creed, Book 
 vill. 35. 1. 
 6o0167.| ‘in righteousness and holiness ;’ 
 tokens and characteristics of the divine 
 image ; ἐν defining the state in which a 
 similitude to that image consists and ex- 
 hibits itself (Olsh.). The usual distine- 
 tion between these two substantives, ὅσι- 
 ὀτης μὲν πρὸς Θεόν, δικαιοσύνη δὲ πρὸς av- 
 ϑρώπους Sewpeitat, Philo, de Abrah. Vol. 
 11. p. 30, ed. Mang. (comp. Tittm. 
 Synon. p. 25), is not here wholly appli- 
 cable; as Harless shows from 1 Tim. ii. 
 8, Heb. vii. 7, the term ὁσιότης [on the 
 doubtful derivation, see Pott, Ht. lorsch. 
 Vol. 1. p. 126, contrasted with Benfey, 
 Wurzellex. Vol. τ. p. 436] involves not 
 merely the idea of ‘ piety,’ but of ‘holy 
 purity,’ τὸ καϑαρόν, Chrys. There is 
 thus a faint contrast suggested between 
 Six. and πλεονεξία in ver. 19, and ὁσιότ. 
 and ἀκαϑαρσία in the present verse. Ol- 
 shausen (in an excellent note on this 
 verse) contrasts this passage, Col. iii. 10, 
 and Wisdom, ii. 23 (noticed also by 
 Bull), as respectively alluding to the 
 Divine image under its ethical, intellec- 
 tual, and physical aspects. τῆς 
 ἀλη εἰα 5] ‘of Truth;’ exactly opp. to 
 τῆς ἀπάτης ver. 22, and of course to be 
 connected with both preceding nouns. 
 
 ἐν δικαιοσ. καὶ 
 
110 
 
 Speak the truth, do not 
 cherish anger, or practise 
 theft: utter no corrupt 
 speech; be not bitter. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 25, 26. 
 
 Ὁ Avo ἀποϑέμενοι TO ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήδειαν 
 
 \ a ͵ ας 
 ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσμὲν 
 
 ἀλλήλων μέλη. “᾿Οργίζεσδε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε: ὁ ἥλιος μὴ 
 
 The adjectival solution (Beza, Auth.) 
 wholly destroys the obvious and forcible 
 antithesis, and the reading καὶ ἀληδϑείᾳ 
 [DIFG; Clar.; Cypr., Hil., al.] has no 
 claims on our attention. 
 
 25. διό] ‘Wherefore ;’ in reference to 
 the truths expressed in the verses imme- 
 diately preceding: εἰπὼν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄν- 
 ϑρωπον καϑολικῶς, λοιπὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ὕπο- 
 γράφει κατὰ μέρος, Chrys. The previous 
 mention of ἀλήϑεια seems to have sug- 
 gested the first exhortation. On the use 
 of διὸ in the N. T., see notes on Gal. iv. 
 31. ἀποδέμενοι TO Wevdos| 
 “having put off’ (aor., with ref. to the 
 priority of the act; comp. notes on ver. 
 8) lying, or rather ‘falsehood, in a fully 
 abstract sense (John viii. 44), — not 
 merely τὸ ψεύδεσϑαι, scil. τὸ λαλεῖν 
 ψευδῆ: falsehood in every form is a 
 chief characteristic of the παλαιὸς ἄν- 
 Spwmos, and, as Miiller well shows, 
 comes naturally from that selfishness 
 which is the essence of all sin; see 
 Doctr. of Sin. The positive exhortation 
 ‘which follows is considered by Jerome 
 not improbably a reminiscence of Za- 
 char. viii. 16, λαλεῖτε ἀλήϑειαν ἕκαστος 
 πρὸς [is the change to μετὰ intentional, 
 as better denoting ‘inter-communion,’ 
 ete. 1] τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ. For a short 
 sermon on this text see August. Serm. 
 ctvi. Vol. v. p. 907 (ed. Migne). 
 ὅτι ἐσμέν x. 7.A.] ‘because we are 
 members one of another. The force of 
 the exhortation does not rest on any 
 mere ethical considerations of our obli- 
 gations to society, or on any analogy 
 that may be derived from the body 
 (Chrys.), but on the deeper truth, that 
 in being members of one another we 
 are members of the body of Christ 
 (Rom. xii. 5), of Him who was ἡ ἀλή- 
 Sea καὶ ἡ ζωή ; see Harl. in loc. 
 
 26. ὀργίζεσϑε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτά.- 
 νετε] ‘Be angry, and sin not;’ a direct 
 citation from the LXX, Psalm iv. 5. 
 The original words are 380 mats Tara 
 which, though appy. more correctly trans- 
 lated ‘tremble and, ete.’ [Gesen., Ewald, 
 J. Olsh. opp. to Hengst. and Hirzig}, 
 are adduced by St. Paul from the Greek 
 version, as best embodying a salutary 
 and practical precept; comp. ver. 25. 
 The command itself has received many 
 different, though nearly all ultimately 
 coincident explanations. (1) The usual 
 interpretation ‘si contingat vos irasci’ 
 (‘though ye be angry,’ Butler, Serm. 
 vitt.; still maintained by Zyro, Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1841, p. 681 sq.), is founded on the 
 union of two imperatives in Hebrew 
 (Gen. xlii. 18, Prov. xx. 13, Gesen. Gr. 
 § 127. 2), and, in fact, any cultivated 
 language, to denote condition and result. 
 This, however, is here inapplicable, for 
 the solution would thus be not ὀργιζόμε- 
 vot μὴ Guap., but ἐὰν ὀργιζήσϑε, οὐκ auap- 
 τήσετε [not -cecde in N. T.], which can- 
 not be intended. (2) Winer (Gr. ὃ 43, 
 1. obs. p. 360 sq.) far more plausibly con- 
 ceives the first imper. permissive, the 
 second jussive: comp. the yersion of 
 Symm. ὀργ. ἀλλὰ μὴ auapt. It is true 
 that a permissive imper. is found occa- 
 sionally in the N. T. (1 Cor. vii. 15, 
 perhaps Matt. xxvi. 45), but the close 
 union by καὶ of two imperatives of simi- 
 lar tense, but with a dissimilar imperati- 
 val force, is, as Meyer has observed, logi- 
 cally unsatisfactory. (3) The fol- 
 lowing interpr. seems most simple : both 
 imperatives are jussive ; as, however, the 
 second imper. is used with μή, its jussive 
 force is thereby enhanced, while the affir- 
 mative command is, by juxta-position, 
 so much obscured as to be in effect little 
 more than a participial member, though 
 
CuHap. IV. 27. 
 ’ , ’ \ 
 ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ 
 
 its intrinsic jussive force is not to be 
 denied. There is undoubtedly an anger 
 against sin, for instance, against deliber- 
 ate falsehood, as the context appy. sug- 
 gests (see Chrys.), which a good man 
 not only may, but .ought to feel (see 
 Suicer, Zhesaur., Vol. 11. p. 504), and 
 which is very different from the ὀργὴ for- 
 bidden in yer. 31: compare Trench, 
 Synon. ὃ xxxvuii. and on the subject of 
 resentment generally, Butler, Serm. v111. 
 and the good note of Wordsw. zn loc. 
 
 ὁ ἥλιος x. T.A.] ‘let not the sun go 
 down on your irritation.” The command 
 is the Christian parallel of the Pythago- 
 rean custom cited by Hammond, Wetst., 
 and others, εἴποτε προαχϑεῖεν eis λοιδο- 
 ρίας tm ὀργῆς, πρὶν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον δῦναι, Tas 
 δεξιὰς ἐμβάλλοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀσπασάμ- 
 evot διελύοντο, Plutarch, de Am. Frat. 
 488 Β [ὃ 17]. There does not appear 
 any allusion to the possible effect of 
 night upon anger, μήπως ἡ νὺξ πλέον ἀν- 
 ακαύσῃ Td πῦρ διὰ τῶν ἐννοιῶν, Theophyl. 
 (see Suicer, Thes. 8. v. ἥλιος 111. 2), but 
 to the fact that the day ended with the 
 sunlight: ‘quare si quem irascentem nox 
 occuparet, is iram retinebat in proximum 
 diem,’ Estius. τῷ παροργισμῷ] 
 ‘irritation,’ ‘exasperation, and therefore 
 to be distinguished from ὀργή, which 
 expresses the more permanent state. 
 The word is non-classical and rare, but 
 is found 1 Kings xy. 30, 2 Kings xix. 3, 
 where it is joined with ϑλίψις and ἐλεγ- 
 μός, ib. xxiii. 26, Nehem. ix. 18, and 
 Jerem, xxi. 5 (Alex.), where it is joined 
 with ϑυμὸς and ὀργή. The mapa is not 
 merely intensive (Mey.), nor even indic- 
 ative of a deflection from a right rule 
 (Wordsw.), but probably points to the 
 irritating circumstance or object which 
 provoked the ὀργή ; comp. παροξύνω, and 
 Rost u. Palm, Lex. 5. v. 1v. 1, Vol. 11. 
 p. 670. The article before παρορ- 
 γισμῷ is omitted by Lachm. with AB; 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 111 
 
 τῷ παρο Dd ὑμῶ 7 μηδὲ Ovo j 2 
 ( ροργισμῷ ὑμῶν, μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ 
 
 al., —but appy. incorrectly, as the exter- 
 nal authority is not strong, and the omis- 
 sion easy to be accounted for before the 
 sufficiently definite ὑμῶν. 
 
 27. μηδέ] ‘nor yet;’ ‘also do not ;’ 
 μηδὲ here serving to connect a new clause 
 with the preceding (Jelf, Gr. § 776), on 
 the principle that δὲ in negative sen- 
 tences has often practically much of the 
 conjunctive force which καὶ has in affirm- 
 ative sentences; see Wex, Antig. Vol. 
 11. p. 157. It must, however, be surely 
 very incorrect to say that the clauses ‘are 
 closely connected, and that μηδὲ indi- 
 cates this sequence,’ (Eadie); there is a 
 connection between the clauses, and μηδὲ 
 has practically a conjunctive force (per 
 enumerationem), but it is always of such 
 a nature as δὲ would lead us to expect, 
 ‘sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte 
 connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu 
 accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
 707; see esp. Franke, de Part. Neg. 
 Part 11. 2, p.6. On the most appropriate 
 translation of μὴ---μηδὲ, see notes on 1 
 Thess. ii. 8. (Transl.). The reading 
 μήτε (Rec. with a few mss. ; Chrys. (1), 
 Theod.) seems clearly to be rejected 
 (opp. to Matth.), not only on critical, 
 but even on grammatical grounds, as the 
 position of μὴ in the previous clause 
 shows that it cannot be regarded as 
 equivalent to μήτε, which supposition, or 
 the strictest union of the clauses (Franke, 
 § 25, p. 27) can alone justify the abnor- 
 mal sequence; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, 
 p- 433, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 709. 
 δίδοτε τόπον] ‘give room,’ ‘ne detis 
 viam’ ( fénot), /Eth.; scil. ‘give no room 
 or opportunity to the Evil One to be 
 active and operative ;’ comp. Rom. xii. 
 19, and see exx. of this use of τόπον 
 διδόναι in West. Rom. 1. c., Loesner, Obs. 
 p. 263. τῷ διαβόλῳᾳ)] ‘to the 
 Devil’ (ch. vi. 11); the constant and 
 regular meaning of 6 διαβ. (subst.) in 
 
119 EPHESIANS. Cuap. IV. 28. 
 
 S / id a 
 διαβόλῳ. *‘O κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω 
 
 28. ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ayaddv| The variations of reading in this passage are 
 great, and, considering the simplicity of the passage, difficult to account for. The 
 choice appears to lie between four. (a) That in the text with AD'EFG ; 37. 57. 
 73. 116; Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., Sahid., th., Arm.; Bas., Naz., Epiph. ; 
 Hier., Aug., Pel. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Wordsw.) (b) Td ay. ταῖς id. xep. 
 with K; mss. (10); Syr. (Philox.); Theodoret. (6) Tats yep. τὸ ay. with B: 
 Amit.; Ambrosiaster (Meyer). (4) Td ay. τ. xep. with L; great majority of mss. ; 
 Slavy.; Chrys., Dam., Theophyl, Gicum. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. 2 and 7, 
 Alf.) Harless and Olshausen (see Mill, Prolegom. p. 168) favor a 5th and shorter 
 reading épy. τ. xep., after Tertull. de Resurr. 45, urging the probability of ἰδ. being 
 interpolated from 1 Cor. iv. 12, and τὸ @y. from Gal. vi. 10. It will be seen, how- 
 ever, that Gal. vi. 10 contains no such allusion to manual labor as might have sug- 
 gested a ref. to it; and if ἰδίαις (see notes) is maturely considered, it will seem to 
 have a proper force in this place, though not at first sight apparent. As it seems, 
 then, more likely that ἰδίαις was an intentional omission (its force not being per- 
 ceived) than an interpolation from 1 Cor. iv. 12, we retain (a) as not improbable 
 on internal grounds, and as supported by a preponderance of external evidence, 
 which the internal objections hitherto adduced do not seem sufficient to invalidate. 
 
 the N. T.; not excluding John vi. 70, 
 and 1 Tim. iii. 6; see esp. Stier, Red. 
 Jesu, Vol. 1v. p. 845. It is obvious that 
 Σατανᾶς (AMth.) is more a personal appel- 
 
 ° » 
 lation; 6 διαβ. (epost [calumnia- 
 
 tori] Syr.) a name derived from the fear- 
 ful nature and, so to say, office of the 
 Evil One; the usage, however, of the 
 N. T. writers is by no means uniform. 
 St. John (in Gosp. and Epp.) once only 
 uses the former; St. Mark never the lat- 
 ter; St. Paul more frequently the for- 
 mer, the latter being only found in this 
 and the pastoral Epp. (and once in 
 
 Heb.). The subject deserves fuller in- 
 vestigation. On the nature of this Evil 
 
 Spirit generally, see the curious and 
 Jearned work of Mayer, Historia Diaboli 
 (ed. 2, Tubing, 1780), and in ref. to the 
 question of his real personal nature, the 
 sound remarks on p. 130 sq.; compare 
 notes on 1 Thess. ii. 18. 
 
 28. ὁ κλέπτων] ‘He who steals, the 
 stealer ;? not imperf. ‘qui furabatur,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg., nor for 6 κλέψας, but a 
 participial substantive ; see Winer, Gr. 
 
 § 57, p. 317, and notes on Gal. i. 23. 
 All attempts to dilute the proper force 
 of this word are wholly untenable; 6 
 κλέπτων (not 6 κλέπτης on the one hand, 
 nor 6 κλέψας on the other) points to ‘ the 
 thievish character’ (‘qui furatur,’ Copt.), 
 whether displayed in more coarse and 
 open, or more refined and hidden prac- 
 tices of the sin. Theft, though gener- 
 ally, was not universally condemned by 
 Paganism ; see the curious and valuable 
 work of Pfanner, Theol. Gentilis, x1. 25, 
 p- 336. For a sermon on this text, see 
 Sherlock, Serm. xxxvir. Vol. 11. p. 227 
 (ed. Hughes). μᾶλλον Sel ‘but 
 (on the contrary) rather ;’ οὐ γὰρ apket 
 παύσασϑαι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ Kal τὴν 
 ἐναντίαν αὐτῆς ὁδὸν μετελϑεῖν, Theoph. ; 
 see also Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 111. 13. 6, 
 and notes on Gal. iv. 9, where, however, 
 the corrective force is more strongly 
 marked. ταῖς ἰδίαις χέρσινΪ] 
 «with his own hands. The pronominal 
 adjective ἴδιος (Donalds. Crat. § 139), 
 like οἰκεῖος in the Byzantine writers, 
 and ‘ proprius’ in later Latin (see Krebs, 
 Antibarb, p. 646), appears sometimes in 
 
Cuap. IV. 29. EPHES 
 
 IANS. 9 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ὠγαϑόν, va ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ 
 χρείαν ἔχοντι. ™ Πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ 
 
 the N. T. to be nearly pleonastie (sec 
 exx. in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, p. 139); 
 here, however, there appears an inten- 
 tional force in the use of the word. The 
 thievish man lives by the labors and 
 hands of others; he is now himself to 
 labor, and with his own hands, — those 
 very hands that robbed others (Beng.), 
 to work, not at τὸ κακόν, but at τὸ ἀγα- 
 ὃόν; see Riick. in loc. τὸ aya- 
 Sy] ‘that which is good, ‘that which 
 belongs to the category of what is good 
 and honest,’ τὸν δίκαιον πορισμόν, Schol. 
 ap. Cramer, Caten. ; “τὸ &ya%. antitheton 
 ad furtum, prius manu piceata male 
 commissum,’ Beng. There may perhaps 
 be also involved in τὸ &y. the notion of 
 what is beneficial instead of detrimental 
 to others ; comp. notes on Gal. vi. 10. 
 ἵνα x. 7. λ.] ‘in order that he may have,’ 
 —not merely ‘what is enough for his 
 own wants,’ but ‘to give to him that need- 
 eth ;’ the true specific object of all Chris- 
 tian labor (Olsh.); comp. Schoettg. Hor. 
 Vol sre iu 78: 
 
 29. Πᾶς.... μή] The negation must 
 be joined with the verb; what is com- 
 manded is the non-utterance of every 
 campos λόγος. On this Hebraistic struc- 
 ture, see Winer, Gr. ὁ 26. 1, p. 155, and 
 notes on Gal. ii. 16. σαπρός 
 λόγο 5] ‘corrupt, worthless speech,’ ‘sermo 
 malus,’ Clarom., Vulg., Copt., sim. 
 Goth., — not necessarily ‘filthy,’ Hows. 
 (comp. Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx11., though 
 he also admits the more general mean- 
 ing), as this is specially forbidden in ch. 
 v. 4, nor again quite so strong as ‘ detes- 
 tabilis,’ Syr., but rather ‘pravus,’ /Eth., 
 esp. in ref. to whatever is profitless and 
 unedifying (Chrys.), e.g. αἰσχρολογία, λοι- 
 δορία, συκοφαντία, βλασφημία, ψευδολογία, 
 καὶ τὰ τούτοις προσόμοια, Theod. The 
 exact shade of meaning will always be 
 best determined by the context. Here 
 
 15 
 
 σαπρὸς is clearly opposed, not τῷ διδόντι 
 χάριν (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298), but 
 to ἀγαϑὸς πρὸς oikod. τῆς χρείας ; Wetst. 
 cites Arrian, Hpict. 11. 15, ὑγιὲς opp. to 
 σαπρὸν kal καταπίπτον. On the general 
 metaphorical use, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
 377, and the exx. collected by Kypke, 
 loc. cit. a&ya%ds| ‘good,’ τ. 6. ‘suit- 
 able for,’ ὅπερ οἰκοδομεῖ τὸν πλησίον, 
 Chrys. ; instances of this use of ἀγαϑός, 
 with eis πρός, and the inf., are of suffi- 
 ciently common occurrence ; see Rost u. 
 Palm, Zer. s. v., exx. in Kypke, Obs. 
 Vol. 11.*p. 298, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. 
 Ῥ-. 2319. πρὸς οἰκοδ. τῆς χρε- 
 tas] ‘for edification in respect of the need,’ 
 ‘ad adificationem opportunitatis,’ Vulg. 
 (Amit.). Neither the article nor the 
 exact nature of the genitive has been 
 sufficiently explained. It seems clear 
 that τῆ ς χρείας cannot be merely ‘qua 
 sit opus’ (Erasm.), but must specify the 
 peculiar need in question (observe εἴ 
 tis), the χρεία which immediately presses, 
 — τῆς παρούσης χρείας, Cicum. ΤΊ 
 would seem to follow then that the gen. 
 xpelas is not a mere gen. of quality 
 (‘seasonable edification,’ Peile) nor in 
 any way an abstr. for concr. (‘those who 
 have need,’ Riick., Olsh., comp. Eadie), 
 nor, by inversion, for an accus. (‘use of 
 edifying, Auth., compare Syr.), but is 
 simply a gen. of ‘remote reference’ (see 
 Winer, Gr. 30. 2, p. 169), or, as it has 
 been termed, of ‘the point of view’ 
 (comp. Scheuerl. Syn. § 18, p. 129) — 
 ‘edifying as regards the need,’ 7. e. which 
 satisfies the need, ἀναγκαῖον ὄν τῇ προκει- 
 μένῃ χρείᾳ as rightly paraphrased by 
 Theoph¥l. On the practical bearing of 
 this passage, see esp. 4 sermons by Bp. 
 Taylor, Serm. xx11.—xxy. Vol. 1. p. 
 734 sq. (Lond. 1836), and Harl., Ethik, 
 § 50, p. 261. The reading πίστεως, 
 though found in DIE1FG ; Vulg. (not 
 
114 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 30. 
 
 5 / 2 » "᾽ od \ Ν ’ \ a / ied 
 EKTTOPEVET YW, GAN εἴ TLS ἀγαδδὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, ἵνα 
 
 δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, 
 
 ” καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 
 
 ῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀποχλυτρώσεω 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε εἰς ἡμέρ ρ ς. 
 
 Amit., Fuld.) and some Latin Vvy., 
 Goth.; Bas., Naz., al. (partially ap- 
 proved of by Griesb.), is still certainly 
 to be rejected both as inferior in external 
 authority to χρείας, and as an almost self- 
 evident correction. δῷ χάριν] ‘may 
 impart a blessing.” The ambiguous term 
 χάρις has been explained (a) as χάρις 
 Θεοῦ, Gicum. (who, however, does not 
 refer to Rom. 1. 11 for a proof, as Eadie 
 singularly asserts), ‘salutis adminicula,’ 
 Caly.; (b) as little more than ϑυμηδία ; 
 801. ἵνα φανῇ δεκτός τοῖς ἀκούουσι, 
 Theod., ‘ut invenietis gratiam,’ ΖΡ 1}.- 
 Pol., comp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298, 
 —but remove the ref. to Eur. Suppl. 
 414, which is not in point; (c) as retain- 
 ing its simple and regular meaning in 
 connection with διδόναι, ‘favor, benefit’ 
 {(Harl, Olsh., Meyer). Of these, (c) is 
 much the most probable (see Exod. iii. 
 21, Psalm Ixxxiii. 12 compared with 
 ver. 13; and perhaps James iv. 6, 1 Pet. 
 v. 5); still, as χάρις has so notably 
 changed its meaning in the N. T., it 
 seems uncritical, even in this phrase, to 
 deny the reference of χάρις to a spiritual 
 ‘benefit ;’ see Stier zn loc. The most 
 exact transl. then, here seems ‘ blessing’ 
 (‘minister grace,’ Auth., is ambiguous), 
 as it hints at the theological meaning, 
 and also does not wholly obscure the 
 classical and idiomatic meaning of the 
 phrase. 
 
 30. καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε κ. τ. λ.] ‘and 
 grieve not the Holy Spirit of God ;’ not a 
 new, unconnected exhortation (Lachm.), 
 but a continued warning against the use 
 of mas λόγος σαπρὸς by showing its fear- 
 ful results; ἐὰν εἰπῇς ῥῆμα σαπρόν, καὶ 
 ἀνάξιον τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ στόματος, οὐκ 
 ἄνϑρωπον ἐλύπησας, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πν. τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, Theoph. The tacit assumption 
 clearly is that the Spirit dwelt within 
 
 them (see Basil, Spir. Sanct. x1x. 50, 
 Hermas, Past. Mand. 10), and that, 
 too, as the solemn and emphatic title 
 τὸ Πν. τὸ ἅγιον tov Θεοῦ and the 
 peculiar term λυπεῖτε, further suggest, 
 in His true holy personality; compare 
 Peason, Creed, Art. vir. Vol. 1. p. 
 366 (ed. Burt.), and for an excellent 
 sermon on this text, see Andrewes, 
 Serm. v1. Vol. 111. p. 201 sq. (A. C. 
 Libr.) ; see also a very good practical 
 sermon by Bp. Hall, Serm. xxxvt. Vol. 
 
 v. p. 489 sq. (Talboys). ἐν & 
 ἐσφραγίσϑητε) ‘in whom ye were 
 
 sealed,’ — not ‘quo,’ Goth., Arm. (com- 
 pare ‘per quem,’ Beza), but ‘in quo,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg., ‘in whom, as the holy 
 sphere and element of the sealing.’ 
 This clause seems intended to enhance 
 still more the warning by an appeal to 
 the blessings they had received from the 
 Holy Spirit; εἶτα καὶ 7 προσϑήκη τῆς 
 εὐεργεσίας, ἵνα μείζων γένηται ἣ κατηγο- 
 pia, Chrysost. There does not appear, 
 then, here any reminiscence of Isaiah 
 Ixiil. 10, παρώξυναν τὸ Πν. τὸ Gy. (cited 
 by Harl.), which would have given the 
 warning a different tone. For the ex- 
 planation of these words, see notes on 
 ch. i. 13, and for the doctrinal applica- 
 tions, Hammond in loc., Petayv. de Trin. 
 viii. 5. 3, Vol. 11. 823 sq., and notes on 
 ch. i. 13. For some comments on this 
 clause, see Andrewes, Serm. vi. pre- 
 viously cited, and another serm. by Bp. 
 Hall, Serm. xxxvit. Vol. y. p. 504 
 (Talboys). 
 λυτρώσεω 5] ‘for the day of redemp- 
 tion,’ for the day on which the redemp- 
 tion will be fully realized ; see exx. of 
 this use of the gen. in definitions of time 
 in Winer, Gir. § 30. 2, p. 169. On the 
 meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις, see notes on 
 ch. i, 14, and on ‘final perseverance,’ of 
 
 > c / 5 
 εἰς ἡμέραν amro- 
 
Cuap. IV. 31, 32. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 115 
 
 Ἵ Πᾶσα πικρία καὶ Supos καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ κραυγὴ καὶ βλασφημία 
 
 2 ’ a ‘ , 5 
 aprnto ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ: ™ yiveoSe δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους 
 
 which Eadie here finds an affirmation 
 (comp. Coce. in loc.), see Thorndike, Cov. 
 of Grace, ch. xxx1. Vol. 111. p. 615 sq. 
 (A. C. Libr.). 
 
 31. πᾶσα πικρία] ‘all bitterness,’ 
 i. €., ‘every form of it’ (see notes on ch. 
 i. 8), and that not merely as shown in 
 expressions, ‘sermo mordax,’ but, as the 
 context suggests, in feeling and disposi- 
 tion (see Acts viii. 23, Heb. xii. 15), 
 πικρία marking the prevailing tempera- 
 ment and frame of mind; ὁ τοιοῦτος καί 
 βαρύϑυμός ἐστι καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀνίησι τὴν 
 ψυχήν, ἀεὶ σύννους dv καὶ σκυϑρωπός, 
 Chrys. The contrast is not merely γλυ- 
 κύτης (comp. Orig. ap. Cram. Cat.), but 
 χρηστότης ; see Wetst. on Rom. iii. 14, 
 and for an able sermon on this text (the 
 obligations and advantages of good- 
 will), Whichcote, Serm, txxx11. Vol. 
 Iv. p. 198 sq. ϑυμὸς καὶ ὀργή) 
 ‘wrath and anger ;’ the emanations from, 
 and products of the πικρία; ῥίζα ϑυμοῦ 
 καὶ ὀργῆς πικρία, Chrys. With regard 
 to the distinction between these two 
 words, it may be observed that ϑυμὸς is 
 properly the agitation and commotion to 
 which πικρία gives rise (ἣ ἐναρχομένη ἐπί 
 τινα γενέσϑαι ὀργή, Orig. Cram. Cat., 
 comp. Diog. Laert. vir. 1. 63.114), ὀργὴ 
 the more settled habit of the mind (4 
 ἑτοίμη καὶ ἐνεργητικὴ πρὸς τὴν τιμωρίαν 
 τοῦ ἠδικηκέναι νομιζομένου, Origen, ib.) ; 
 see Tittm. Synon. p. 132, Trench, Synon. 
 5. v., and notes on Gal. vy. 20. 
 κραυγή καὶ βλασφημία] ‘clamor 
 and evil speaking ;’ outward manifesta- 
 tions of the foregoing vices ; ἵππος γάρ 
 ἐστι ἀναβάτην φέρων ἣ κραυγὴ τὴν ὀργήν, 
 Chrys. The distinction between the two 
 words is sufficiently obvious. Kpavyi) is 
 the cry of strife (‘in quem erumpunt 
 homines irati,’ Est.) ; βλασφημία, a more 
 enduring manifestation of inward anger, 
 
 that shows itself in reviling, — not, in 
 the present case, God, but our brethren 
 (λοιδορίαι, Chrys.) ; it has thus nearly 
 the same relation to xp. that ὀργὴ has to 
 Suuds ; see Col. iii. 8, 1 Tim. vi. 4, and 
 comp. Rom. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 2. For a good 
 practical sermon against evil speaking 
 see Barrow, Serm. xvi. Vol. τ. p. 447. 
 κακίᾳ] ‘malice ;’ the genus to which all 
 the above-mentioned vices belong, or 
 rather the active principle to which they 
 are all due (comp. ch. vi. 23), — unchar- 
 itableness in all its forms, ‘animi pravi- 
 tas, humanitati et squitati opposita,’ 
 Caly. ; comp. Rom. i. 28, Col. iii. 8, and 
 on the difference between this word and 
 πονηρία (its outcoming and manifesta- 
 tion), see Trench, Synon. § x1. 
 
 32. γίνεσϑε δὲ] ‘but become ye;’ 
 contrasted exhortation: not ‘be ye,’ 
 Auth., Alf, but ‘vairpaiduh’ ffiatis] 
 Goth., — there were evil elements among 
 them that were yet to be taken away; 
 SeerChavienle Lachm, omits δὲ with 
 B; 4 mss.; Clem., Dam., al.; but this 
 omission as well as the variation οὖν [Dt 
 FG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Boern. | 
 seems due to a corrector who did not 
 perceive the antithesis between the com- 
 mands in the two verses. χρηστοί, 
 εὔσπλαγχνοι) ‘kind, tender-hearted.’ 
 On the former of these words (‘sweet in 
 disposition’), comp. notes on Gal. y. 22, 
 and Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. The lat- 
 ter εὔσπλαγχνος occurs Orat. Manass. 6, 
 1 Pet. iii. 8, and designates the exhibi- 
 tion of that merciful feeling, of which 
 the σπλάγχνα were the imaginary seat ; 
 comp. Col. iii. 12, and notes zn Joc., and 
 for additional exx., see Polyc. Phil. 5, 6, 
 Clem. Rom. Cor. i. 54, Test. XII. Patr. 
 p- 537. The substantive εὐσπλαγχνία 
 is found in classical Greek, in the sense 
 of ‘good heart,’ ‘courage’ (comp. Eurip. 
 
110 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAP Vee 
 
 , ν "ἢ € a \ \ e X\ "ἃ 
 χρηστοί, εὔσπλαγχνοι, χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς καδὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν 
 
 Ὁ ! δὰ τὰν 
 Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο υμιν. 
 Strive then to imitate God, 
 
 and, like Christ, to walk in 
 love. 
 
 Rhesus, 192), and also in the primary 
 and physical sense (comp. Hippocr. 89, 
 ed. Foes.), but the adjective is appy. rare. 
 χαριζόμενοι ‘ forgiving 
 each other ;’ participle of concomitant 
 act, specifying the manner in which the 
 χρηστότης x. τ. A. were to be manifested ; 
 comp. Col. iii. 13 and notes in loc. Ori- 
 gen (Cram. Caten.) calls attention to the 
 use of ἑαυτοῖς (what was done to another 
 was really done to themselves), but this 
 appears here somewhat doubtful; see 
 notes on Col./.c., and for exx. of the 
 use of ἑαυτοῖς for the personal pronoun, 
 Jelf, Gr. ὃ 54, 2. καδὼς καὶ ὃ 
 Θεός] ‘even as God,’ ‘as God also;’ 
 καϑὼς (as in ch. i. 4) having a slightly 
 argumentative force, while καὶ introduces 
 a tacit comparison; see Klotz, Devar. 
 Vol. 11. p. 635 sq., and notes on Phil. iv. 
 12. The two combined do not then 
 simply compare, but argue from an ex- 
 ample (Harl.),— τὸν Θεὸν παράγει eis 
 ὑπόδειγμα, Theophyl.; comp. ch. v. 2, 
 25, 29. The context seems clearly to 
 show that the meaning of χαριζόμενοι 
 (and hence of ἐχαρίσατο) is not ‘donan- 
 tes,’ Clarom., Vulg., ‘largientes, libenter 
 dantes,’ Erasm. (comp. Orig. 1. ap. 
 Cram. Cat.), but ‘condonantes,’ Copt., 
 Syr., Goth., συγγνωμικοί, Chrys.: they 
 were not only to be χρηστοὶ and εὔσ- 
 πλαγχνοι but also merciful and forgiving, 
 following the example of Him who ‘ pree- 
 buit se benignum, misericordem, — con- 
 donantem,’ Beng. The reading is 
 doubtful: Zachm. reads ἡμῖν with B?D 
 EKL; 25 mss.; Amit., Syr. (both), al. ; 
 Orig. (Cram. Cat.). Chrys. (Comm.), 
 Theod., al., — but scarcely on sufficient 
 authority, as the pronoun of the first 
 person might have been probably sug- 
 
 éauTots| 
 
 V. Γίνεσδε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς τέκνα 
 
 gested by the ἡμᾶς in ch. v. 2: see crit. 
 note in loc. ἐν Χριστῷ) ‘in 
 Christ ;’ not ‘for the sake of,’ Auth., nor 
 ‘per Christum,’ Caly., but ‘in Him,’ 
 7. e., in giving Him to be a propitiation 
 for our sins, μετὰ τοῦ κινδύνου τοῦ υἱοῦ 
 αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς σφαγῆς αὐτοῦ, Theoph.; 
 comp. 2 Cor. y. 19. 
 
 CuarTtEeR V. 1. γίνεσϑε οὖν 
 κι τ᾿ A.| ‘Become then followers (imitators ) 
 of God ;’ resumption of the previous 
 γίνεσϑε, ch. v. 32, the οὖν deriving its 
 force and propriety from the concluding 
 words of the last verse. Stier, on rather 
 insufficient grounds, argues against the 
 connection of these verses, referring οὖν 
 to the whole foregoing subject, the new 
 man in Christ. In this latter case, οὖν 
 would have more of what has been 
 called its reflexive force (‘lectorem re- 
 yocat ad id ipsum quod nunc agitur,’ 
 Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717) ; that it is, 
 however, here rather collective (‘ad ea 
 qu antea revera posita sunt lectorem 
 revocat,’ Klotz, 2b.) seems much more 
 probable ; comp. Hartung, Partik. οὖν, 
 3:5, ViOl. ΠΤ Ρ- 22 ἀγαπητά] 
 “beloved;’ not ‘liebe Kinder,’ Riick. 
 (compare Chrys.), but ‘geliebte.” The 
 reason is given by Gicumen., who, how- 
 ever, does not appear to have felt the 
 full force of the word ; τοῖς yap τοιούτοις 
 (ἀγαπητοῖς) ἐξ ἀνάγκης τινὸς 7 μίμησι». 
 The ἀνάγκη consisted in the fact of God 
 having loved them; love must be re- 
 turned by love; and in love alone can 
 man imitate God: see 1 John iy. 10, and 
 comp. Charnock, Attrib. p. 618 (Bohn). 
 For two practical sermons on this text, 
 see Farindon, Sermon txxxvit. (two 
 Parts), Vol. 111. p. 494 sq. (ed. Jackson). 
 
Guar. V.2 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Py 
 
 9. / 9 \ A ’ » f. \ \ € \ 
 ἀγαπητά, ὅ καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, KaSw@s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς 
 » / e a \ a 
 
 ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ 
 ϑυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. 
 
 2. mas... ἡμῖν] Tisch. ὑμᾶς... ὑμῖν, but his authorities [AB; 8 mss.; San., 
 4Eth., Clem. (2), Theophyl., al.] do not appear sufficient to substantiate a reading 
 which seems so very probably to have arisen from a conformation of the text to the 
 
 second person. 
 Alf., and Wordsw. 
 
 We therefore retain the Rec. with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Meyer, 
 In ver. 3 the order of πᾶσα is reversed (with Tisch.) on nearly 
 
 the same anthority, but there Rec. adopts the more easy reading. 
 
 2.xal περιπ. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ‘and 
 walk in love;’ continuation of the fore- 
 going precept, καὶ serving to append 
 closely a specification of that in which 
 the imitation of God must consist. 
 kados καὶ 6 Xp. x.7.A.| ‘even as 
 Christ also loved,’ —not ‘has loved ;’ the 
 pure aoristic sense is more appropriate 
 and more in accordance with the historic 
 aor. which follows. 
 κεν ἑἕαυτ.] ‘and gave up Himself ;’ 
 specification of that wherein (‘non tan- 
 tum ut Deus sed etiam ut homo, Est’) 
 this love was preéminently shown, καὶ 
 having a slightly explanatory force; see 
 Gal. ii. 20, and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 
 12. The supplementary idea to παρέδ. 
 must surely be eis ϑάνατον (Harl.), as in 
 every case where παραδ. is used by St. 
 Paul in ref. to Christ, εἰς Sav. or some 
 similar idea, seems naturally included in 
 the verb: see esp. Rom. iv. 25, where 
 παρεδόϑη is followed by ἠγέρϑη ; comp. 
 Rom. viii. 32, Gal. ii. 20, Eph. v. 25. 
 For a sound and clear sermon on this 
 text {Christ’s sacrifice of Himself), see 
 Waterl. Serm. xxxt. Vol. v. p. 737 sq. 
 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) ‘for us,’ —and also, as 
 the context indisputably shows, ‘in our 
 stead ;’” 
 connection, see Usteri, LeArb. 11. 1. 1, p. 
 115 sq., and notes on Gal. iii. 13 ; comp. 
 ab. ch. i. 4, προσφορὰν καὶ 
 ϑυσίαν] ‘an offering and sacrifice ;’ 
 not ‘a sacrifice offered up,’ sc. ϑυσίαν 
 προσφερομένην, Conyb.,—a mode of 
 
 καὶ παρέδω- 
 
 on the meaning of ὑπὲρ in this 
 
 translation ever precarious and insuffi- 
 cient. It may be doubtful whether Svc. 
 and προσφ. are intended to specify respec- 
 tively bloody and unbloody sacrifices, for 
 προσφ. is elsewhere used in ref. to bloody 
 (Heb. x. 10), and Suc. to unbloody of- 
 ferings (Heb. xi. 4), and further, the 
 rough definition that Svoia implies ‘the 
 slaying of a victim’ (Eadie) is by no 
 means of universal application ; see esp. 
 John Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. 1.1, p. 73 sq. 
 (A. C. Libr.). Equally doubtful, esp. 
 in reference to Christ, is the definition 
 that a ϑυσία is ἃ “προσφ. rite consumpta,’ 
 Outram, de Sacrif. vi11. 1, p. 182 (ed. 
 1677). Still it is probable that a distine- 
 tion was here intended by St. Paul, and 
 that mpocp. as the more general term, re- 
 lates not only to the death, but to the life 
 of obedience of our blessed Lord (comp. 
 Heb. v. 8), His ϑυσία ζῶσα (Rom. xii. 
 1); ϑυσία, as the more special, more par- 
 ticularly to His atoning death. On this 
 accus., which in its apposition to the 
 foregoing is also practically predicative, 
 and serves to complete the notion of the 
 verb, see Madvig, Synt. § 24. 
 Θεῷ is commonly explained cither (a) 
 as the ordinary transmissive dative, sc. 
 taped. τῷ Θεῷ (Mey.; so appy. J. Johns. 
 Vol. 1. p. 161), or (0) as a dat. of limi- 
 tation to εἰς ὅσμ. answering to the Heb. 
 Bint mins fs (Stier). As, how- 
 ever, the meaning of παρέδωκεν (see 
 above) and the distance of the dat. (De 
 W. compares Rom. xii. 1, but there τῷ 
 
 ae 
 
118 
 
 Avoid fornication, covet- 
 ousness, and all forms of 
 impurity, foron such comes 
 the wrath of God. Ye 
 were once in heathen dark- NG 
 
 ness, but now are light; ayLols, 
 reprove the words of darkness, awake and arise. 
 
 “ 
 
 4 
 
 Θεῷ is not joined with the verb) do not 
 harmonize with the former, and the 
 prominent position of τῷ Θεῷ is difficult 
 to be explained on the latter hypothesis, 
 it seems more simple to regard τῷ Θεῴ 
 ethical dative or dat. commodi 
 appended to the two substantives; so 
 Beng. and appy., by their studied adher- 
 ence to the order of the original, all the 
 ancient Vy.; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 23.1, 
 Ρ. 186. 
 ‘for, sc. to become a savor of sweet smell ;’ 
 
 as an 
 
 eis dom. evwdlas| 
 
 — sc. a ϑυσία εὐπρόσδεκτος, Chrys.; see 
 ἘΠῚ: ahs EI LEA 1: 95 15. Uli. aig I, i 
 5, comp. Gen. viii. 21. The authors of 
 the Racov. Catech. (§ v1i1.) have cor- 
 rectly explained the constr., but have 
 erroneously asserted that these words 
 (‘quae de pacificis creberrime ; de expia- 
 toriis autem vix uspiam usurpantur,’ — 
 but see Deyling, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 315, No. 
 65) do not represent Christ’s death as 
 an expiutory sacrifice; comp. even Ust. 
 Lehrb. 11.1.1, p. 113. To this, without 
 needlessly pressing ὕπέρ, we may simply 
 say with Waterland, that the contrary 
 ‘is as plain from the N. T. as words can 
 make it,’ and that St. Paul’s perpetual 
 teaching is that Christ’s death was ‘a 
 true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the 
 sins of mankind ;’ see proof texts, Vol. 
 Iv. p. 513, and esp. Jackson, Creed, Book 
 1x. 55, Vol. 1x. p. 589 sq. (Oxf. 1844). 
 The nature of the gen. εὐωδίας is rightly 
 explained by Wordsw. as that of the 
 characterizing quality ; see notes on Phil. 
 iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 2, p. 
 211. 
 
 3 πορνεία δέ] ‘But fornication ;’ 
 gentle transition to another portion of 
 the exhortation, with a resumption of 
 the negative and prohibitive form of 
 address (ch. iv. 31); the δὲ being mainly 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 8, 4. 
 
 ° Πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαδαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεο- 
 
 / ND , 5. eR in \ , 
 veEia μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσδω ἐν ὑμῖν, KaS@s πρέπει 
 καὶ aloypoTns καὶ μωρολογία ἢ 
 
 μεταβατικόν (see on Gal. i. 11), though 
 perhaps not without some slight indica- 
 tion of contrast to what has preceded. 
 On the Apostle’s constant and emphatic 
 condemnation of the deadly sin of πορ- 
 νεία, as one of the things which the old 
 Pagan world deemed ἀδιάφορα, compare 
 Mey. on Acts xv.20. # πλεονεξια) 
 ‘or covetousness ;’ the # is not explana- 
 tory (Heins. Exercit. p. 467), but has its 
 full and proper disjunctive force, serving 
 to distinguish πλεὺν. from more special 
 sins of the flesh ; see notes on ch. iy. 19. 
 μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσϑ ὦ] ‘let it not be even 
 named, — not, ‘ut facta’ (Beng. 1), a 
 meaning which ὀνομαζ. will scarcely 
 justify ; but, ‘let it not be even men- 
 tioned by name’ (Beng. 2), of yap Adyat 
 τῶν πραγμάτων εἰσιν ὅδοί, Chrys.; see 
 ver. 12, and comp. Psalm xy. 4. Mey. 
 cites Dio Chrys. 360 b, στάσιν δὲ οὐδὲ 
 ὀνομάζειν ἄξιον map’ ὑμῖν. καδὼς 
 πρέπει ἁγίοις] ‘as becometh saints, 
 —sc. to thus avoid all mention by name 
 even of these sins, ἱκανῶς τὸ μυσαρὸν 
 τῶν εἰρημένων ὑπέδειξε, καὶ αὐτὰς αὐτῶν 
 προσηγορίας τῆς μνήμης ἐξορίσαι κελεύσας, 
 Theod. 
 
 4. καὶ aioxporns| ‘and filthiness,’ 
 not merely in words (/Eth., Theoph., 
 CEcum.), which would be αἰσχρολογία 
 (Col. iii. 8), but, as the abstract form 
 suggests, τὸ αἰσχρόν, whether actively 
 exhibited or passively approved, in word, 
 gesture, or deed. The context obviously 
 limits its reference to ἀκαῦ. and sins of 
 the flesh; αἰσχρότης δὲ tis ἐστιν Kas 
 ἕκαστον εἶδος ἀκολασίας, Origen (Cram. 
 Caten.). Lachm. reads ἤ aisxp. ἤ 
 μωρολ. with ADIEIFG; mss.; Clarom., 
 Vulg., Sahid.; Bas., al. (Meyer), but in 
 opp. to good external authority [BD?®E? 
 KL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Ath.-Platt, 
 
παν. V. 5. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 119 
 
 > ἢ \ 5) Spas: κ : 5 a 
 εὐτραπελία, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία. ἢ τοῦτο 
 
 al.; Clem., Chrysost., al.], and to the 
 internal probability of a conformation to 
 the following 7. μωρολογία) 
 ‘foolish talking,’ stultiloquium, Clarom., 
 
 Vulg., |2ouguas ΠᾺΡ [sermones 
 
 stultitie] Syriac; an ἅπαξ Aeyou. in 
 the N. T. of which the exact meaning 
 must be defined by the context. Of the 
 two definitions of Origen, the first, 7 
 ἀσκουμένη ὑπὸ τῶν μωρολόγων Kal γελω- 
 τοποίων, is too lax ; the second, τὸ μωρὸν 
 εἶναι ἐν τοῖς δογματι(ζομένοις, too re- 
 strictive. The terms with which it 
 stands in connection seem certainly to 
 preclude any reference to positive pro- 
 fanity (compare Caly.), still Trench is 
 probably right in here superadding to 
 the ordinary meaning of idle, aimless, 
 and foolish talk, a ref. to that sin and 
 vanity of spirit which the talk of fools is 
 certain to bewray ; see Synon. § XXXIV., 
 and Wordsw. in loc, 
 <jesting,’ 
 
 εὐτραπελία) 
 
 second ἅπαξ 
 λεγόμ. : ἔνϑα γέλως ἄκαιρος ἐκεῖ ἡ εὐτρα- 
 πελία, Chrysost. The word, as its deri- 
 vation suggests, properly means versatil- 
 ity, Whether in motion, manners, or talk 
 (Dissen, Pind. Pyth. 1. 93); from which 
 a more unfavorable signification, ‘ pol- 
 ished jesting,’ (εὐτράπελος: ὃ δυνάμενος 
 σκῶψαι ἐμμελῶς, Aristot. Moral. 1. 81), 
 ‘use of witty equivyoque’ (ingenio niti- 
 tur,’ Beng.), is easily and naturally 
 derived; see Trench, Synon. xxxIv., 
 and the excellent sermon by Barrow on 
 this text, Serm. xiv. Vol. 1. p. 383 sq. 
 The disjunctive (surely not ‘conjune- 
 tive, Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx111.) ἢ marks 
 it-as a different vice to μωρολ., and thus 
 appy. as not only a sin of the tongue 
 (Trench), but as including the eyil ‘ur- 
 banitas’ (in manners or words) of the 
 witty, godless man of the world. The 
 practical application may be found in 
 Taylor, Serm. xx111. (Gold. Grove), 
 
 ‘wittiness;’ ἃ 
 
 and esp. in the latter part of Chrysost. 
 Hom. xvit. τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα) 
 ‘things which are not convenient ;’ in 
 apposition to the last two words, to 
 which both edx., as denoting oral expres- 
 sion yet implying inward feeling, forms a 
 clear contrast. It is instructive to com- 
 pare Rom. i. 28, τὰ μὴ καϑήκοντα, there 
 the subjective denial seems appropriately 
 introduced (‘facere que (si qui) essent 
 indecora,’ Winer, Gr. § 59. 4, p. 564, ed. 
 5); here is a plain objective fact that 
 Such indeed 
 (ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν) is the reading of AB; 3 
 mss.; Clem., al. (Lachm.), — authority, 
 however, too weak to justify a change in 
 the present text. On the use of ov and 
 μὴ with participp., see Gayler, Partic 
 Neg. p. 287, but observe the caution 
 suggested in notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15, 
 iii. 1. εὐχαριστία) ‘gwing of 
 the meaning of this word, 
 adopted by Hammond, several of the 
 older, and some later expositors, ‘ edify- 
 ing discourse,’ ‘devoutness,’ cannot be 
 justified by St. Paul’s use either of the 
 verb or the subst. ; comp. Petay. Dissert. 
 Eccl. 11. 10. 4, 5, and on the true force 
 of the ethical connection, see Harl. Lihik, 
 ὁ 32.a. On the duty generally, so fre- 
 quently inculcated by St. Paul, see notes 
 and reff. on Phil. iv. 6, and on Col. iii. 
 15. The verb here omitted, ‘per brachy- 
 logiam’ (Jelf, Gr. § 895), is differently 
 supplied ; perhaps γινέσϑω ἐν ὑμῖν is the 
 supplement most natural, ἀνήκει (Beng.) 
 that least so. 
 
 such things — οὐκ ἀνῆκεν. 
 
 thanks ;’ 
 
 5. τοῦτο ἴστε yiveck.| 
 
 yap 
 ‘For this ye know, being aware, or, as ye 
 are aware ;’ confirmation of the preced- 
 ing prohibitions, by an appeal to their 
 own knowledge of the judgment against 
 those who practise them. It is scarcely 
 critically exact to connect this with the 
 Hebraistic (but compare also Jelf, Gr. § 
 705. 3) mode of expression, γινώσκων 
 
 ? 
 
190 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V.5. 
 
 \ be a DY 
 γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ akaSapTos ἢ πλεονέκτης, 
 
 cid > » / 5 ” f 5» a ἣν. lol 
 ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, οὐκ EXEL κληρονομίαν ἐν TH βασιλείᾳ τοῦ 
 
 γνώσῃ, Gen, xv. 18, ‘thou shalt know 
 full well,’ ete. (Stier), as ἴστε and 
 γινώσκ. are not portions of the same 
 verb. The part. must be joined more 
 immediately with ὅτι, and seems used 
 with a slightly causal force which serves 
 to elucidate and justify the appeal; see 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 8, p. 318. Whether 
 tote be taken as imperative or indicative 
 must be left to individual judgment. 
 The former interpr. is adopted by Cla- 
 rom., Vulg., Arm. (comp.,— but with 
 different reading, Syr., Auth.), and by 
 some Ff., 6. g. appy. Clem. Alex. (Pe- 
 dag. 111. 4), but seems scarcely so im- 
 pressive as the latter (Copt.), and some- 
 what tends to diminish the force of the 
 now isolated and emphatic imperative in 
 ver. 6; comp. Alf. zz loc. The reading 
 ἐστε γιν. (fec.) is supported by Π 510 
 KL; mss.; Syr. (both), al.; Theod., 
 Dam., but is distinctly inferior to ἔστε 
 in external authority [ABDIFG; 30 
 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al.; Clem., 
 al.], and is rejected by nearly all recent 
 editors. πᾶς ---οὐ κ] On this Hebra- 
 istic mode of expression, see notes on 
 ch. iv. 29. ὅς ἐστιν refers im- 
 mediately to πλεονέκτης, not to the three 
 preceding substantives; comp. Col. iii. 
 5, Thy πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστιν εἰδωλολατ- 
 pela. Covetousness is truly a definite 
 form of idolatry, it is the worship of 
 Mammon (Matth. vi. 24) instead of 
 God; comp. Theodoret. To this, there- 
 fore, rather than to the other sins, which 
 are veritable, but more subtle forms of 
 the same sin, the Apostle gives the above 
 specific designation. The passages ad- 
 duced by Wetst. and Schoettg. illustrate 
 the form of expression, but nothing 
 more. The reading ὅ adopted by 
 Lachm., Alf, is only found in B.; 3. 
 67**, al.; Cyr., Jerome, — and has no 
 claim to be received in the text on such 
 
 weak external authority. οὐκ 
 ἔχει κληρον.] ‘hath no inheritance ;’ 
 a weighty present, involving an indirect 
 reference to the eternal and enduring 
 principles by which God governs the 
 world, — not so much, ‘has no inheri- 
 tance, and shall have none’ (Eadie), as 
 ‘has, etc., and can have none ;” compare 
 ver. 6, and Col. iii. 6, δι᾽ ἃ ἔρχεται ἣ ὀργὴ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 40. 2, p. 
 237. τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ] 
 ‘of Christ and God,’ --- ποῦ ‘of God,’ 
 Auth. This is the first decided instance 
 (the reading being doubtful in Acts xx. 
 28) adduced by Granville Sharp, to 
 prove that the same Person in Scripture 
 is called Christ and God, see Middleton, 
 Greek Art. p. 862 sq. (ed. Rose), and 
 ch. 111. 4. 2, p. 57 sq. When, however, 
 we maturely weigh the context, in which 
 no dogmatic assertions relative to Christ 
 find a place (as in Tit. ii. 13, 14), when 
 we recall the frequent use of Θεὸς with- 
 out an article, even where it might have 
 been expected (compare Winer, Gr. § 
 19. 1, p. 110),—and lastly, when we 
 observe that the presence of the art. τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ would really have even suggested a 
 thought of subordination (as if it were 
 necessary to specify that the kindom of 
 Christ was also the kingdom of God, — 
 the inadvertence of the Auth.), we seem 
 forced to the conviction that Sharp’s 
 rule does not apply here. Christ and 
 God are united together in the closest 
 way, and presented under a single con- 
 ception (compare Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p. 
 116), — an indirect evidence of Christ’s 
 divinity of no slight value,—still the 
 identity of the two substantives (‘of 
 Him who is Christ and God,’ Wordsw.) 
 cannot be safely or certainly maintained 
 from this passage. On the meaning of 
 the term βασιλεία Θεοῦ, see notes and 
 reff. on Gal. vy. 21. 
 
Cap. V. 6, 7. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 121 
 
 -~_ 
 
 fo) \ a \ a a 
 Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ. © μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις: διὰ 
 
 n Ny 05d Om) \ a Pup San \ e n 5) / 
 ταυτὰ yap EPNETAL 1) opy” TOU Θεοῦ €77L TOUS VLOUS τῆς ἀπειδε είας. 
 
 7 VES ’ a 
 μὴ οὖν γίνεσσε συνμέτοχοι αὐτῶν. 
 
 6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς κ. τ. λ.} ‘Let no one 
 deceive you with vain words, sophistries ;’ 
 emphatic warning (without any particle) 
 against all who sought to deceive them 
 as to the real nature of the sins con- 
 demned. It does not seem necessary to 
 limit the regular meaning of κενός 
 (‘empty,’ οὐδαμῶς ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων δεικνύ- 
 μενοι, Chrys., — hence ‘a veritate alieni,’ 
 Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 299), and to re- 
 fer the κενοὶ λόγοι specially to heathen 
 philosophers (Grot.), to Judaizers 
 (Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 184, note, 
 Bohn), or to Christian Antinomians 
 (Olsh.). The Apostle generally con- 
 demns all apologists for vice, whoever 
 they might be. ‘These would of course 
 be most commonly found among the 
 heathens, and to them the passage most 
 naturally points. The palliation or tacit 
 toleration of vice, especially sensuality, 
 was one of the most fearful and repul- 
 sive features of heathenism; see esp. 
 Tholuck, Influence of Heathenism, Part 
 ἐν: 2. διὰ ταῦτα γάρ] ‘for on 
 account of these sins :’ confirmation of the 
 preceding warning; it is on account of 
 these things (obs. the emphasis on διὰ 
 ταῦταὶ, that God’s wrath and vengeance 
 is directed against the perpetrators. The 
 reference of ταῦτα is clearly to the sins 
 above mentioned (τούτων ἕκαστον ἔδρων, 
 Theodoret) ; comp. Col. iii. 6, & 
 in reference to a foregoing list of vices, 
 and Gal. ν. 21, ἅ προλέγω ὑμῖν. The 
 pronoun has been referred to the ἀπάτη 
 of the κενοὶ λόγοι (Theoph. 2), or to the 
 ἀπάτη and the foregoing vices. The 
 first interpr. is not grammatically unten- 
 able, as the plural ταῦτα may be idiomat- 
 ically used to denote a single object, etc., 
 in its different manifestations (see Bern- 
 hardy, Synt. v1. 8. d, p. 282, Winer, Gr. 
 
 yo ef. 
 
 a@,— 
 
 § 23. 5, p. 146), but, equally with the 
 second, is open to the contextual objec- 
 tion, that ver. 7 seems a general warning 
 against Gentile sins, to which conse- 
 quently the present verse will be more 
 naturally referred. ἢ ὀργὴ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ] ‘the wrath of God ;’ certainly not 
 to be restricted to this life, ‘ ordinaria 
 Dei judicia,’ Calv., but as the solemn 
 present (see last verse) indicates, to be ex- 
 tended also, and perhaps more especially, 
 to the judgments ἐν τῇ Bao. τοῦ Xp. καὶ 
 Θεοῦ. υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειδ.] ‘Sons 
 of disobedience ;’ scil., in effect, τοὺς σφό- 
 dpa ἀπειϑεῖς, Chrys., ἔχοντες τὸν τῆς μη- 
 τρὸς χαρακτῆρα, Origen; see esp. notes 
 on ch. ii. 2, and Suicer, Thes. Vol. 11. p. 
 1357. The aed. here is disobedience 
 to the principles and practice of the 
 Gospel ; see more on ch. ii. 2. 
 
 7. μὴ οὖν γίνεσδ εἶ ‘Do not then 
 become ;’ οὖν having its full collective 
 force (see on ver. 1), and referring to 
 the previous statement that the wrath of 
 God certainly does come on all such. 
 The yiveode (Clarom., ‘nolite fier,’ 
 Vulg., ‘nolite effici,’ — perhaps some- 
 what too strongly) is not to be explained 
 away: the Apostle does not warn them 
 only against being (Alf.), but against be- 
 coming (‘ni vairpaip, Goth.) partakers 
 with them, against allowing themselves 
 to /apse into any of their prevailing sins 
 and depravities. 
 αὐτῶν] ‘partakers with them ;’ not in 
 their punishment (Holzh.), nor their 
 punishment and sins (Stier), but, as the 
 context, esp. ver. 11, obviously suggests, 
 their sins; ‘nolite similia facere,’ Estius. 
 On συνμέτοχος, see notes ch. iii. 6, and 
 on the orthography (which has here 
 the authority of AB!D!FG) comp. Tisch. 
 Prolegom. p. XLVI. 
 
 16 
 
 συνμέτοχοι 
 ) 
 
122 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Crap. V. 8, 9. 
 
 8 4 , r a \ an > ! e , \ 
 ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ' ws τέκνα φωτὸς περ- 
 
 LITATELTE, 
 
 8. ἦτε γάρ] ‘For ye WERE;’ em- 
 phatic, the time is now past, Rom. vi. 17. 
 It is this very difference between the past 
 and present state that confirms and proves 
 (yap) the propriety of the preceding 
 warning ; ‘as that state is past, do not 
 recur to it, —do not lapse again into a 
 participation in vices which you have 
 now turned away from ;’ comp. note on 
 γίνεσϑε (ver. 7), of which the present 
 verse seems tacitly confirmatory. 
 
 The assertion of Riick. that in this and 
 several other passages in St. Paul’s Epp. 
 (6. g. Rom. v. 18, vi. 17, 1 Cor. iii. 12, 21, 
 Gal. ii. 6, 15, vi. 8) μὲν ought to be in- 
 serted is sufficiently refuted by Harless. 
 The rule is simple, — if the first clause 
 is intended to stand in connection with 
 and prepare the reader for the opposition 
 in the second, μὲν is inserted; if not, 
 not: see the excellent remarks of Klotz, 
 Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356 sq., Fritz. Rom. x. 
 19, Vol. 11. p. 423, and notes on Gal. ii. 
 15: σκότοϑ»]) ‘darkness ;’ not 
 merely living or abiding in it (comp. 
 Rom. ii. 19, 1 Thess. v. 4), but them- 
 selves actual and veritable darkness ; for 
 examples of this vigorous and appropri- 
 ate use of the abstract term, see Jelf, Gr. 
 § 353. 1: φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘light 
 in the Lord ;’ not διὰ τῆς ϑείας χάριτος, 
 Theoph., but ‘in fellowship with the 
 Lord ;’ extra Christum Satan omnia 
 occupat,’ Caly. The continued and cor- 
 responding use of the abstr. for concr. 
 (see above) suitably prepares for the en- 
 ergetic exhortation (without οὖν) which 
 follows. They were φῶς, not only in 
 themselves (πεφωτισμένοι), but to others 
 (comp. Matth. vy. 14), and were to pur- 
 sue their moral walk in accordance with 
 such a state of privilege. On the use of 
 the terms φῶς and σκότος, see Usteri, 
 Lehrb. 11. 1, 3, p. 229. 
 φωτὺς περιπ.] ‘walk as children of 
 
 ε Ψ 
 WS τεκνα 
 
 Spee N \ a \ > , > , \ 
 ὁ yap καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ayaswouvyn καὶ 
 
 liyht,’ as those who stand in nearest and 
 truest connection with it; see notes on 
 ch. ii. 3. The absence of the article can 
 hardly be pressed (Alf.), as it appears 
 due only to that common principle of 
 correlation, by which, if the governing 
 noun is without the article, the governed 
 will be equally so; see Middleton, Art. 
 111. 3, 7, p.49 (ed Rose). On the mean- 
 ing of περιπατεῖν, which, however, must 
 not always be too strongly pressed, see 
 notes on Phil. iii. 18, and on 1 Thess. iv. 
 12. 
 
 9. ὃ γὰρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘For the fruit of the 
 light ;’ parenthetic confirmation of the 
 foregoing command, and incitement to 
 follow it. Tap is thus not simply ex- 
 planatory (ὥσπερ ἐφερμηνεύει τί ἐστι τὸ 
 τέκνα τοῦ φωτός, Theoph.), but, as the 
 order seems to suggest, confirms the pro- 
 priety of using the term περιπατεῖτε, and 
 also supplies its fuller explanation ; ‘ As 
 children of the light walk ye, for the 
 fruit of light is shown in a moral walk, 
 in practical instances of ἀγαϑωσύνη.᾽ 
 The modal participle δοκιμάζοντες (see 
 below) is thus closely joined with περι- 
 πατεῖτε, and ver. 9, though not fully so 
 in form, is clearly parenthetical in sense : 
 contra Stier, who, however, fails properly 
 and grammatically to explain the use of 
 the participle. The reading πνεύμα- 
 τος [Rec. with D°E*KL; great majority 
 of mss.; Syr.-Phil., al.; Chrys., Theod]. 
 seems clearly a gloss from Gal. v. 25, 
 and is rightly rejected by nearly all re- 
 cent editors. ἐν] ‘consistit in,’ 
 Beng., or, more exactly, ‘ continetur, 
 ponitur in:’ the assertion that ἐν is here 
 the ‘Beth essentix’ (compare Gesen. ὃ 
 151. 8. a) is distinctly untenable; see 
 Winer, Gr. § 47. 3. obs. p. 420. 
 πάσῃ ἀγαδωσύν ῃ] ‘all goodness,’ 1.6. 
 all forms and instances of it ; see notes 
 ch. i. 8. On the meaning of ayas. see 
 
Cuap. V. 10, 11, 12. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 123 
 
 , ἊΝ > if A 
 δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληδείᾳ, ™ δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ 
 
 Κυρίῳ: 
 
 ll \ Ss lal ἴω 7 lal lal 
 καὶ μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ 
 
 σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε. " τὰ γὰρ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ 
 
 notes on Gal. ν. 32. The special appo- 
 sitions which Chrys. finds in these three 
 nouns, πρὸς τοὺς ὀργιζομένους, πρὸς τοὺς 
 πλεονεκτοῦντας, πρὸς τὴν ψευδῆ ἡδονήν, 
 are too limited. As Meyer correctly 
 observes, the whole of Christian moral- 
 ity is presented under its three great 
 aspects, the good, the right, the true ; 
 ἀνίστοιχα are κακία, ἀδικία, ψεῦδος ; Com- 
 pare Harl. zz oc., and for a sermon on 
 this text, see Tillotson, Serm. CXLVIII. 
 Vol. τι. p. 311 (Lond. 1717). 
 
 10. δοκιμάζοντ ε5] ‘proving,’ ‘test- 
 ing ;’ predication of manner appended 
 to περιπατεῖτε, defining its character and 
 distinctive features. The verb δοκιμάζειν 
 is not ‘to have a just conception of,’ 
 Peile, nor ‘examinando cognitum ha- 
 bere,’ Borger, ad Rom. p. 12 (cited by 
 Fritz.), but, in its simple and primary 
 sense, ‘to prove, to try,’ the word mark- 
 ing the activity and experimental energy 
 that should characterize the Christian 
 life; see Rom. xii. 2, and Fritz. in loc., 
 and notes on Phil. i. 10, where the mean- 
 ings of this word are briefly discussed. 
 The sense then is well expressed by 
 Eadie ; ‘the one point of the Christian’s 
 ethical investigation is, Is it well pleas- 
 ing to the Lord?’ ἄρα ἀδοκίμου καὶ παιδι- 
 κῆς διανοίας Ta ἀλλά, CEcum. 
 
 ll. μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε) ‘have no 
 
 fellowship with,’ Auth.—a good and accu- 
 rate t lation ; ; 
 rate translation ; comp wee coo 
 
 [commercium habentes] ‘ gadailans,’ 
 Goth. The version of Eadie and De 
 W.., ‘take no part in,’ is questionable, 
 if not erroneous, as this would imply a 
 genitive; comp. Rom. xi. 17, 1 Cor. ix. 
 23, Phil. i. 7. Though the sense is 
 nearly the same, there is still no reason, 
 either here, Phil. iv. 4, or Rev. xviii. 4, 
 for departing from the exact translation. 
 
 The form συνκοιν. is found AB!D!IFGL, 
 and on such evidence is appy. rightly 
 adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7); see Prolegom. 
 p. XLVII. τοῖς ἔργοις Tots 
 ἀκάρπ.] ‘the unfruitful works ;’? comp. 
 Gal. v. 19, 22, where there is a similar 
 opposition between καρπὸς and ἔργα. 
 The comment of Jerome (cited by Har- 
 less) is very good, ‘vitia in semet ipsa 
 finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes 
 pullulant et redundant ;’ see 
 Gal. v. 22. μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ can- 
 not be correctly considered as a single 
 formula, ‘yea, much more,’ Eadie: μᾶλ- 
 λον δὲ is corrective (see notes on Gal. iv. 
 9), while καὶ is closely connected with 
 the verb, preserving its full ascensive 
 force, ‘not only μὴ cvyx., but rather even 
 ἐλέγχετε;᾽ ‘non satis abstinere est,’ 
 Bengel ; comp. Fritz. Rom. viii. 34, Vol. 
 II. p. 216. ἐλέγχετ Ee] ‘reprove 
 them,’ ‘redarguite,’ Clarom., Vulg.,— 
 not by the passive, virtual reproof of 
 your holy lives and conversation (Peile), 
 but, as St. Paul’s use of the word (see 
 esp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24,2 Tim. iv. 2, Tit. i. 
 9, 13, ii. 15), and still more the context, 
 suggest, — by active and oral reproba- 
 tion. The antithesis is thus most fully 
 marked; ‘do not connive at them or 
 pass them over unnoticed, but take 
 aggressive measures against them; try 
 and raise the Gentiles to your own 
 Christian standard ;’ see Olsh. in loc. 
 
 12. τὰ yap κ. τ. λ.] ‘For the things, 
 etc.;’ confirmatory reason for the com- 
 mand in the preceding clause. The 
 connection of this verse with the preced- 
 ing has been differently explained. If 
 the correct meaning of ἐλέγχ. (see 
 above) be retained, there seems but little 
 difficulty ; yap then gives the reason for 
 the καὶ ἐλέγχετε; ‘reproof is indeed 
 necessary, for some of their sins, their 
 
 frugibus 
 notes on 
 
124 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 13. 
 
 2. A > r 9 \ ΄ 19. Sea δὲ Ve ἐν, 2), ΄ ey 
 αὐτῶν αισχρον εστιν Kab λέγειν" τὰ O€ TTAVTA ε εγχόμενα UTrO 
 
 secret vices for instance, are such that it 
 is a shame even to speak of them, much 
 less connive at them or join in them.’ 
 Harl. refers yap more to μὴ συγκ.; ‘do 
 not commit these sins, for they are too 
 bad even to mention.” This, however, 
 assumes a perfect identity between τὰ 
 ἔργ. Tod ok. and τὰ κρυφῆ γιν., which 
 (see below) is highly doubtful ; and also 
 gives to the negative part of the com- 
 mand (which, as the corrective μᾶλλον δὲ 
 suggests, is obscured by the positive) an 
 undue and untenable prominence. 
 
 τὰ κρυφῆ γιν.] ‘the things which are 
 done in secret by them, sc. by the υἱοῖς τῆς 
 ἀπειϑείας. There is not enough in the 
 context to substantiate a reference to the 
 mysteries and orgies of heathenism (Els- 
 ner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 223). The use of 
 κρυφῇ (which obviously has here a sim- 
 ple, and not an ethical meaning like 
 σκότος) and its emphatic position seem 
 alike to show that τὰ κρυφῆ yw. are sins, 
 not simply identical with τὰ ἔργα τ. σκό- 
 τους, ver. 11 (Harl.), but a specific class 
 of the genus. These ‘deeds done in 
 secret, then, were all those ‘peccata 
 occulta’ which presented the worst fea- 
 tures of the genus, and which, from their 
 nature and infamy, shunned the light of 
 day and of judgment. καὶ 
 λέγειν] ‘even to speak of,’ ‘only to men- 
 This is an instance of what may 
 be termed the descensive force of καί ; see 
 exx. in Hartung, Partik. καί, 2.9, Vol. 
 1. p. 136; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. 
 Ῥ. 364, and notes on Gal. iii. 4. 
 
 tion.’ 
 
 Elsner 
 compares, not inappropriately, Tsoer. 
 Demon. p. 6, ἃ ποιεῖν αἰσχρόν, ταῦτα 
 νόμιζε μηδὲ λέγειν εἶναι κάλον. 
 
 13. τὰ δὲ πάντα] ‘ But all of them,’ 
 
 ‘they all’ ots 
 
 nia] Syr.-Phil.; continuation of the rea- 
 son for the command μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ 
 éAéyx-., — with antithetical reference to 
 
 σι [illa om- 
 
 the κρυφῆ γινόμενα, δὲ retaining its 
 proper force in the opposition it suggests 
 to any inference that might have been 
 deduced from ver. 12; ‘it is true these 
 deeds are done in secret, but all of 
 them, ete. ;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
 363, 365. Τὰ πάντα is not ‘all things,’ 
 taken generally (Riick., Alf.), but, as 
 the antithesis between κρυφῆ and φανερ. 
 (compare Mark iy. 22) clearly suggests, 
 ‘all the κρυφῆ γινόμ.,᾽ “haud dubie quin 
 ea quie occulte fiunt,’ Hieron.; so rightly 
 De W. and Meyer in loc. 
 
 χόμενα) 
 -πϑῶξος ἐξ [dum redarguuntur] 
 
 Syr.-Phil.; predication of manner or 
 perhaps rather of time appended to τὰ 
 The absence of the art. before 
 ἐλεγχ. distinctly precludes the transla- 
 tion ‘que arguuntur’ (Clarom., Vulg., 
 Auth., — comp. Copt.), and shows that 
 the participle is not an epithet but a 
 secondary predicate ; see Scholef. Hints, 
 p- 108. ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανε- 
 ροῦται] ‘are made manifest by light.’ It 
 is somewhat difficult to decide whether 
 these words are to be connected with the 
 part. (Svr., Copt.), or with the finite 
 verb (Aith., Syr.-Phil., — appy.); a con- 
 nection with both (Scholef, comp. Stier) 
 is an evasion, but not an explanation, 
 of the difficulties. The following posi- 
 tions will perhaps serve to narrow the 
 discussion. (a) ’EAeyxéueva, both in 
 tense as well as meaning (contr. Hamm., 
 Peile), must stand in closest reference to 
 ἐλέγχετε; it may still be said, however, 
 that the secondary meaning of the word 
 (compare Clem. Al. Protrept. 11. p. 19, 
 ἐλέγχει τὸν Ἴακχον τὸ φῶς) may have 
 suggested the metaphorical language 
 which follows. (b) Φῶς (φάος, φανερός) 
 and gavepéw are closely allied terms ; 
 the one so obviously explains. elucidates, 
 and implies the other, that the connec- 
 
 ἐλεγ- 
 
 ‘when they are reproved’ 
 
 J 
 TAVTQ. 
 
@uxr. Υ. 14. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 125 
 
 A Ν la) A \ \ 7, -“ ’ 
 
 τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται: πᾶν yap τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστιν' 
 
 14 ς / ΕΣ « 7 ἐν >’ / 4 an rn \ 
 διὸ λέγει "Hyeipe ὁ καϑεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ 
 
 ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. 
 
 tion of the two in the same clause seems 
 in a high degree natural and probable. 
 (c) Φῶς must have the same meaning in 
 both clauses ; if simply metaphorical in 
 the latter clause, then also simply meta- 
 phorical (not ethical, as in τέκνα φωτός) 
 in the former. (d) The voice of φανε- 
 péw must be the same in both clauses, 
 and is certainly passive ; the verb occurs 
 nearly fifty times in the N. T., and never 
 in a middle sense ; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 
 6, p. 231. Applying these premises, 
 it seems clear that if we adopt the first- 
 mentioned connection, ἐλεγχ. ὑπὸ φωτ. 
 (Chrys , al.), conditions (a) and (c) can- 
 not be fully satisfied; for either éAeyx. 
 must be taken as nearly synonymous 
 with φανερ. (De W.), or φῶς must have 
 an ethical reference (‘lux yerbi,’ Croc.) 
 in the former clause, which it can 
 scarcely bear in the latter; and further, 
 ἐλεγχόμ. will thus have a specification 
 attached to it, which is not in harmony 
 with ver. 12, where the act alone is 
 enjoined without any special concomitant 
 mention of the agent. It would thus 
 seem to be almost certain that ὑπὸ φωτός 
 must be joined with φανεροῦται, which it 
 somewhat emphatically precedes. We 
 translate then, in accordance with (a), 
 (5), (6), (d), as follows: ‘but all things 
 (though so κρυφῆ yw.) when reproved are 
 made manifest by the light (thus shed 
 upon them), for everything that is made 
 manifest is light (becomes daylight, is of 
 the nature of light); compare Scholef. 
 l. c., and Wordsw. in loc. In a word, 
 the reasoning depends on the logical 
 proposition which Meyer has adduced, — 
 “quod est in effectu (φῶς ἐστί), id debet 
 esse in causa (ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός). 
 
 That this φανέρωσις, however, does not 
 necessarily imply or involve a ‘ mutatio 
 in melius’ (Jerome, comp. Wordsw.), 
 
 seems clear from (6). All that is as- 
 serted is, that ‘whatever is illumined is 
 light ;’ whether that tend to condemna- 
 tion or the contrary, depends upon the 
 nature of the case, and the inward opera- 
 tion of the outwardly illuminating influ- 
 ence ; see Alf. in loc. 
 
 14. διό] ‘On which account ;’ since 
 this ἔλεγξις is so urgent and necessary a 
 duty, and its nature such as described. 
 On the use of διό, see notes on Gal. iv. 
 51 λέγει] ‘He saith;’ scil. 6 
 Θεός, according to the usual form of St. 
 Paul’s quotations ; see notes on ch. iv. 
 8, and on Gal. iii.16. The words here 
 quoted are not found exactly in the 
 same form in the O. T., but certainly 
 occur in substance in Isaiah Ix. 1 sq. 
 Meyer represents it as a quotation from 
 an apocryphal writing which the Apostle 
 introduces by a lapse of memory; De 
 W., as an application from a passage in 
 the O. T., which he had so constantly 
 used as at last to mistake for the original 
 text. Alii alia. It seems much more 
 reverent, as well as much more satisfac- 
 tory, to say that St. Paul, speaking 
 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
 is expressing, in a condensed and sum- 
 mary form, the spiritual meaning of the 
 passage. The prophet’s immediate words 
 supply, in substance, the first part of the 
 quotation, FNS Sa 7D “HAN MExp; the 
 concluding part is the spiritual applica- 
 tion of the remainder of the verse, viz. 
 mat 779 mine thas, and of the gen- 
 eral tenor of the prophecy; see esp. ver. 
 19, and comp. Surenhus, BiBA. Καταλλ. 
 p- 588. Any attempt to explain λέγει 
 impersonally (‘one may say,’ Bornem. 
 Schol. in Luc. p. xuvi11.) is not only 
 opposed to St. Paul’s constant use of 
 λέγει, but is grammatically unsupported : 
 φησὶ (compare Lat. ‘inquit’) is so used 
 
120 
 
 Walk strictly: avoid ex- 
 cess, but be filled with the 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Car. V. 15: 
 
 © Βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε, μὴ 
 
 Spirit; sing psalms outwardly with your lips, and make melody with thankfulness in your hearts within. 
 
 especially in later writers, but no in- 
 stances have been adduced of a similar 
 use of λέγει : comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 
 X11. 4, p. 419. ἔγειρε] ‘Awake,’ 
 ‘Up!’ This expression is now generally 
 correctly explained : it is not an instance 
 of an ‘act. pro medio’ (Porson, Eurip. 
 Orest. 288), or of an ellipsis of σεαυτόν, 
 but simply a ‘formula excitandi ;’ con- 
 sult the excellent note of Fritz. Mark ii. 
 9, p. 55. The reading of the Rec. ἔγει- 
 pat, found only in some cursive mss., is 
 undoubtedly a correction, and is rejected 
 by all the best editors. ἀν ἀστα) 
 This shortened form occurs 
 Acts xii. 7, and may be compared with 
 κατάβα (Lec.), Mark xv. 30, ἀνάβα, Rev. 
 ive seseesWiner, .GneSl4s Ips ϑὲ 
 ‘and Christ shall 
 shine upon thee,’ — obviously ποῦν ἴῃ the 
 derivative sense, ‘ Christus tibi propitius 
 erit’ (Bretsch.), but simply, ‘illucescet 
 tanquam sol’ (Beng.), ‘per gratiam te 
 illuminabit’ (Est.): ὅταν οὖν ἐγερϑῆ τις 
 
 ‘arise.’ 
 
 καὶ ἐπιφαύσ ει 
 
 On 
 
 > = c ἢ 4 >, , ter 
 ἀπὸ TNS ALAPT LAS, TOTE ἐπιφαύσει QuT@ 
 
 On 
 
 Χριστός, τουτέστιν, ἐπιλάμψει ὥσπερ καὶ 
 ἥλιος τοῖς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερϑεῖσιν, Theoph. 
 
 15. βλέπετε οὖν] ‘Take heed then;’ 
 resumption of the preceding exhortations 
 (ver. 8) after the digression caused by 
 the latter part of ver. 11. It is quite 
 unnecessary to attempt to connect closely 
 this with the preceding verse (Harless, 
 Eadie) ; this resumptive use of ody being 
 by no means of rare occurrence (see 
 Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, notes on 
 Gal. iii. 5), and indeed involved in the 
 nature of the particle, which nearly al- 
 ways implies retrospective reference rather 
 than direct inference ; see Donalds. Gr. 
 § 548. 31, p. 571. It is scarcely neces- 
 sary to add that βλέπετε has no reference 
 whatever to the φῶς previously alluded 
 to (comp. Est.), but simply implies 
 ‘take heed ;’ see 1 Cor. xvi. 10, Col. 
 
 iv. 17, and notes in oc. πῶς ἀκ- 
 
 ριβῶς περιπατεῖτε ‘how ye walk 
 exactly, or, with strictness,’ scil. ‘quomodo 
 illud efficiatis ut provide vivatis? (πῶς τὸ 
 ἀκριβῶς ἐργάζεσϑε), Fritz. Fritz. Opuse. 
 p- 208, 209, note, — where this passage 
 is carefully investigated ; see also Winer, 
 Gr. § 41. 4. c. obs. p. 268, who has long 
 since given up the assumption that the 
 text is an abbreviated expression for 
 βλέπετε οὖν πῶς περιπατεῖτε, δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς 
 ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν, though still referred 
 to by Meyer (ed. 2, 1853), as retaining 
 it. Thus then the indic. is not used for 
 the subj. (Grot.), which (if an admissible 
 structure) would be ‘ quomodo provide 
 vivere possitis,’ nor for the future, which 
 would be ‘quomodo provide vitam sitis 
 acturi,’ but simply calls attention to that 
 in which τὸ ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν finds its 
 present manifestation, and which is spe- 
 cified more precisely in the clause which 
 follows. As περιπ. appy. here implies 
 little more than (jy (see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 
 13, Vol. 111. p. 141, comp. notes on ver. 
 8), there is no necessity to depart from 
 the literal meaning of ἀκριβῶς, --- not 
 ‘eaute,’ Vulg., Syr., still less, ‘ without 
 stumbling,’ Conyb., but ‘ eaactly,’ ‘ accu- 
 rate,’ Beza, ‘tanquam ad regulam et 
 amussim,’ Fritz. Opuse. 1. c.; see Nean- 
 der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 486 (Bohn). 
 
 μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι κ. τ. λ.] ‘to wit, not as 
 ” more exact specifi- 
 cation of the terms of the preceding 
 clause. It is thus not necessary to sup- 
 ply either περιπατοῦντες to this clause 
 (Harl.), or περιπατῆτε to its second mem- 
 ber (as, in effect, Fritz., ‘sed ut homines 
 sapientes [vitam instituatis ’], /oc. cit., p. 
 209): the clause is simply dependent on 
 περιπατεῖτε, explaining first on the neg- 
 ative, and then on the affirmative side 
 the foregoing adverbs; both the strict- 
 ness of their walk and the way in which 
 that strictness was to be shown were to 
 reflect the spirit of wise men and not of 
 
 unwise but as wise; 
 
Cuap. V. 16, 17. 
 
 ὡς ἄσοφοι adr ὡς σοφοί, 
 αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν. 
 
 fools: comp. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 63, 
 where similar positions of the neg. 
 clause are incidentally cited. 
 
 16. ἐξαγοραζόμενοι και- 
 ρόν] ‘buying up for yourselves (making 
 your own) the opportunity, the fitting sea- 
 son;’ part. of manner exemplifying the 
 wise spirit of action specified in the fore- 
 going member. This expression occurs 
 twice in the N. T.; here with, and in 
 Col. iv. 5, without an appended causal 
 sentence ; compare also Dan. ii. 8, καιρὸν 
 
 τὸν 
 
 ἐξαγοράζετε (appy. ‘hance opportunitatem 
 capiatis,’ see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 780, 
 not ‘dilationem quzritis,’ Schleusn.). 
 The numerous, and, in most cases, arti- 
 ficial explanations of this passage arise 
 from the attempts to specify (a) those 
 from whom (‘mali homines,’ Beng., 
 ‘Diabolus,’ Calv., ete.) the καιρὸς is to 
 be purchased, or (Ὁ) the price (all worldly 
 things, τὰ πάντα, Chrys., Theophyl., 
 Schrader) paid for it; both of which are 
 left wholly undefined. The force of ex 
 does not appear intensive (Mey., comp. 
 Plutarch, Crass. § 2), or simply latent (a 
 Lap.), but directs the thoughts to the un- 
 defined time or circumstances out of 
 which, in each particular case, the καιρὸς 
 was to be bought ; comp. Gal. iii. 13, iv. 
 5, where however the meaning is more 
 special, and the reference of the preposi- 
 tion better defined by the context. The 
 expression then seems simply to denote 
 that we are to make a wise use of cir- 
 cumstances for our own good or that of 
 others, and, as it were, like prudent mer- 
 chants (comp. Beza, Corn. a Lap.) to 
 ‘by up the fitting season’ for so doing ; 
 ‘diligenter observare tempus, ut id tuum 
 facias, eique ut dominus imperes,’ Tittm. 
 Synon. p. 42; so Sever. (ap. Cram. 
 Caten.), and in effect Origen (ib.), 
 though he has too much mixed up the 
 ideas of a right purchase of the time and 
 
 16 
 
 EPHESIANS. 127 
 
 od 
 
 3 , \ , cA 
 ἐξαγοραζόμενοιν τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι 
 
 " διὰ τοῦτο μὴ γίνεσϑε ἄφρονες, ἀλλὰ 
 
 aright expenditure of it. For sermons 
 on this text see August. Serm. CLXVIII. 
 Vol. v. p. 909 sq. (ed Migne). 
 τὸν καιρόν) ‘the opportunity;’ not 
 ‘hoc tempus, scil. tempus breve quod 
 restat huic zvo,’ Bretsch. (Sever. 6 και- 
 pos ὁ παρών, comp. Stier), but, as rightly 
 explained by Cornel. a Lap., ‘ occasio- 
 nem et opportunitatem 501]. mercandi.’ 
 On the use of καιρὸς (‘tempus, seu 
 punctum temporis opportunum ᾽) and its 
 distinction from αἰών, χρόνος, and ὥρα, 
 see Tittm. Synon. p. 39 sq. TOV η- 
 pat} ‘evil, in a moral sense (Gal. 1.4), 
 not ‘difficultatum et asperitatis plena,’ 
 Beza (comp. Gen. xlvii. 9), which would 
 introduce an idea foreign to the context. 
 Christians are bidden to walk ἀκριβῶς, 
 and to seize every opportunity, because 
 ‘the days’ (of their life, ©~7n, or of the 
 period in which they lived) were marked 
 by so much moral evil and iniquity ; 
 ἐπεὶ οὖν 6 καιρὸς δουλεύει τοῖς πονηροῖς, 
 ἐξαγοράσασϑε αὐτόν, ὥστε καταχρήσασϑαι 
 αὐτῷ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, Sever. ap. Cram. 
 Caten. 
 
 17. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause;’ 
 commonly referred to the clause immedi- 
 ately preceding, ἐπειδὴ 7 πονηρία ἀνϑεῖ, 
 C&cum., Theophyl. (so De W., Olsh.), 
 but far more probably (see Mey.) to ver. 
 15, 16, — ‘for this cause, sc. because ye 
 ought to walk with such exactness ;’ εἰ 
 γὰρ ἔσεσϑε ἄφρονες ἀκριβῶς ov περιπατή- 
 σετε, Schol. ap. Cram, Caten. 
 συνιέντ ε5] ‘understanding ;’ ‘plus est 
 συνιέναι Quam γινώσκειν, ut apparet ex 
 hoe loco cum Lue. xii. 47; γινώσκειν 
 est nosse, συνιέναι attente expendere,’ Grot. 
 (Pol. Syn.). The reading is slightly 
 doubtful. Zachm. reads συνίετε with 
 AB; 6 mss.; Chrys. (ms.), but on ex- 
 ternal evidence inferior to that for the 
 participle [συνιέντες, ΒΕ ΚΙ, (συνίοντες, 
 D'FG, Alf.) ; nearly all mss.; Clarom., 
 
128 
 
 συνιέντες τί τὸ ϑδέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 18, 19, 
 
 Ν 
 8 καὶ μὴ μεδύσκεσϑε οἴνῳ, 
 
 ks AN n la 
 ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσδε ἐν Πνεύματι, ™ λαλοῦντες 
 
 Vulg., Goth., Syr-Phil., al., and many 
 ἘΠῚ, and in the face of the high proba- 
 bility that the imper. is due to a confor- 
 mation to ver. 18. appoves| 
 ‘unwise,’ “ἄφρων est qui 
 mente non recte utitur,’ Tittm. Synon. 
 p 148,—where the distinction between 
 this word, νήπιος, ἀμόητος, and ἀσύνετος 
 is investigated; but see notes on Gal. 
 rin 1. 
 
 18. kal μὴ μεϑύσκ.Ὶ ‘And be not 
 made drunk with wine ;’ specification of a 
 particular instance ; καὶ being here used 
 to append the special to the general: on 
 this and on the converse use, see notes 
 on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. the good note 
 of Fritz. Mark i. 5, p. 11. ἐν ᾧ] 
 ‘wherein,’ Auth.; referring not simply 
 to οἶνος (Schoettg.), but to μεϑύσκεσϑαι 
 οἴνῳ, scil., ‘in inebriatione,’ Beza; so 
 rightly Orig. 1, ap. Cram. Cat. 
 ἀσωτία] ‘dissoluteness, Hamm., ‘lux- 
 uria,’ Vulg., Clarom.; not inappropri- 
 ately Goth., ‘usstiurei’ [unyokedness] ; 
 
 “ senseless ;” 
 
 Tous ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανη- 
 ροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν, Arist. Ethic. Nic. 
 Iv. 1; comp. Cic. de Fin. 11. 8. ~Aow- 
 τος (o@(w) appears to have two mean- 
 ings, the rarer, ‘qui servari non potest,’ 
 a meaning which Clem. Alex. (Pedag. 
 11. 2, p. 184, ed. Pott.) applies to this 
 place, τὸ ἄσωστον τῆς μέϑης διὰ τῆς ἄσω- 
 τίας αἰνιξάμενος, ---- Πα the more com- 
 mon, ‘qui servare nequit ;’ see Trench, 
 Synon. § xvi. The latter meaning 
 passes naturally into that of ‘ dissolute- 
 ness,’ the only sense in which ἀσωτία and 
 ἀσώτως are used in the N. T., 6. g., Luke 
 XV Ss alittle, 6.0), Pet. ἂν. ἀρ the 
 substantive is found Proy. xxviii. 7 
 (Trench), to which add 2 Mace, iv. 6, 
 where it is joined with κῶμοι ; see also 
 Tittm. Synon. p. 152 
 ματι] ‘with the Spirit ;’ ἐν being appy. 
 primarily, though not exclusively, ¢stru- 
 
 ἐν Πνεύ- 
 
 mental (Vulg., Arm.; see Origen ap. 
 Cram. Cat.),— though an unusual con- 
 struction with mAnpéw; see however ch. 
 i. 23. Meyer cites also Phil. iv. 19, but 
 this is a doubtful instance ; still more so 
 are Col. ii. 10, iv. 12 (cited by Eadie 
 after Harl.), as in the first of these pas- 
 sages ἐν is obviously ‘in,’ and in the 
 second the reading is more than doubt- 
 ful; see notes im loc. There would 
 seem to haye been an intentional inclu- 
 siveness in the use of this prepp., as 
 Matthies (misrepresented by Eadie) sug- 
 gests; the Spirit is not the bare instru- 
 ment by which, but that ἐπ which and by 
 which the true Christian is fully filled. 
 Whether the passive πληροῦσϑε hints at 
 our ‘reluctant will’ (Mey.) seems doubt- 
 ful; there is no doubt, however, that the 
 opposition is not between οἶνος and 
 Πνεῦμα, but, as the order of the words 
 suggests, between the two states ex- 
 pressed by the two verbs. On the omis- 
 sion of the article (which is inserted in 
 FG), see notes on ch. ii. 22, and on Gal. 
 Views 
 
 19. λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς] ‘speak- 
 ing to one another ;’ —not ‘to yourselves,’ 
 Auth.; ἑαυτοῖς being used for ἀλλήλοις, 
 as in ch. iv. 82; comp. Col. iii. 16, and 
 see Jelf, Gr. § 654. 2. Scholefield 
 (JZints, p. 103) and, before him, Bull 
 (Prim. Trad. 1. 12), compare the well- 
 known quotation, ‘carmen Christo quasi 
 Deo dicere secum invicem,’ Pliny, Epist. 
 x. 97. Whether the reference is here to 
 social meetings (compare Clem. Alex. 
 Peedag. τι. 4, p. 194, Pott.}, or expressly 
 to religious service (Olsh.), or, more 
 probably, to both, can hardly be deter- 
 mined from the context. ψαλ- 
 μοῖς K. τ. λ.] ‘with psalms and hymns 
 and spiritual songs.’ The distinctions 
 between these words have been some- 
 what differently estimated. Olsh. and 
 
Cuap. V. 20. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 129 
 
 e a a δι Ψ \ ? a a ” \ 
 ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς Kal ὕμνοις Kal ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ἄδοντες καὶ 
 
 ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, 
 
 Stier would confine ψαλμ. to the Psalms 
 of the Old Test., ὕμνος to any Christian 
 song of praise ; this does not seem borne 
 out by 1 Cor. xiv. 26 (see Alford), com- 
 pare James ν. 13. Harless refers the 
 former to the Jewish, the latter to Gen- 
 tile Christians; Orig. (Cram. Cat.) still 
 more arbitrarily defines the ψαλμ. as 
 περὶ τῶν πρακτέων, the gd) as περὶ τῆς 
 τοῦ κόσμου τάξεως καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν δημιουρ- 
 γημάτων. In a passage so general as 
 the present, no such rigorous distinctions 
 seem called for; ψαλμὸ 5 most proba- 
 bly, as Meyer suggests, denotes a sacred 
 song of a character similar to that of 
 the Psalms (ὁ ψαλμὸς ἐμμελής ἐστιν εὐλο- 
 γία καὶ σώφρων, Clem. Alex. Peedag. τι. 
 4, p. 194); ὕμνος, a song more espe- 
 cially of praise, whether to Christ (ver. 
 19), or God (ver. 20; comp. Acts xvi. 
 25, Heb. ii. 12); ᾧ δή, a definition gen- 
 erally of the genus to which all such 
 compositions belonged (ὠδὴν πνευματι- 
 κὴν ὃ ᾿Απόστολος εἴρηκε τὸν ψαλμόν, 
 Clem. Alex. 1. 6.). To this last the epi- 
 thet πνευματικαῖς is added,—sec. not 
 merely, ‘of religious import,’ Olshaus. 
 (‘sancta,’ /Zth.), but in accordance with 
 the last clause of ver. 18, ‘such as the 
 Holy Spirit inspired and gave utterance 
 to;’ ψάλλοντες γὰρ Πνεύμ. πληροῦνται 
 ἁγίου, Chrys. Much more curious 
 information will be found in the article 
 ‘Hymni a Christianis decantandi,’ in 
 Deyling, Obs. No. 44, Vol. 111. p 430 
 sq.; for authorities, see Fabricius, Bib- 
 liogr. Antig. x1. 18, and for specimens 
 of ancient ὕμνοι, ib. Bibl. Greca, Book 
 v. 1. 24. Lachm. inserts ἐν in 
 brackets before ψαλμοῖς, but on authority 
 [B; 5 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg., 
 Goth., al; Chrys.] nearly the same and 
 apparently equally insufficient with that 
 [B; Clarom., Sangerm.; Ambrst. ed.] 
 on which he (so Alford) similarly en- 
 
 © » fal 
 a εὐχαριστοῦντες Trav- 
 
 closes the scarcely doubtful πνευματικαῖς. 
 ἄδοντες καὶ WddrAdAovres]| ‘singing 
 and making melody in your heart ;’ parti- 
 cipial clause, codrdinate with (Mey.), not 
 subordinate to (so as to specify the moral 
 quality of the psalmody, μετὰ συνέσεως, 
 Chrys.) the foregoing λαλοῦντες κ. τ. A. 
 Harl. very clearly shows that ἐν τῇ καρ- 
 dia, without ὑμῶν, could not indicate any 
 antithesis between the heart and lips, 
 much less any qualitative definition, — 
 ‘without lip-service’ (compare Theod., 
 Eadie), or ‘heartily,’ like ἐκ τῆς καρδίας 
 (κατὰ τὴν καρδ. CEcum.), but that simply 
 another kind of psalmody is mentioned, 
 that of the inward heart; ‘canentes 
 intus in animis et cordibus vestris, Bul- 
 ling. (cited by Harl.). 
 ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, though fairly supported 
 [Lachmann with ADEFG; mss.; Cla- 
 rom., Vulg., Syr., Goth., Copt., Syr.- 
 Phil. in marg.; Bas., Chrys. (2), al.] is 
 still properly rejected by Tisch., al. as an 
 emendation of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ [B (omits ἐν) 
 KL; nearly all mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., 
 Theod., al.] derived from Col. iii. 16. 
 
 20. “giving 
 thanks always ;’ third and more compre- 
 hensive participial member, specifying 
 the great Christian accompaniment of 
 this and of all their acts (ch. v. 4, Phil. 
 iv. 6, Col. iv. 2, see notes), and prepar- 
 ing the way for the further duty ex- 
 pressed in yer. 21. It would thus appear 
 that the imperative wAnp. ἐν TIv. has four 
 participial clauses appended, two of 
 which specify more particular, and the 
 third a more pervading manifestation of 
 the fruits of the Holy Spirit, viz. ᾧδαὶ 
 χειλέων (Ecclus. xxxix. 15), δαὶ ἐν τῇ 
 καρδίᾳ, and εὐχαριστία, while the fourth, 
 brotaco. passes onward to another form 
 of Christian duty; see notes ver. 21, 
 and for two good sermons on this text, 
 Barrow, Sern. vi11., 1x. Vol. 1., p. 179 
 
 17 
 
 The reading 
 
 εὐχαριστ. πάντ.] 
 
130 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 21, 22. 
 
 ig \ / 5 > 4 a ' e A 3 ἴω ἴω 
 TOTE ὑπὲρ πάντων EV ονόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 
 τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί, 
 
 Wives be subject to your 
 husbands as the Church is 
 to Christ. 
 union of Christ and the Church. 
 
 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἔν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ. 
 22 e a lal γὼ > ὃ / . lal 
 Ai γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ 
 
 Husbands love your wives as Christ loved His Church. Marriage is a type of the mystical 
 
 22. ἀνδράσιν] Tisch. has, with good judgment, rejected the addition of ὑποτάσ- 
 ceoXe, —whether after γυναῖκες with DEFG ; Lect.19; Vulg., al., or after ἀνδράσιν, 
 
 sq. ὑπὲρ πάντων] ‘for all things,’ 
 Auth. ; not masc., se. ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν 
 τῆς εὐεργεσίας μετειληχότων, Theodoret. 
 Meyer needlessly limits the πάντα to 
 blessings ; surely it is better to say, with 
 Theophyl., οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀγαϑῶν μόνον, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν λυπηρῶν, καὶ ὧν ἴσμεν, καὶ 
 ὧν οὐκ ἴσμεν, καὶ γὰρ διὰ πάντων εὐεργε- 
 τούμεϑδα κἂν ἀγνοῶμεν. Numerous in- 
 stances of similar cumulation and παρή- 
 xnois are cited by Lobeck, Paralipom. 
 p. 56, 57. ἐν τῷ Ovdmuaril ‘in 
 the name ;’ obviously not ‘ad honorem’ 
 (Flatt.), nor even ‘per nomen,’ scil. ‘per 
 Christum’ (a Lap.), but ‘in nomine,’ 
 Clarom , Vulg., Copt., al.: the name of 
 Christ is that general and holy element, 
 as it were, in which everything (as Harl. 
 forcibly remarks) is to be received, to be 
 enjoined, to be done, and to be suffered ; 
 see Col. iii. 17. The context will always 
 indicate the precise nature of the appli- 
 cation; see the exx. cited by Alf. zn oc. 
 τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί] ‘to God and the 
 Father ;’ see notes on ch.i.3, and on 
 Gal.i.4. The most appy. suitable mode 
 of translating this special and august 
 title is noticed in notes to Transl. of Gal. 
 p- 146 (ed. 2). 
 
 21. ὑποτασσόμενοι 
 
 ¢ 
 
 ) 
 
 GAANA.| 
 ‘submitting yourselves to one another ;’ not 
 for the finite verb (Flatt.; see contra 
 Hermann, Viger, No. 227, Winer, Gr. ὃ 
 45.6, p. 314), but a fourth participial 
 clause appended to mAnpotode. The 
 first three name three duties, more or 
 less special, in regard to God, the last a 
 comprehensive moral duty in regard to 
 man, which seems to have been sug- 
 
 gested by the remembrance of the hum- 
 ble and loving spirit, which is the mov- 
 ing principle of εὐχαριστία. In the fol- 
 lowing paragraph, and under a somewhat 
 similar form (ὑπακοή), in v. 1 sq. and vi. 
 5 sq., this general duty is inculcated in 
 particular instances: ἐπειδὴ κοινὴν τὴν 
 περὶ τῆς ὑποταγῆς νομοϑεσίαν προσήνεγκε 
 κατ᾽ εἶδος, λοιπὸν παραινεῖ τὰ κατάλληλα, 
 Theod. On the distinction between ὕπο- 
 taco. (sponte) and πειϑαρχεῖν (coactus), 
 see Tittm. Synon. Part τι. p. 3. It 
 must be admitted that there is some diffi- 
 culty in the connection between this and 
 the foregoing participial member. We 
 can, however, hardly refer the clause to 
 the remote μὴ μεϑύσκ. (‘don’t bluster, 
 .. . but be subject,’ Eadie, Alf.), but 
 may reasonably retain the connection in- 
 dicated above, the exact connecting link 
 being perhaps the ὑπὲρ πάντων ; ‘ thank- 
 ing God for all things (joys — yea sor- 
 rows, submitting yourselves to Him, yea), 
 submitting yourselves to one another :’ 
 compare Chrys., iva πάντων κρατῶμεν 
 τῶν παδῶν, ἵνα τῷ Θεῷ δουλεύωμεν, ἵνα 
 τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπην διασώζωμεν. 
 ἐν φόβῳ Χρ.] ‘in the fear of Christ ;’ 
 the prevailing feeling and sentiment ἐπ 
 which ὑποταγὴ is to be exhibited; ‘ex 
 [in] timore Christi; quia scilicet Chris- 
 tum reveremur, eumque timemus offend- 
 ere,’ Corn. a Lap. The reading 
 Θεοῦ (Rec.) is only supported by cursive 
 mss., Clem., and Theod., and is rightly 
 rejected by nearly all modern editors. 
 
 22. af yuvatnes| ‘Wives, —sc. be 
 subject ;’ first of the three great ex- 
 emplifications (husbands and wives, — 
 
Guar. V. 23. EPHESIANS. 133 
 
 Ὁ 
 / Ὁ >) A 
 Κυρίῳ, “ ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς 
 
 with KL; very many Vv.; Chrys., al. (Rec., Scholz), though supported in the 
 omission only by B, all Gr. MSS. used by Jerome, and Clem. (Harl., Mey. De W.), 
 Lachm. inserts ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν after ἀνδράσιν with A; 10 mss.; Vulg., Copt., 
 Goth. ; Clem. (1), Bas., al. ; the variations, however, and still more the absence of 
 the word in the MSS. mentioned by Jerome, render it in a very high degree prob- 
 
 able that the original text had no verb in the sentence. 
 
 parents and children, ch. vi. 1 sq.,— 
 masters and servants, ch. vi. 4 sq.) 
 of the duty of subjection previously 
 specified. A verb can easily and obvi- 
 -ously be supplied from the preceding 
 verse, — either ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν (Lachm.), 
 or more probably, as the imper. in ver. 
 25 and Col. iii. 18 suggests, ὑποτάσσεσϑε 
 (Ree.). τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν) 
 “your own husbands:’ those specially 
 yours, whom feeling therefore as well as 
 duty must prompt you to obey; comp. 
 1 Pet. iii. 1. The pronominal adject. 
 ἰδίοις is clearly more than a mere possess. 
 pronoun (De W.), or, what is virtually 
 the same, than a formal designation of 
 the husband, ‘der Ehemann’ (Harl., 
 Winer), for St. Paul might have equally 
 well used τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, as in Col. iii. 18. 
 It seems rather, both here and 1 Pet. iii. 
 1, to retain its proper force, and imply, 
 by a latent antithesis, the legitimacy 
 (comp. John iv. 18), exclusiveness (1 Cor. 
 vil. 2), and speciality (1 Cor. xiv. 35) of 
 the connection ; see esp. 1 Esd. iv. 20, 
 ἐγκαταλείπει τὴν ἰδ. χώραν καὶ πρὸς τὴν 
 ἰδ. γυναῖκα κολλᾶται. We may also ad- 
 duce against Harl. his own quotation, 
 Stobeeus, Floril. p. 22, Θεανῶ --- ἐρωτη- 
 Seioa, τί πρῶτον εἴη γυναικί, τὸ τῷ ἰδίῳ, 
 ἔφη, ἀρέσκειν ἀνδρί; clearly ‘her own 
 husband, — no one except in that proper 
 and special relationship.’ It may still 
 be remarked that the use of ἴδιος in later 
 writers is such as to make us cautious 
 how far in all cases in the N. T. (see 
 Matth. xxii. 5, John i. 42) we press the 
 usual meaning; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 22, 7, 
 Ῥ. 139, and notes on ch. iv. 28. 
 
 ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ] ‘as tothe Lord;’ clearly 
 not ‘as to the lord and master,’ which 
 perspicuity would require to be τοῖς κυρί- 
 ois, but, — to Christ ; ‘ vir Christi imago,’ 
 Grot. ; καλὸν τῇ γυναικὶ Χριστὸν αἰδεῖσϑαι 
 διὰ τοῦ ἀνδρός, Greg.-Naz. The mean- 
 ing of ὡς is somewhat doubtful. Viewed 
 in its simplest grammatical sense as the 
 pronoun of the relative (Klotz, Devar. 
 Vol. 11. p. 737), the meaning would seem 
 to be ‘yield that obedience to your hus- 
 bands which you yield to Christ ;’ comp. 
 Beng. As, however, the immediate con- 
 text and, still more, the general current 
 of the passage (comp. ver. 32) represent 
 matriage in its typical aspect, ὡς will 
 seem far more naturally to refer (as in 
 ch. vi. 5, 6, comp. Col. iii. 23) to the as- 
 pect under which the obedience is to be 
 regarded (‘quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus 
 locum et personam viri representant,’ 
 Corn. a Lap.) than to describe the nature 
 of it (Eadie), or the manner (De W.) in 
 which it is to be tendered ; see notes on 
 Col. iii. 23. Still less probable is a refer- 
 ence merely to the similarity between the 
 duties of the wife to the husband and the 
 Church to Christ (Kop., comp. Eadie), as 
 this interpr. would clearly require ὡς 7 
 ἐκκλ. τῷ Kup.; see Mey. It is thus well 
 and briefly paraphrased by Chrys., ὅταν 
 ὑπείκῃς τῷ ἀνδρί, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύουσα 
 ἡγοῦ πείϑεσϑαι (Sav ): see also Greg.- 
 Naz. Orat. xxx1. p. 500 (ed Morell.). 
 23. av hp) ‘a husband.’ The omission 
 of the article [with all the uncial MSS., 
 and nearly all modern editors] does not 
 affect the meaning of the proposition, 
 but only modifies the form in which it is 
 
182 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 24. 
 
 κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ TOD σώματος. ™ ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἡ 
 
 expressed ; 6 ἀνὴρ would be ‘the hus- 
 band,’ ὦ. e. ‘every husband’ (see notes 
 on Gal. iii. 20) ; ἀνὴρ is ‘a husband,’ z. e. 
 any one of the class; comp. Winer, Gr. 
 § 19.1, p. 111; γυνή, on the contrary, 
 has properly the article as marking the 
 definite relation it bears to the ἀνήρ (‘his 
 wife’), on which the general proposition 
 is based. ὡς καὶ 6 Xp. x. τ. A] 
 ‘as Christ also is head — of the Church ;’ 
 the ‘being head’ is common to both ἀνὴρ 
 and Xp.; the bodies, to which they are 
 so, are different. In sentences thus com- 
 posed of correlative members, when the 
 enunciation assumes its most complete 
 form, καὶ appears in both members, 6. 9. 
 Rom. i. 13; comp. Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 
 1. 1. 6. Frequently it appears only in 
 the demonstrative, or, as here, only in 
 the relative member ; see Hartung, Par- 
 tik. ral, 2.2, Vol. i. p.126. In all these 
 cases, however, the particle καὶ preserves 
 its proper force. In the former case, 
 ‘per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem,’ a 
 double and reciprocal comparison is 
 instituted between the two words to each 
 of which καὶ is annexed ; see Fritz. Rom. 
 Vol. 1. p. 88; in the two latter cases a 
 single comparison only is enunciated 
 between the word qualified by καὶ and 
 some other, whether expressed or under- 
 stood; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, 
 and compare Winer, Gr. § 53. 5, p. 390, 
 who, however, on this construction is 
 not wholly satisfactory. auTos 
 σωτήρ) ‘He Himself is the saviour of 
 the body ;’ declaration, apparently with a 
 paronomasia (cwtip..... σώματοΞ), of 
 an important particular in which the 
 comparison did not hold; the clause not 
 being appositional (Harl.), but, as the 
 use of ἀλλὰ in the following verse seems 
 distinctly to suggest (see notes on ver. 
 24), independent and emphatic (Mey.) ; 
 ‘He — and, in this full sense, none other 
 than He—is the σωτὴρ of the body.’ 
 
 The reading καὶ αὐτός ἐστι | Rec. with 
 D?D°E?KL; majority of mss; Syr. 
 (both), Goth., al.; many Ff.] seems 
 clearly an explanatory gloss, and is 
 rightly rejected by nearly all recent 
 editors. 
 
 24. ἀλλά] ‘ Nevertheless.’ The ex- 
 planation of this particle is here by no 
 means easy. According to the usual 
 interpr. αὐτὸς κ. τ. A. (ver. 23) forms an 
 apposition to the preceding words, the 
 pronoun αὐτὸς (comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 
 vi. 10, p. 287) being inserted with a 
 rhetorical emphasis. The proof is then 
 introduced by ἀλλά, which, according to 
 De W., preserves its adversative charac- 
 ter in the fresh aspect under which it 
 presents the relation; ‘But as the 
 Church, ete.;’ see Winer, Gr. ὃ 57. 8, 
 p. 529. This is plausible, but, as Meyer 
 has ably shown, cannot be fairly recon- 
 ciled with the clear adversative force of 
 ἀλλά, ---- ‘aliud jam esse, de quo sumus 
 dicturi’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2); 
 δὲ or οὖν would have been appropriate ; 
 ἀλλὰ is wholly out of place. Riickert 
 and Harless explain it as resumptive 
 (Hartung, Partik. ἀλλά, 2. 7, Vol. 11. p. 
 40), but surely, after a digression of only 
 four words, this is inconceivable. Eadie 
 supposes an ellipsis, ‘be not disobedient, 
 etc.,’? an assumption here still more un- 
 tenable; as in all such uses of ἀλλά, 
 and in all those which he has adduced 
 (some of which, e. g. Rom. vi. 5, 2 Cor. 
 vii. 11, are not correctly explained) the el- 
 lipsis is simple, and almost self-evident ; 
 compare Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 7. 
 Amid this variety of interpretation, that 
 of Calv., Beng., Meyer, and recently 
 Alf. alone seems simple and satisfactory. 
 Αὐτὸς x. τ. A. is to be considered as 
 forming an independent clause ; it intro- 
 duces a particular peculiar only to Christ, 
 and therefore in the conclusion is fol- 
 lowed, not by οὖν or δέ, but by the fully 
 
Crap. V. 25, 26. EPHESIANS. 
 
 133° 
 ᾽ . ς , A a “ \ e A a 
 ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται TH Χριστῷ, οὕτως Kal ai γυναῖκες τοῖς 
 > ὃ / 3 / 95 Οἱ " ὃ > n \ r 
 ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. i ἄνδρες, ἀγωαπῶτε τὰς γυναῖκας 
 Φ n \ N a \ 3, , \ > ! Ἀν Ae \ 
 ἑαυτῶν, Kayws Kal ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Kal ἑαυτὸν 
 / ig \ > an %—% ὦ » {τ lal 
 παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, “ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ KaXapicas TO 
 
 25. τὰς γυναῖκας ἑαυτῶν] The reflexive pronoun was omitted in ed. 1, with AB ; 
 5 or 6 mss.; Clem., Origen, al. (Lachmann, Tisch.), but is apparently more rightly 
 inserted with DEKL (FG add ὑμῶν) ; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Mey., 
 Alf., Wordsw.), as the introduction is not easy to account for, and the omission 
 
 might have arisen from a conformation to the preceding verse. 
 
 adversative ἀλλά : ‘ He is the saviour of 
 the body (éhat certainly man is not), nev- 
 ertheless, as the Church is subject unto 
 Christ, so, etc.’ 
 to explain the σωτηρία in reference to 
 the other members of the comparison, 
 the husband and wife (comp. Bulling., 
 Beza, Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 115), 
 are all ferced and untenable. The 
 reading ὥσπερ for ὡς [Lec. with DE 
 KL; most mss.; Theod., Dam.] is 
 rightly rejected by most recent editors. 
 οὕτως καὶ κ. τ. λ.] ‘so let wives also 
 be (subject ) to their husbands in everything, 
 —scil. ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν, supplied from 
 the preceding member. The Aec. inserts 
 ἐδίοις before ἀνδράσιν with AD E?K ; 
 many mss., Vv. and Ff.,— but in opp. 
 to preponderant authority; BD!EIFG ; 
 2 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., al., and to 
 the internal objection that the word was 
 an interpolation in accordance with ver. 
 22. 
 
 25. οἱ ἄνδρες x. τ. A| ‘ Husbands 
 love your own wives ;’ statement of the 
 reciprocal duties of the husband ; ἄκουε 
 
 The various attempts 
 
 \ na I 5 1s > a Ska afi 
 καὶ πῶς σε TAAL ἀναγκά(ει ἀγαπαν αὐτὴν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ δεσποτικῶς προσφέρεσϑαι. ἀγάπα 
 
 ΄, Set 
 yap αὐτήν: ποίῳ μέτρῳ; ᾧ 
 
 » καὶ ὁ Xp. τὴν 
 ἐκκλησίαν. προνόει αὐτῆς, ὡς καὶ ὃ Χρ. 
 ἐκείνης: κἂν δέῃ τι παϑεῖν, κἂν ἀποϑανεῖν 
 δι αὐτήν, μὴ παραιτήσῃ, Theophyl. On 
 this and the two following verses, see a 
 good sermon by Donne, Serm. LXXxv. 
 Vol. 1v. p. 63 sq. (ed. Alf.). 
 
 καϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. A.| ‘even as Christ 
 
 also loved the Church and gave Himself 
 
 Jor it;’ nearly a repetition of the latter 
 part of ver. 2, where see the notes on 
 the different details. 
 
 26. ἵνα αὐτὴν ay.| ‘in order that 
 He might sanctify it ;’ immediate, not (as 
 De W.) remote purpose of the παραδιδό- 
 vat, — sanctification of the Church at- 
 tendant on the remission of sins in bap- 
 tism ; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 435 
 (Burt.), Taylor, Bapt. 1x. 17, Water- 
 land, Hucharist. 1x. 3, Vol. 1v. p. 645. 
 Both sanctification and purification are 
 dependent on the atoning death of 
 Christ, the former as an act contem- 
 plated by it, the latter as an act included 
 in it. There is thus no necessity to 
 modify the plain and natural meaning 
 of the verb; ayid¢. here neither implies 
 simple consecration (Eadie) on the one 
 hand, nor expiation, absolution (Matth.), 
 on the other, but the communication and 
 infusion of holiness and moral purity ; 
 see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 404, comp. 
 Suicer, Thesaur, 5. v. 11. a, Vol. p. 54. 
 Kasaptoas] ‘having purified it ;’ tem- 
 poral participle, here more naturally 
 denoting an act antecedent to ἁγιάσῃ 
 (Olsh., Mey.) than one contemporane- 
 ous with it, as appy. Syr., Vulg., al., 
 and, as it would seem, our own Version. 
 Eadie is far too hasty in imputing ‘error’ 
 to Harl. for maintaining the latter ; it is 
 clearly tenable on grammatical (see 
 Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, notes ch. 
 i. 9), but less probable on dogmatical 
 grounds ; compare 1 Cor. vi. 11, ἀλλὰ 
 
 ἀπελούσασϑε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσϑητε. τῷ 
 
184 
 λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, 
 
 λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατο 5] ‘by the [well- 
 known] laver of the water ;’ gen. ‘ma- 
 terix,’ Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 12, p. 82; comp. 
 Soph. Gd. Col. 1599. The reference to 
 baptism is clear and distinct (see Tit. iii. 
 5, and notes zn Joc.), and the meaning of 
 λοῦτρον (‘lavacrum,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
 
 Ἰδοῦ Syr., ‘ bvahla.’ Goth.) — indisput- 
 g¢@a 
 
 able: instances have been urged in be- 
 half of the active sense of λοῦτρον, 
 adopted by Auth. (and perhaps Copt., 
 /Eth.), — but in all that have yet been 
 adduced (Eeclus. xxxiv. 25 [30], τί ὠφέ- 
 λησεν τῷ λουτρῷ αὐτοῦ), the peculiar 
 force of the termination (instrumental 
 object; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 267, 
 Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 403) may 
 be distinctly traced: see exx. in Rost u. 
 Palm, Lex. 8. v. Vol. 11. Ὁ. 83, and comp. 
 Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 277. It 
 seems doubtful whether Olsh. is perfectly 
 correct in positively denying that there is 
 here any allusion to the bride’s bath be- 
 fore marriage (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
 226) ; see ver. 27, which, considered in 
 reference with the context, and compared 
 with Rey. xxi. 2, makes such an allusion 
 far from improbable. ἐν ῥήματι) 
 “ἴῃ the word,’ ‘in verbo,’ Clarom, Vulg., 
 Copt., Goth. There is great difficulty in 
 determining (1) the exact meaning, (2) 
 the grammatical connection of these words. 
 With regard to the former, we may first 
 remark that ῥῆμα occurs (excluding quo- 
 tations) five times in St. Paul’s Epp. and 
 four in Heb., and in all cases, directly 
 Rom. x. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, xi. 
 3) or indirectly (Rom. x. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 4, 
 Heb. i. 3, xii. 19) refers to words proceed- 
 ing ultimately or immediately from God. 
 The ancient and plausible reference to 
 the words used in baptism (Chrysost., 
 Waterl. Justif. Vol. v1. p.13) would thus, 
 independently of the omission of the arti- 
 cle, scarcely seem probable; see Estius 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 27. 
 
 οἵ Ὁ ΄ τϑν ε - 
 τ La παραστήσῃ AUTOS εαυὐτῷ 
 in loc. The same observation applies 
 
 with greater or less force to every interp. 
 except ‘the Gospel,’ τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίσ- 
 τεως, Rom. x. 8, the word of God 
 preached and taught preliminary to bap- 
 tism (comp. notes ch. i. 13); the omis- 
 sion of the article being either referred to 
 the presence of the prep. (Middleton, Gir. 
 Art. νι. 1), or, more probably, to the 
 fact that words of similarly definite im- 
 port (6. g. νόμος, χάρις, κ- τ. A-) are fre- 
 quently found anarthrous; see Winer, 
 (: 1.19, ῬΡ 119. (2) Three con- 
 structions obviously present themselves ; 
 (a) with ἀγιάσῃ ; (0) with λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδα- 
 tos; (c) with καϑαρίσας, or rather with 
 the whole expression, ka&. Aoutp. τ. U5. Of 
 these (a), though adopted by Jerome, and 
 recently maintained by Riick., Winer, 
 (Gr. § 20. 2, p. 125) and Meyer, is seri- 
 ously opposed to the order of the words, 
 and (if ἐν be considered simply instru- 
 mental) introduces an idea (ay. ἐν ῥήμ.) 
 which is scarcely doctrinally tenable ; the 
 second (0) is plainly inconsistent with the 
 absence of the article, this being a case 
 which is not referable to any of the three 
 cases noticed on ch. i. 17, — appy. the 
 only ones in which, in constructions like 
 the present, the omission can be justified ; 
 — the third (c) though not without diffi- 
 culties, is on the whole fairly satisfactory. 
 According to this view, ἐν ῥήματι has 
 neither a purely instrumental, nor, cer- 
 tainly, a simple modal force (‘ verheiss- 
 ungsweise,’ Harl.), but specifies the nec- 
 essary accompaniment, that in which the 
 baptismal purification 15 
 (comp. John xv. 3), and without which 
 it is not granted ; comp. Heb. ix. 22, ἐν 
 
 vouchsafed 
 
 αἵματι πάντα Kadapicerat κ. τ- A., Where 
 the force of the prep. is somewhat similar. 
 
 27. ἵνα παραστήσῃ] ‘in order that 
 He might present ;’ further and more ul- 
 timate purpose of ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ 
 αὐτῆς (ver. 25), the full accomplishment 
 
Cuap. V. 98. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 135° 
 
 » \ ’ / AY ” I x e A ” a 
 ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥντίδα % τι τῶν 
 
 / τ ’ “ > e ἕ \ ” 
 τοιούτων, ἀλλ Wa ἢ AYIA καὶ ἄμωμος" 
 
 of which must certainly be referred to 6 
 αἰὼν μέλλων (August., Est.), not to 6 
 αἰὼν οὗτος (Chrysost., Beng., Harl.), see 
 Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 406 (ed. Burt.). 
 Schoettg. appositely cites the Rabbinical 
 interpr. of Cant. i. 5, 71821 738 TAIN, 
 in which the swarthiness is referred to 
 the Synagogue, m75 thiya [in hoc sec- 
 ulo], the comeliness to it, San ΞΕ ΞΊΣΞ [in 
 seculo futuro]; see Petersen, von der 
 Kirche, 111. 390. The verb παραστήσῃ 
 is here used as in 2 Cor. xi. 2, of the 
 presentation of the bride to the bride- 
 groom, — not of an offering (Harl. ; 
 Rom. xii. 1), which would here be a 
 reference wholly inappropriate. 
 
 αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ] ‘Himself to Himself;’ 
 not ‘for Himself,’ ἡ. 6. for His joy and 
 glory (Olsh.), but, with local reference, 
 ‘to Himself.’ Christ permits neither 
 attendants nor paranymphs to present 
 the Bride: He alone presents, He re- 
 ceives. The reading παραστ. αὐτὴν 
 ἑαυτῷ [Rec. with D®EK; most mss. ; 
 Chrys., Theod.] is rightly rejected on 
 preponderant evidence [ABDIFGL; 15 
 mss.; Clarom., Goth., Vulg., al. ; Greek 
 and Lat. Ff.] by most modern editors. 
 ἔνδοξον ‘the 
 Church glorious ;’ the tertiary predicate 
 ἔνδοξον (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 489) being 
 placed emphatically forward, and receiy- 
 ing its further explanation from the par- 
 ticipial clause which follows : so, with a 
 correct observance of the order, Syr., 
 Copt., Ath., probably Clarom., Vulg., 
 and all the best modern commentators. 
 
 τὴν ἐκκλησία») 
 
 , 
 
 μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλ ον] ‘not having a 
 spot.’ The word σπίλος (μιασμός, ῥύπος. 
 Suid.) is a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (2 Pet. 
 ii. 13), and belongs to later Greek, the 
 earlier expression being κηλίς ; see Lo- 
 beck, Phryn. p. 28. Lachmann, Bruder 
 ( Concord.), Meyer, and others, still retain 
 the accentuation σπῖλος. As the iota is 
 
 28 A \ € » 
 οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες 
 
 short (comp ἄσπϊλος, Antiph. ap. Anthol. 
 Vol. vi. 252) the accentuation in the 
 text seems most correct; comp. Arcad. 
 Accent. vi. p. 52 (ed. Barker). 
 
 ῥυτίδα] ‘a wrinkle ;’ putis: 7 συνελκυσ- 
 μένη σάρξ, Etym. M.; derived from PYQ, 
 ἐρύω, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 
 317. Ruga and ‘wrinkle’ are probably 
 cognate forms ; see ib, p. 314, and comp. 
 Diffenbach, Ler. Vol. 1. p. 236. 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἵν αἹ ‘but in order that it might be ;’ 
 change of construction, as if ἵνα μὴ ἔχῃ 
 had preceded: similar exx. of ‘oratio 
 variata’ are cited by Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 
 11.1, p. 509. On the true meaning of 
 ἁγία, as applied to the Church, see Pear- 
 son, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 403 (Bur- 
 ton), Jackson, Creed, x11. 4. 8, and on 
 ἄμωμος, see notes ch.i. 4. The context 
 might here seem to favor the translation, 
 ‘omni macula carens’ (comp. Cant. iv.7), 
 but it seems more correct to say that the 
 first part of the verse presents the con- 
 ception of purity, ete., in metaphorical lan- 
 guage, the second in words of simply 
 ethical meaning. 
 
 28. of rws] ‘Thus,’ ‘in like manner ; 
 “ita, scilicet uti Christus dilexit ecclesiam 
 quemadmodum jam dixi,’ Corn. a Lap. 
 Even if the reading of the Rec. be re- 
 tained (οὕτως Op. οἱ ἄνδρ. ay. κ. τ. A. 5 
 see below), the reference must still clearly 
 be to kadds καὶ ὃ Xp. k. τ. A. Ver. 25—27, 
 not as Est. (comp. De W.) suggests, to 
 the following és; this latter construction 
 being contrary, not necessarily ‘to gram- 
 matical law’ (Eadie ; for comp. John vii. 
 46, 1 Cor. iv. 1), but to the natural use of 
 οὕτως, of which ‘non alia est vis quam 
 qu nature ejus consentanea est, ut co 
 confirmentur preecedentia, Herm. Viger, 
 Append. x. p. 747. In passages like 1 
 Cor. /. c. there is an obvious emphasis, 
 which would here be out of place. The 
 reading is doubtful, as in addition to the 
 
190 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. V. 29. 
 
 a A tal \ ε lal id 
 ὀφείλουσιν ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. 
 
 fal na lal \ an 
 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ: 
 
 evidence in favor of Rec, [KL; nearly 
 all mss.; perhaps Syr., Arm.; Chrys., 
 Theod., al.] that of B (ὀφείλ. καὶ οἱ 
 ἄνδρεΞ) may now be urged for the inver- 
 sion; still the authority in favor of the 
 text [ADEFG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Vulg., 
 Goth., Copt.; Clem., Lat. Ff.] seems 
 fairly to preponderate, and owing to the 
 testimony of B being of a divided na- 
 ture, may perhaps be most safely fol- 
 lowed. 
 “as (being) their own bodies ;’ 
 ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Meier (comp. Alf.), 
 but ‘als ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Luth., 
 Mey. The context clearly implies that 
 Christ loved the Church not merely just 
 as (comparatively) He loved His own 
 body (scil. ὡς ἑαυτόν, Schoettg.), but as 
 being His own body, the body of which 
 He is the Head. In the hortatory appli- 
 cation, therefore, ὡς must have a simi- 
 larly semi-argumentative force; other- 
 wise, as Harl. remarks, we should have 
 two comparisons, the one with οὕτως, 
 the other with ὡς, which certainly mar 
 the perspicuity of the passage. In the 
 
 ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα] 
 not ‘wie 
 
 present view, on the contrary, the dis- 
 tinction is logically preserved; οὕτως 
 alone introduces the comparison; ὡς 
 with its regular and proper force marks 
 the aspects (see notes on ver. 22) in 
 which the wives were to be regarded 
 (‘as being, in the light of, their own 
 bodies’), and thus tacitly supplies to the 
 exhortation an argument arising from 
 the thus acknowledged nature of the 
 ease. For a defence of the simply com- 
 parative use of ὡς, see Alf. zn loc. 
 
 ὁ ἀγαπῶν κ. τ. λ.} ‘He that loveth his 
 own wife, loveth himself ;’ explanation of 
 the preceding ὧς τὰ ἑαυτῶν cou. The 
 Apostle’s argument rests on the axiom 
 that a man’s wife is a part of his very 
 self. Husbands are to love them as 
 being their own bodies ; thus their love 
 
 * οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε 
 
 to them is in fact self-love; it is not κατ᾽ 
 ὀφειλήν, but κατὰ φύσιν. 
 
 29. οὐδεὶς γάρ κ. τ. λ.}] ‘For no 
 one ever hated ;’ confirmation and proof 
 of the position just laid down, 6 ἀγαπῶν 
 κι τ. A.3; first, it is ultimately based on 
 a general law of nature, οὐδείς ποτε 
 k. τ. A. (finsitam nobis esse corporis 
 nostri caritatem,’ Senec. Hpist. 14, cited 
 by Grot.); secondly, it is suggested by 
 the example of Christ, καϑὼς καὶ 6 Xp. 
 κι tT. A. The whole argument then 
 seems to run, ‘Men ought to love their 
 wives as Christ loves His Church, as 
 being in fact (I might add) their own 
 (ἑαυτῶν) bodies; yes, 1 say the man 
 who loves his wife loves himself (éav- 
 τόν) ; for if he hated her he would hate 
 (according to the axiom ; see above) his 
 own flesh, whereas, on the contrary, 
 unless he acts against nature, he nour- 
 ishes it, even as (to urge the comparison 
 again) Christ nourishes His Church.’ 
 τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα] ‘His own flesh.’ 
 This word appears undoubtedly to have 
 been chosen in preference to σῶμα, on 
 account of the allusion to Gen. ii. 23, 
 which is still further sustained by the 
 longer reading of ver. 30 and the quota- 
 tion in ver. 31. ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει) 
 “but nourisheth,’ ‘ministers to its outward 
 growth and development.’ The prep. 
 does not appear intensive (‘ valde nutrit,’ 
 Beng.), but marks the evolution and 
 development produced by the τρέφειν ; 
 comp. Xenoph. Gvcon. xvi1. 10, ἐκτρέ- 
 gel ἡ γῆ τὸ σπέρμα εἰς καρπόν. καὶ 
 ϑάλπει] ‘and cherisheth ;’ ‘fovet’ Cla- 
 rom., Vulg.,— more derivatively, Syr., 
 
 mo 
 Seno [et curam habet] sim. /®th.- 
 
 Platt, ‘solicite conservat,’ Meyer main- 
 tains the literal meaning, ‘warmeth’ 
 (comp. Goth. ‘varmeip’), citing Beng, 
 ‘id spectat amictum, ut nutri vietum.’ 
 
οὖ 
 
 Cuap. V. 80. EPHESIANS. 19% 
 
 \ e a / 
 τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει Kal Sartre αὐτήν, 
 
 \ \ ye \ 30 © re 
 Kay@s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: ” OTL μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ 
 
 30. ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ] Tisch. (ed. 2) and Lachm. omit 
 these words, with AB ; 17. 67**; Copt., &th. (both) ; Method. (1) Ambrst. (Jil, 
 Prolegom. p. 69). The external authorities for their insertion are DEFGKL; 
 nearly all mss., and Vv.; Iren., Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al.; Hieron., al. (Rec., 
 Scholz, Harl., Mey., De W. (2) Alf., Words., — to which now may be added Tisch., 
 ed. 7). The preponderance of external authority is thus very decided ; paradiplo- 
 matic considerations (See Pref. to Galut. p. xvi.) also suggest the probability of an 
 accidental omission, from the transcriber’s eye having fallen on the third αὐτοῦ 
 instead of the first; and lastly, internal considerations seem to suggest that the 
 words, if an insertion from the LXX, would have been cited more exactly, while 
 the omission might so easily have arisen from the appy. material conception pre- 
 
 sented by the clause. 
 
 This seems, however, here an interpr. 
 far too definite and realistic; ϑάλπειν 
 certainly primarily and properly implies 
 ‘to warm,’ but still may, as its very ety- 
 mological affinities (ϑηλή Odw) suggest, 
 bear the secondary meaning, ‘to cher- 
 ish,’ the fostering warmth of the breast 
 (compare Theocer. /dyl/. x1v. 38) being 
 the connecting idea; see 1 Thess. ii. 7, 
 ὡς ἂν τροφὺς ϑάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα. 
 καϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. λ.] ‘Even as Christ 
 the Church, scil. ἐκτρέφει καὶ ϑάλπει, 
 with general reference to the tender love 
 of Christ towards His Church. Any 
 special applications (‘nutrit eam verbo 
 et Spiritu, vestit virtutibus,’ Grot.) seem 
 doubtful and precarious. The reading 
 of Rec. (6 Κύριος τὴν ἐκκλ.) rests only 
 on D®KL; majority of mss.; Dam., 
 CEcum., and is rightly rejected by nearly 
 all modern editors. 
 
 30. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμέν] ‘because we 
 are members ;’ reason why Christ thus 
 nourishes and cherishes His Church. 
 The position of μέλη seems emphatic ; 
 “members, —not accidental, but integral 
 parts of His body (Meyer), united to 
 Him not only as members of His mysti- 
 cal body, the Church, but by the more 
 mysterious marital relation in which 
 Christ in His natural and now glorified 
 body stands to His Church. On the 
 
 On these grounds we retain the longer reading. 
 
 important dogmatical application of this 
 passage to the Holy Communion, see 
 Waterland, Hucharist, ch. vi1. Vol. 1v. 
 p. 600, 608, and compare J. Johnson, 
 Works, Vol. 11. p. 129 sq. (A. C. Libr.). 
 ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸὺς κ. τ. A.| ‘being of His 
 Jlesh and of His bones ;’ more exact speci- 
 fication of the foregoing words, ἐκ with 
 its primary and proper force pointing to 
 the origin, to which we owe our spiritual 
 being ; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 16. The 
 true and proper meaning of these pro- 
 found words has been much obscured by 
 a neglect of their strict reference to the 
 context, and by the substitution of de- 
 ductions and applications for the simple 
 and grammatical interpretation. We 
 must thus set aside all primary reference 
 to the sacraments (Theod.), to the Holy 
 Communion (Olsh.), to Baptism (comp. 
 Chrys.), and certainly to the Crucifixion 
 (‘per corporis ejus et sanguinis pretium 
 redempti,’ Vatabl. ap. Poli Syn.). A 
 reference to the ἐνσάρκωσις (Irene, Her. 
 v. 2) is plausible, but untenable; for 
 Christ, thus considered, is of our flesh, 
 not we of His, John i. 14; and even if 
 this be explained away (‘quia in hac 
 natura ipse caput est,’ Est., comp. Stier) 
 the reference would haye to be extended 
 to all mankind, not, as the context re- 
 quires, limited to the members of Christ's 
 
 18 
 
198 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAP: V.isie 
 
 ΄ fal a x a \ 9 ~ 5 fal 
 σώματος αὐτοῦ, EK τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ. 
 
 31 2 \ ΄ / ” “ \ , \ 
 ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει AVS pwIros πατέρα καὶ μητέρα Kal προσ- 
 
 Church. The most simple and natural 
 view (comp. Chrys., Beng., Mey.) then 
 seems to be this, that the words are cited 
 (in substance) from Gen. ii. 23, to con- 
 yey this profound truth, — that our real 
 (spiritual) being and existence is as 
 truly, as certainly, and as actually (not 
 ὥσπερ, Theod.-Mops., but γνησίως ἐξ 
 αὐτοῦ, Chrysost.) ‘a true native extract 
 from His own body’ (Hooker), as was 
 the physical derivation of Eve from 
 Adam ; see esp. the forcible language of 
 Hooker, Heel. Pol. vy. 56. 7, and comp. 
 Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 111. § 2, 8, 
 and the good note of Wordsw. in loc. 
 This is the general truth, which of course 
 admits a forcible secondary application to 
 the sacraments (comp. Kahnis, Abendm. 
 p- 143 sq.); we may truly say, with 
 Waterland, that ‘the true and firm basis 
 for the economy of man’s salvation is 
 this, that in the sacraments we are made 
 and continued members of Christ’s body, 
 of His flesh and of His bones.’ Our 
 union with the Deity rests entirely in 
 our mystical union with our Lord’s 
 humanity, which is personally united 
 with His divine nature, which is essen- 
 tially united with God the Father, the 
 head and fountain of all,’ Charge, a. Ὁ. 
 1739, Vol. v. p. 212. These are weighty 
 words. 
 
 31. ἀντὶ τούτου] ‘ For this cause ;’ 
 The mean- 
 ing is practically the same; ἀντὶ passes 
 by a natural transition from its primary 
 idea of local opposition (Xenoph. Anab. 
 
 7. 6) through that of counterchange 
 
 ἕνεκεν τοῦτου, Gen. ii. 24. 
 
 IVs, 7; 
 (see Winer, Gr. ὁ 47. a, p. 826) to that 
 of mere ethical relation. It can scarcely 
 be doubted that this verse is nothing 
 more than a free citation from Genes. ii. 
 24, ἀντὶ taking the place of ἕνεκεν, and 
 referring to the same fact, -— the deriva- 
 tion of woman from man, which is 
 
 clearly presupposed in the allusions of 
 ver. 30. Meyer refers ἀντὶ τούτου with 
 punctilious accuracy to the words imme- 
 diately preceding, and gives the passage 
 a directly mystical interpretation in ref- 
 erence to the final and future union of 
 Christ with His Church. Somewhat 
 differently, and more probably, Chrys., 
 Theodoret, Theophyl., Jerome, refer to 
 Christ’s coming in the flesh; compare 
 Taylor, Serm. xv11.1, ‘Christ descended 
 from His Father’s bosom, and contracted 
 His divinity with flesh and blood, and 
 married our nature, and we became a 
 church ;’ see Beng. in loc. To denounce 
 summarily such an interpr. as ‘wild and 
 visionary ’ (Eadie), seems alike rash and 
 inconsiderate. That St. Paul adduces 
 the verse as containing a definite allegori- 
 cal meaning, may perhaps be consid- 
 ered doubtful; but that St. Paul intended 
 his readers to make some such applica- 
 tion, seems to have been the general 
 opinion of the early commentators, is by 
 no means incompatible with the context, 
 and cannot be confidently denied; see 
 Alford in loc. Thus, then, in a certain 
 sense, we may with Hofmann ( Weiss. w. 
 Εν, Vol. 1. p. 71), recognize in this 
 the first prophecy in Seripture ; ‘ primus 
 vates Adam,’ Jerome. κατα- 
 λείψει x. τ. A.] ‘shall leave father and 
 mother.’ Meyer presses the tense some- 
 what unnecessarily, as referring to some- 
 thing yet to come. Even if in the orig- 
 inal passage it designate something 
 positively future, there is no reason why, 
 in this application and free citation, it 
 may not state, not only what will, but 
 whatever shall and ought to happen; on 
 this ethical force of the future, see 
 Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 250, Thiersch., de 
 Pent. 111. 11, p. 158 sq. The longer 
 reading of Rec. τὸν mar. αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν 
 
 unt. is fairly supported [AD?EKL; 
 
ΟΒΆΡΕΥ. 32. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 139 
 
 AX NY / \ \ a by a \ ” ς ΄, ? 
 KO NINGETAL Tr pos ΤΡ γυναίκα AUVTOV, καὶ EDOVTAL OL δύο εἰς 
 
 7 / 32 XN if la) / > fe ’ N \ , > 
 σάρκα μίαν. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς 
 
 most mss.; Syr., Copt., al.; Orig., al.], 
 but is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch. 
 Meyer, al., as a conformation to the 
 LXX.; see especially the critical com- 
 ment of Origen, cited by Tisch. in loc. 
 προσκολλ. πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα) 
 ‘shall be closely joined unto his wife ;’ 
 comp. Matt. xix. 5, προσκολληϑήσεται 
 τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, where the dat. is used, 
 but with little difference of meaning. 
 On the close affinity between the dat. 
 and the accus. with eis and πρός, and 
 their interchange in many passages, see 
 Winer, Gr. ὃ 31.5, p. 190. The read- 
 ing, however, is somewhat doubtful ; 
 Lachm. maintains the dat. with ADE! 
 FG; 3 mss.; Meth., Epiph. (compare 1 
 Cor. vi. 16); but owing to the fair evi- 
 dence for the text [BD®°EKL; nearly all 
 mss.; Orig., Chrys., Theod.], and the 
 distinct’ notice by Origen (see Tisch. in 
 loc.), with less probability than the accus. 
 with πρός (Tisch., Mey., al.). 
 
 32. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο] ‘This 
 mystery is great, sc. deep ;’ explanatory 
 comment on the preceding verse. But 
 what mystery ? The answer is not easy, 
 as four antecedents are possible ; — (a) 
 the text immediately preceding ; τὸ εἰρη- 
 μένον, τὸ γεγραμμένον, Stier, Meyer, 
 compare Chrys., Theodorus ;— (Ὁ) the 
 whole preceding subject, the strict paral- 
 lelism between the conjugal relation and 
 that between Christ and his Church ; — 
 (c) the spiritual purport, ‘non matrimo- 
 nium humanum sed ipsa conjunctio 
 Christi et ecclesix,’ Beng.;— (d) the 
 simple purport and immediate subject 
 of the text, ‘arctissima illa conjunctio 
 viri et mulieris,’ Est. Of these, (a), 
 though not otherwise untenable, involves 
 a meaning of μυστήριον, which cannot 
 be substantiated by St. Paul’s use of the 
 word; vor. being only used by the 
 Apostle to imply either something not 
 
 cognizable by (ch. i. 9, iii. 4, and appy. 
 vi. 19), or not fully comprehensible by 
 unassisted human reason (1 Cor. xiv. 2, 
 1 Tim. iii. 9, 16), but not, as here (com- 
 pare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 783), ‘a 
 passage containing an allegorical im- 
 port:’ see Tholuck, Rom. xi. 25, and 
 compare Lobeck, Aglaoph. Vol. 1. p. 85, 
 89. Of the rest, (b) and (c) are less 
 plausible, as in both cases — more espe- 
 cially in the latter — the remark ἐγὼ δὲ 
 λέγω κ. τ. A. would seem superfluous, 
 and the force of the pronoun obscure. 
 On the whole, then, (4) seems best to 
 harmonize with the context. ‘Thus, 
 then, ver. 29 states the exact similarity 
 (xadws) of the relationship; ver. 30 the 
 ground of the relation in regard of 
 Christ and the Church; ver. 31 the 
 nature of the conjugal relation, with a 
 probable application also to Christ; ver. 
 32 the mystery of that conjugal relation 
 in itself, and still more so in its typical 
 application to Christ and to His Church. 
 It is needless to observe that the words 
 cannot possibly be urged in favor of the 
 sacramental nature of marriage (Concil. 
 Trid. xx1y. init.), but it may fairly be 
 said that the very fact of the comparison 
 (see Olsh.) does place marriage on a far 
 holier and higher basis than modern theo- 
 ries are disposed to admit; see Harl. in 
 loc., and for two good sermons on this 
 text, Bp. Taylor, Serm. xvit. XVIII. 
 Vol. 1. p. 705 sq. (Lond. 1836). 
 
 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω] ‘but 7 am speaking ;’ 
 antithetical comment on the foregoing ; 
 ἐγὼ having no special reference to his 
 own celibacy (comp. Stier), but, as De 
 W. admits, marking, and with emphasis, 
 the subjective character of the applica- 
 tion and comparison (Winer, Gr. § 22. 
 6, p. 138, ed. 6), while the slightly op- 
 positive δὲ contrasts it with any other 
 interpretation that might have been 
 
140 
 
 / 
 Χριστὸν Kai εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAP. Υ. 38. Ὑ1.1. 
 
 \ a 
 8 πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ Kad 
 
 Ὁ ¢ \ a a ἢ 5 Δ 
 ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, 
 
 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα. 
 
 Children, obey and honor 
 your parents according to 
 
 VI. Ta τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν 
 
 God’s commandment: fathers provoke not your children, but educate them holily. 
 
 adduced (Mey.): ‘the mystery of this 
 closeness of the conjugal relation is 
 great, but I am myself speaking of it in 
 its still deeper application, in reference 
 to Christ and the Church;’ μέγα ὄντως 
 μυστήριον, τέως μέντοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐκλαμ- 
 βάνεται, map ἐμοῦ τουτό, φησιν, ὡς 
 προφητικῶς περὶ αὐτοῦ λεχϑέν, Theoph. 
 On the general use of λέγω δέ, formula 
 “explanandi atque pressius eloquendi ea 
 que antea obscurius erant dicta,’ see 
 Raphel on 1 Cor. i. 12, and notes on Gal. 
 iv. 1. eis Χριστόν] ‘in reference 
 to;’ not ‘of,’ Conyb. (comp. Syr.), still 
 less ‘in Christo,’ Vulg., but ‘in Chris- 
 tum,’ Beza (comp. /&th., Syr.-Phil.), the 
 preposition correctly marking the ethical 
 direction of the speaker’s words ; comp. 
 Acts ii. 25, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. a, 
 p. 354, and notes on 2 Thess. i. 11. 
 
 The prep, is omitted by BK; 10 mss. ; 
 Tren., Epiph., Mare., and is bracketed by 
 Lachm., but without sufficient reason, as 
 the external authorities against it are 
 weak, and the probability of an omission, 
 from not being understood, by no means 
 slight. 
 
 33. πλήν] ‘ Nevertheless,’ 7. e. not to 
 press the mystical bearings of the subject 
 any further; the particle not being re- 
 sumptive (Beng., Olsh.), but, in accord- 
 ance with its primary meaning, compara- 
 live, and thence contrasting and slightly 
 adversative; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
 11. p. 725, Donalds. Gr. § 548. 33, and 
 notes on Phil. i. 18, where the derivation 
 and foree of πλὴν are briefly discussed. 
 kal ὑμεῖς of nad ἕνα] ‘ Ye also 
 severally ;’ ye also—as well as Christ 
 towards His Church. The plural thus 
 specified by the distributive of καϑ’ ἕνα, 
 ‘vos singuli’ (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 27, 31, 
 
 and see Winer, Gr. § 49 a, p. 357), 
 passes easily and naturally into the sin- 
 gular in the concluding member of the 
 sentence. On the striking equivalence 
 of κατὰ with ἀνὰ in nearly all its mean-. 
 ings (here evinced in the distributive 
 use), see esp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 183 sq. 
 ὡς ἑαυτόν] ‘as himself,’ scil. ‘as be- 
 ing one with himself,’ see notes on ver. 
 28. 7 δὲ γυνή κ. τ. λ.] ‘and the 
 wife (I bid), that she fear her husband :" 
 emphatic specification (with slight con- 
 trast) of the duties of the wife: ἡ γυνὴ 
 being a simple and emphatic nominative 
 absolute (Mey.; contra Eadie, — but 
 erroneously), though not of a kind so 
 definitely unsyntactic as Acts vii. 40 and 
 exx. cited by Winer (Gr. § 28. 3, p. 207, 
 ed. 5; see p. 507 ed. 6), and most proba- 
 bly dependent, not on an imper., but on 
 some verb of command which can easily 
 be supplied from the context; see Mey. 
 on 2 Cor. viii. 7, Fritz. Diss. in 2 Cor. p. 
 126, Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 365 (ed. 5). 
 Alford (Cor. 1. c.) suggests βλέπετε, cit- 
 ing 1 Cor. xvi. 10, but this is not fully 
 in point, as the subject of the imperative 
 and the subjunctive is not the same: 
 more pertinent is Soph. Gd. Col. 156, 
 where, as Ellendt correctly observes,. 
 “φύλαξαι adsignificatum habet loquentis 
 consilium; hee tibi dico ne,’ ete., Lex. 
 Soph. Vol. 1. p. 840. 
 
 Cuapter VI.1. ὑπακούετε k.7.A.| 
 “obey your parents in the Lord ;’ ἐν Κυρίῳ 
 (Christ, —not God, as Chrys., Theod. ; 
 compare ch. iv. 7, v. 21) as usual, de- 
 noting the sphere to which the action is 
 to be limited (not for κατὰ Kup., Chrys.), 
 and obviously belonging, not to τοῖς -yo- 
 νεῦσιν, nor to τοῖς γον, and to ὑπακ. 
 
ΘΕΑΡΥΝ 9. 3: 
 
 2 yj a , 5) } 2 
 εν Κυρίῳ: TOUTO yap ἐστιν δίκαιον. ῥ 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 141 
 
 / \ 
 τίμα TOV πατέρα cov 
 
 Ν A , [2 >’ \ ’ \ 7, 5, > i} 3 vA > 
 καὶ τὴν μητέρα, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη EV ἐπαγγελίᾳ, Wa εὖ 
 
 (comp. Origen ap. Cramer, Caten.), but 
 simply to the latter, — serving thus ta 
 define and characterize the nature, and 
 possibly limits, of the obedience ; ἐν ois 
 ἂν μὴ προσκρούσῃς [Κυρίῳ], Chrys. On 
 the more exact nature of these limits 
 (here, however, not perhaps very defi- 
 nitely hinted at; comp. Alf.), see Tay- 
 lor, Duct. Dub. 111. 5, Rule 1 and 4 sq. 
 The reading is somewhat doubtful, as ἐν 
 Κυρίῳ is omitted by Lachm. on fair au- 
 thority [BD1FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug., 
 Boern.; Clem., al.]. The external au- 
 thorities, however, for its insertion [AD#? 
 EKL; nearly all mss. and Vy.; Chrys. 
 (expressly), Theod.] seem clearly to pre- 
 dominate, and the internal arguments 
 are in its favor, as if it had come from 
 Col. iii. 20 it would have been inserted 
 after δίκαιον ; see Meyer, p. 238. 
 τοῦτο yap ἐστιν Bik.| ‘for this is 
 right ;? not merely πρέπον, nor merely 
 κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμον (Theod.), but 
 ‘in accordance with nature’ (τέκνα γο- 
 νεῦσιν) and, as the next verse shows, the 
 law of God: kai φύσει δίκαιον, καὶ ὑπὸ 
 νόμου προστάσσεται, Theophyl. ; 
 comp. Coloss. iii. 20. On the position 
 of children in the early church, and the 
 relation such texts bear to infant-baptism, 
 see Stier, Reden Jes. Vol. v1. p. 924 sq. 
 2. τίμα κ. τ. λ.}] ‘Honor thy father 
 and thy mother;’ specification of the 
 commandment as an additional confir- 
 mation of the foregoing precept, and as 
 supplying the reason on which it was 
 based. Had δίκαιον referred only to this 
 command, some causal particle would 
 more naturally have been appended. As 
 it stands, however, the solemn recitation 
 of the commandm. blends the voice of 
 God with that of nature. Artes] 
 ‘the which;’ the pronoun not haying 
 here a strongly causa/, but rather an ex- 
 planatory force ; see notes on Gal. ii: 4, 
 
 TOU 
 
 Vv. 24, πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ] 
 ‘the first in regard of promise,’ scil., ‘as a 
 command of promise ;” compare Syriac 
 
 δ δον pore [primum quod 
 
 promittit] : not exactly ‘with promise’ 
 Beza, Alf., al., as the prep. here seems 
 naturally used not so much to state the 
 accompaniment as to specify the exact 
 point in which the predication of πρώτη 
 was to be understood ; so rightly Chrys. 
 (οὐ τῇ τάξει [‘in regard of order,’ notes 
 on Gal. i. 22] εἶπεν αὐτὴν πρώτην, ἀλλὰ 
 τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ), and expressly Winer, Gr. 
 § 48. a. obs. p. 349. Meyer cites Diod. 
 Sic. x11t. 37, ἐν δὲ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ 
 πρῶτος. Some little difficulty has been 
 found in the use of πρώτη, owing to the 
 2nd commandm. seeming to involve a 
 kind of promise; see Orig. ap. Cram. 
 Cat. If this be considered as not a defi- 
 nite ἐπαγγελία (Calv.), still πρώτη would 
 seem unusual, as the fifth commandm. 
 would then be the only one which has a 
 promise: nor would the assumption that 
 it is ‘first’ on the second table (not such 
 a recent division as Meyer after Erasm. 
 seems to think, see Philo, de Special. 
 Legg. Vol. 11. p. 300, ed. Mang.) relieve 
 the difficulty, as the same objection 
 would still remain. We may perhaps 
 best explain the statement of priority by 
 referring it, not to all other foregoing 
 commands (Harl.), but to all the other 
 Mosaic commands (Mey.), of which the 
 decalogue forms naturally the chief and 
 prominent portion; simply, then, ‘the 
 first command we meet with which in- 
 volves a promise.’ It may be ob- 
 served that the article is not needed 
 with πρῶτος ; ordinals being from their 
 nature sufficiently definite ; comp. Acts 
 xvi. 12, and see Middleton, Greek Art. 
 νι. 3, p. 100. 
 
 8. ἵνα εὖ σοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘in order that 
 
142 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuapr. VI. 3, 4. 
 
 \ A aA \ e La 
 σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. * Καὶ οἱ πατέρες͵ 
 
 it may be well with thee ;’ a slightly varied 
 citation from the LXX, Exod. xx. 12, 
 Deuteron. v. 16, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ 
 ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς [Tis 
 ἀγαδϑῆς, Exod. /. ς.] ἧς Κύριος ὃ Θεός σου 
 The omission of the latter 
 words can scarcely have arisen from the 
 Apostle’s belief that his hearers and 
 readers (Gentiles) were so familiar with 
 the rest of the quotation, that it would 
 be unnecessary to cite it (see Mey.) ; for 
 thus τῆς γῆς must be translated ‘the 
 land’ (of Canaan, — simply and _histor- 
 ically, Meyer) and the promise denuded 
 of all its significance to Christian chil- 
 dren. It is far more probable (see 
 Eadie) that the omission was intended 
 to generalize the command, and that, 
 not merely ‘toti genti’ (Beng.), nor in 
 typical ref. to heaven (Hamm., Olsh., 
 see Barrow, Decal. Vol. v1. 524), but 
 simply and plainly, to individuals, sub- 
 ject, of course, to the conditions which 
 always belong to such temporal prom- 
 ises ; see Leighton, Expos. of Command, 
 p- 487 (Edinb. 1845). kal €on 
 μακρ.] ‘and (that) thou be long-lived,’ “ et 
 sis longevus,’ Vulgate. The future is 
 commonly explained as a lapse into the 
 ‘oratio directa’ (see Winer, Gir. § 41. "Ὁ. 
 1, p. 258), but is more probably to be 
 regarded as dependent on ἵνα (so Vulg., 
 /Eth., Arm., all of which use the sub- 
 junct.),— a construction which though 
 not found in Attic Greek (see Klotz, 
 Devar. Vol. 11. p. 630) certainly does 
 occur in the N. T. (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18, 
 Rey. xxii. 14, and see Winer, /. c.), har- 
 monizes perfectly with the classical use 
 of ὅπως (see the numerous exx. cited by 
 Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 209, sq.), and is 
 here eminently simple and natural; com- 
 pare Meyer in loc. Whether, however, 
 we can here recognize a ‘logical climax” 
 (Mey.), is doubtful; the future undoubt- 
 edly does often express the more lasting 
 
 δίδωσί σοι. 
 
 and certain result (compare Rev. /. c., 
 where the single act is expressed by the 
 aor. subj., the lasting act by the future) ; 
 still, as the present formula occurs in 
 substance in Deut. xxii. 7 (Alex.), and 
 might have thence become a known 
 form of expression, it seems better not 
 to press the future further than as repre- 
 senting the temporal evolution of the εὖ 
 γένεσϑαι. 
 
 4. καὶ οἱ πατέρες] ‘And ye 
 fathers ;’ corresponding address to the 
 parents in the persons of those who bore 
 the domestic rule, the πατέρες ; compare 
 Meyer iz loc. Bengel remarks on the 
 presence of the καὶ here and ver. 9, and 
 its absence, ch. v. 25; ‘facilins parentes 
 et heri abutuntur potestate sud quam 
 mariti.’ This distinction is perhaps 
 over-pressed ; καὶ here and ver. 9 intro- 
 duces a marked and quick appeal (see 
 Hartung, Partikel. καί, 5.7, Vol. 1. 149), 
 and also marks that the obligation was 
 not all on one side, but that the superior 
 also had duties which he owed to the 
 inferior. The duty is then expressed 
 negatively and positively. μὴ 
 παροργίζετ εἾἹ ‘provoke not to wrath ;’ 
 see Col. iii. 21, μὴ epeSi€ere τὰ τέκνα 
 (Rec., Tisch.) ; negative side of exhorta- 
 tion (οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀγαπᾶτε αὐτά. τοῦτο γὰρ 
 καὶ ἀκόντων ἣ φύσις ἐπισπᾶται, Chrys.), 
 not with reference to any stronger acts 
 such as by disinheriting, ete. (Chrys.), 
 but, as Alf. rightly suggests, by all the 
 vexatious circumstances which may 
 occur in ordinary intercourse ; ϑεραπεύ- 
 ew καὶ μὴ λυπεῖν ἐκέλευσε, Theod. 
 ἐκτρέφετ ε] ‘bring up, educate; 
 ethical sense, καλῶς ἐκτρέφει πατὴρ δί- 
 katos, Proy. xxiii. 24; so, frequently in 
 
 ? in an 
 
 ‘Plato; compare Polyb. Hist. 1. 65. 7, 
 
 ἐν παιδειαῖς καὶ νόμοις ἐκτεϑραμμένων 
 (Winer). In ch. ν. 29, the reference is 
 simply physical, but the force of the 
 compound is the same in both passages ; 
 
Cuap. VI. 5. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 145 
 
 ἡ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνω ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐ δεί 
 μὴ παροργ τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἃ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ 
 
 καὶ νουδεσίᾳ Κυρίου. 
 
 Servants obey and faith- 
 fully do your duty to your 
 
 ὅ Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ 
 
 masters as unto Christ, and ye shall receive your reward; masters do the like in return. 
 
 see notes in loc. 
 καὶ νουϑεσίᾳ] ‘in the discipline and 
 admonition ;? ‘in disciplinad et conrep- 
 tione,” Vulg.; not instrumental, but as 
 usual ‘in the sphere and influence of ;’ 
 see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346 note. 
 These two words are not related to one 
 another as the general (παιδ.) to the 
 special (Harl., Mey.), but specify the two 
 methods in the Christian education of 
 children, training by act and discipline, 
 and training by word; so Trench, Syn- 
 onymns, ὃ XXx11., and before him, Grot., 
 ‘maid. hic. significare videtur institutio- 
 nem per penas ; vous. autem est ea insti- 
 tutio que fit verbis. This Christian 
 meaning of παιδεύω and παιδεία, ‘per 
 molestias eruditio’ (August.), seems 
 occasionally faintly hinted at in earlier 
 writers ; comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 5, and 
 Polyb. Hist. 11. 9. 6, where the adverb 
 ἀβλαβῶς marks that the παιδεύειν was a 
 word that needed limitation. On the 
 later form vovSecia instead of νουϑέτη- 
 σις, see Moeris, Lex. p. 248 (ed. Koch), 
 Lobeck, Phryn. p. 512, 520. 
 
 Κυρίου] ‘Of the Lord;’ subjecti,— 
 belonging to the general category of the 
 possessive genitive, and specifying the 
 Lord (Christ), as Him by whom the 
 νουϑεσία and παιδεία were, so to say, pre- 
 scribed, and by whose Spirit they must 
 be regulated; so Harl., Olsh., Meyer. 
 The gen. objecti ‘about the Lord’ (‘mo- 
 nitis ex verbo Dei petitis,’ Beza), though 
 apparently adopted by all the Greek 
 commentators (compare Theodoret, τὰ 
 Seta παιδεύειν), seems far less satisfac- 
 tory. Meyer reads τοῦ Κυρίου but as it 
 would seem, by accident; there is no 
 trace of such a reading in any of the 
 critical editions. 
 
 ἐν παιδείᾳ 
 
 5. τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα) 
 
 ‘to your masters according to the flesh ;᾿ 
 κατὰ σάρκα here, as in Col. iii. 22 (where 
 it precedes κυρ.), serving to define and 
 qualify κυρίοις, ‘your bodily, earthly 
 masters; see notes on ch. i. 19, ii. 11. 
 Both here and Col. /. c. (where the men- 
 tion of 6 Κύριος immediately follows) 
 the adverbial epithet would seem to have 
 been suggested by the remembrance of 
 the different relation they stood in to 
 another Master, τῷ κατὰ πνεῦμα καὶ κατὰ 
 σάρκα Kup. Whether anything consola- 
 tory, (κατὰ σάρκα ἐστὶν 7 δεσποτεία, πρόσ- 
 καιρος καὶ βραχεῖα, Chrys.) or alleviating 
 (‘manere nihilominus illis intactam li- 
 bertatem,’ Calv.) is further couched in 
 the addition, is perhaps doubtful (see 
 Harl.), still both, especially the latter, 
 are obviously deductions which must 
 have been, and which the Apostle might 
 possibly have intended to be made. On 
 the stricter but here neglected distine- 
 tion between κύριος and δεσπότης, see 
 Trench, Synon. § XXvit. Lachm. 
 places κατὰ σάρκα before κυρίοις with 
 AB; 10 mss; Clem., Chrys. (1), Dam., 
 al.,— but such a position is rightly re- 
 jected by Tisch., and most recent editors, 
 as so probable a conformation to Col. iii. 
 Ope. μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου] 
 ‘with fear and trembling. By comparing 
 PS οι 9. 2. Corvin. 15; Phill nu. 12; 
 where the two words are united, it does 
 not seem that there is any allusion to the 
 ‘durior servorum conditio’ (Wolf, Ben- 
 gel, compare Chrys.), but only to the 
 ‘anxious solicitude’ they ought to feel 
 about the faithful performance of their 
 duties ; comp. Hammond on Phil. ii. 12, 
 where, however, the idea of ταπεινοφρο- 
 σύνη (Hamm.) is not so prominent as 
 that of distrust of their own powers, 
 anxiety that they could not do enough ; 
 
144 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Crarv. VI. 6. 
 
 , \ , \ , > e t A , ἘΝ e 
 σάρκα μετὰ φόβου Kal τρόμου, ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς 
 τῷ Χριστῷ: " μὴ κατ᾽ ὀφ αλμοδουλείαν ὡς ἀν) ρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ᾽ 
 
 see notes in loc. ἐν ἁπλότητι 
 τῆς καρδίας ὕμ.}] ‘in singleness of 
 heart ;’ ‘in simplicitate cordis,’ Clarom., 
 Vulg., Syr.; element in which their 
 anxious and solicitous obedience was to 
 it was to be no hypocritical 
 anxiety, but one arising from a sincere 
 
 be shown : 
 
 and single heart; καλῶς εἶπεν, ἔνι yap 
 μετὰ φ. Kal Tp. δουλεύειν οὐκ ἐξ εὐνοίας δέ, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν ἐξῇ, Chrys. The term ἀπλό- 
 Τῆς occurs seven times (2 Cor. 1. 12 is 
 doubtful) in the N. T. (only in St. Paul’s 
 Epp.), and in all marks that openness and 
 sincerity of heart (not per se ‘liberality,’ 
 see the good note of Fritz. Rom. Vol. 
 111. 62) which repudiates duplicity, in 
 thought (2 Cor. xi.3) or action (Rom. 
 xii. 8). It is joined with ἀκακία (Philo, 
 Opif. ὃ 41, p. 38, ὃ 55, p. 61), with aya- 
 Sérns (Wisdom i. 1), and is opposed to 
 ποικιλία, πολυτροπία (Plato, Rep. 404 B ; 
 comp. Hipp. Min, 364 &, where Achilles 
 is contrasted with Ulysses), κακουργία, 
 and κακοηϑεία (Theoph., Theod., 2x loc.) ; 
 see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 436, comp. 
 Tittm. Synon. p. 29, and on the script- 
 ural aspects of singleness of heart, Beck, 
 Seelenl. 111. ὃ 26, p. 105 sq. 
 
 6. μὴ Kar ὀφϑαλμοδουλεία»ν] 
 “not in the way of eye service;’ further 
 specification on the negative side of the 
 preceding ἐν ἁπλότ., the prep. with its 
 usual force designating the rule or ‘ nor- 
 mam agendi,’ which in this case they 
 were not to follow; see exx. in Winer, 
 Gr. ὃ 49. ἃ, p. 358. The word ὀφϑαλ- 
 0d. appears to have been coined by St. 
 Paul, being only found here and Col. iii. 
 22: the adj. ὀφϑαλμόδουλος occurs in 
 Constitut. Apost. Vol. 1. p. 299 a (ed. 
 Cotel.), but in reference to this passage. 
 The meaning is well expressed by Cla- 
 rom., Vulg., ‘non ad oculum servientes ’ 
 (comp. Syr.), the ref. being primarily to 
 the master’s eye (uh μόνον παρόντων τῶν 
 
 δεσποτῶν καὶ ὁρώντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπόντων, 
 Theophyl.; compare Xen. (Qcon. x11. 
 20), and thence generally, and as in the 
 present case, 7 οὐκ ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας 
 προσφερομένη Sepamela, ἀλλὰ τῷ σχήματι 
 κεχρωσμένη, Theodoret. The more cor- 
 rect form seems ὀφϑαλμοδουλία, see L. 
 Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. Vol. v. p. 
 1088, 2446. ἀνῶιρωπάρεσκοι) 
 ‘men-pleasers ;’ Psalm lii. 6, ὁ Θεὸς διεσ- 
 Lobeck 
 (Phryn. p. 621) remarks on the question- 
 able forms εὐάρεσκος, δυσάρεσκος, but ex- 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
 δοῦλοι Xp.| ‘but as bondservants of 
 Christ ;’ contrasted term to ἀνϑρωπαρ. ; 
 
 5 ~ ΕΣ / 
 κόρπισεν ὀστᾶ aVSpwmraperKwr. 
 
 cepts ἀνωρωπάρεσκος. 
 
 τίς γὰρ Θεοῦ δοῦλος dy ἀνωρώποις ἀρέσκειν 
 βούλεται ; τίς δὲ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκων Θεοῦ 
 δύναται εἶναι δοῦλος ; Chrys. : comp. ver. 
 7, where the opposition is more fully 
 seen. Riickert removes the stop after 
 Xp., thus regarding ποιοῦντες as the prin- 
 cipal member in the opposition, δοῦλοι 
 Xp. only a subordinate member which 
 gives the reason and foundation of it. 
 This, though obviously harsh, and com- 
 pletely marring the studied antithesis 
 between ἀνϑρωπάρεσκοι and δοῦλοι 
 Χριστοῦ is reintroduced by Tisch. (ed. 
 7), but properly rejected by other recent 
 editors. The article before Χριστοῦ | Rec. 
 with D3EKL; most mss.; Chrys., 
 Theod.] is rightly struck out by Lachm., 
 Tisch., al., on preponderant external 
 authority. ποιοῦντες K.T.A.| 
 “doing the will of God from the soul ;’ par- 
 ticipial clause defining the manner in 
 which their δουλεία to Christ was to be 
 exhibited in action. The qualifying 
 words ἐκ ψυχῆς are prefixed by Syr., 
 JEth.-Platt., Arm., Chrys., and some 
 recent editors and expositors (Lachm., 
 De W.., Harl., Alf., al.) to the participial 
 clause which follows, but more naturally 
 and it would seem correctly connected 
 
Cnapr. VI. 7, 8: EPHESIANS. 
 
 145 
 
 ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, ποιοῦντες TO ϑδέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς; 
 
 7 > > Τὴ ὃ / id fal K ! \ ’ » ΄ὔ 
 μέτ ευνοιᾶς ουλεύοντες WS TO υριῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνδρώποις, 
 
 8 γὼ ἡ Ὡ a SEL ee / > , a rt 
 εἰδότες OTL O EQV TL εκαστος “ΠΟΙ σῇ ἀγαδόν, Τοῦτο κομίσεται 
 
 8. ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος] So Tisch. with KL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), al. ; 
 Chrys. (3), but ap. for ἕκ. (2), Theod. (adds ἡμῶν), Dam., Theoph., Gicum. (Ree., 
 Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer). The shorter and inverted reading, ἕκαστος ὁ ἐάν, 
 is supported by very strong external authority, viz., by ADEFG; many mss. ; 
 Vulg., Clarom., al.; Bas., al. (Lachm., Riick., Wordsw.) ; still the internal argu- 
 ments derived from paradiplomatic (see Pref. to Gal. p. xvi.) considerations are so 
 decided that we seem fully authorized in retaining the reading of Tisch. The ex- 
 ample is instructive, as it would seem the numerous variations can all be referred 
 either to (a) correction, or (Ὁ) error in transcription, or both united. For exainple, 
 (a) the tmesis seems to have suggested a correction 6 τὶ ἐάν, and then, on account 
 of the juxtaposition of ὅτι ὅ τι, the further correction of AB, al. Again it is (Ὁ) 
 not improbable that owing to the homceoteleuton, ὃ ἐάν τι was, in some mss. acci- 
 dentally omitted, and that the unintelligible reading ὅτι ἕκαστος ποιήσῃ then re- 
 ecived various emendations : thus we may account for the insertion of ὁ ἐάν τις (1. 
 27. 31), ἐὰν τις (62. 179), day τι (46.115), 6 ἐάν (23. 47), between ὅτι and ἕκ., all 
 of which have this value, that they attest the position of ἕκαστ. adopted in the 
 
 text. 
 
 by Clarom. (where ἐκ ψυχῆς concludes 
 the στίχος), Copt., Aith.-Pol., Syr.-Phil., 
 Auth. (Zisch., Mey., Wordsw., al.), with 
 the present participial clause. Far from 
 there thus being any tautology (De W.), 
 there is rather a gentle climactic expla- 
 nation of the characteristics of the δοῦλ. 
 Xp.; he does his work heartily, and be- 
 sides this, feels a sincere good-will to his 
 master: comp. Col. ili. 23, ἐκ ψυχῆς ép- 
 γάζεσϑε, which, though claimed by De 
 W. as supporting the other punctuation, 
 is surely more in favor of that of the 
 text. On the varied uses of ψυχή (here 
 in ref. to the inner principle of action), 
 see Delitzsch, Psychol. τν. 6, p. 159 sq. 
 7. μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλ.] ‘with good 
 will doing service ;’ further specification 
 of the nature and character of the ser- 
 vice; μετ᾽ εὐνοίας implying not merely 
 ‘lubenti animo’ (Grinf. Hell. Test.), but 
 ‘cum benignitate,’ Clarom., ‘cum cogi- 
 tatione bona,’ Copt., in reference to the 
 well-disposed (“ well-affected,’ Eadie) 
 mind with which the service was to be 
 performed. Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
 
 19 
 
 489) very appositely cites Xenoph. 
 (icon. p. 673 [x11. 5], οὐκοῦν εὔνοιαν 
 πρῶτον, ἔφην ἐγώ, δεήσει αὐτὸν [τὸν ἐπίτ- 
 ροπον] ἔχειν σοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοῖς εἰ μέλλοι 
 ἀρκέσειν ἀντὶ σοῦ παρών. ἄνευ γὰρ εὐνοίας 
 τί ὄφελος κι τ. A. This quotation cer- 
 tainly seems to confirm the distinction 
 made by Harl. (to which Mey. objects) 
 that while ἐκ ψυχῆς seems to mark the 
 relation of the servant to his work, μετ᾽ 
 εὐνοίας points to his relation to his 
 master: so also the author of the Constit. 
 Apost. Iv. 22, εὔνοιαν εἰσφερέτω πρὸς τὸν 
 δεσπότην, Vol. 1. p. 302 (ed. Cotel.) : 
 see exx. in Elsner, Ots. Vol. 1. p. 228. 
 The Atticists define evy. as both ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 μείζονος πρὸς τὸν ἐλάττονα and vice versa, 
 εὐμένεια as only the former, see Thom. 
 Mag. p. 368 (ed. Jacobitz), and exx. in 
 Wetst. in loc. The insertion of ὡς 
 before τῷ Kup. [Rec. omits with D°EKL; 
 mss. ; Theod., al.] is supported by pre- 
 ponderant authority. 
 
 8. εἰδότες] ‘seeing ye know;’ con- 
 cluding participial member, giving the 
 encouraging reason (σφόδρα Sappeiv περὶ 
 
140 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 9. 
 
 παρὰ Κυρίου, εἴτε δοῦλος εἴτε édev'Sepos. ° Kai οἱ κύριοι, τὰ 
 
 by \ a \ > te 5 , ἈΝ 5 / >’ , Ὁ Ν 
 αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς, ἀνιέντες τὴν ὥπειλην; εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ 
 
 τῆς ἀμοιβῆς, Chrys.) why they were to 
 act with this honesty and diligence. 
 The imperatival translation, ‘atque sci- 
 tote’ (Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 491), 
 is not grammatically tenable (compare 
 Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313), and mars 
 the logical connection of the clauses. 
 The translation of participles, it may be 
 observed, must always be modified by 
 the context; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 45. 2, p. 
 307, but correct, there what cannot be 
 termed otherwise than the erroneous 
 observation that such participles admit 
 of a translation by means of relatives ; 
 the observation so often illustrated in 
 these commentaries — that a participle 
 without the article can never be strictly 
 translated as a part. with the article — 
 appears to be of universal application ; 
 see esp. Donalds. Gi. § 490. 
 
 ὃ ἐάν τι κ. τ. λ.] ‘whatsoever good thing 
 ἐὰν coalescing 
 with the relative and being in such con- 
 nections used simply for ἂν both by 
 writers in the N. T., LXX, and late 
 Greek generally. In the passages col- 
 lected by Viger (Jdiom. vii1. 6), from 
 classical authors, ἂν clearly must be 
 
 each man shall have done ;’ 
 
 written throughout; see Herm. in loc. 
 and Winer, Gr. § 42. 6. obs. p. 277. 
 The relative is separated from τὶ by a 
 not uncommon ‘tmesis,’ instances of 
 which are cited by Meyer, e. g. Plato, 
 Legg. 1X. 864 8, ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ 
 [Lysias], Polystr. p. 160, ὃς ἄν τις ὑμᾶς 
 εὖ ποιῇ, ---- but here some edd. read ὅταν. 
 The reading κομιεῖται [Rec. with D®E 
 KL; most mss.; Bas., Chrys., Theod.] 
 is rightly rejected by recent editors, both 
 on preponderant external authority, and 
 as derived from Col. ἰ. c. The τοῦ is 
 also rightly struck out before Κυρίου. 
 
 τοῦτο Kom. παρὰ Κυρίου) ‘this 
 shall he receive (back) from the Lord 
 (Christ) ;’ ‘this, — and fully this,’ ex- 
 
 pressed more at length Col. iii. 24, 25. 
 The ‘appropriative’ middle κομίζεσϑαι 
 (see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 432. bb, and § 
 434, p. 450) refers to the receiving back 
 again, as it were, of a deposit; so that 
 in κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε, Col. ἰ. 6. (comp. 
 2 Cor. ν. 10), there is no brachylogy ; 
 see Winer, Gr. § 66.1. b, p. 547, and 
 compare notes in loc. The tense seems 
 obviously to refer to the day of final 
 retribution ; ἐπειδὴ εἰκός ἐστι πολλοὺς 
 τῶν δεσποτῶν μὴ ἀμείβεσϑαι τῆς εὐνοίας 
 τοῖς δούλοις, ἔκ ει αὐτοῖς ὑπισχνεῖται τὴν 
 ἀμοιβήν, (σι. εἴτε δοῦλος 
 εἴτε ἐλ.] ‘whether he be bond-slave or 
 Jree;’ whatever be his social condition 
 here, the future will only regard his 
 moral state; μετὰ τὴν ἐντεῦϑεν ἐκδημίαν 
 [ἔδειξε] οὐκ ἔτι“ δουλείας διαφοράν, Theod. 
 
 9. καὶ οἱ κύριοι] ‘And ye masters ;’ 
 corresponding duties of masters similarly 
 enunciated positively and negatively 
 (ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπ.), and concluded with a 
 similar participial clause expressing the 
 motive. The negative statement of the 
 duty is omitted in the parallel passage, 
 Col. iv. 1. On the use of καί, see notes 
 on ver. 4. τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε] 
 ‘do the same things towards them ;’ ‘evince 
 in action the same principles and feel- 
 ings towards them; preserve the ‘jus 
 analogum’ (Caly.) in your relations to 
 them.’ It does not seem necessary to 
 restrict τὰ αὐτὰ to μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλ εύ- 
 εἰν (Chrys.), or to ποιεῖν τὸ DEA. κ. τ. λ. 
 (Riick.), or, on the other hand, to ex- 
 tend it to ἐν ἅπλ., as well as to the other 
 details (Origen, Cram. Caten. ; compare 
 Eadie), the reference being rather to the 
 general expression of feeling, the εὔνοια 
 which was to mark all their actions, ἵνα 
 εὐνοϊκῶς --- ϑεραπεύσωσι, Theodoret, or, 
 as more correctly modified by Stier, — 
 κυριεύσωσι; ‘ea que benevolentie sunt 
 
 compensate,’ Beng. ἀνιέντες 
 
Cnap. VI. 10. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 147 
 
 > lal ‘ e lal ¢ , Jt » 3 > a \ , 
 αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν ὁ Κύριδς ἐστιν ἐν ovpavols Kal πρροσωπολημψῆία 
 
 > ” ’ > lal 
 OUK ἐστιν Tap QUT. 
 Put on the panoply of God; 
 arm yourselves against your 
 
 Ὁ Τὸ λοιπόν, ἐνδυναμοῦσδε ἐν Κυρίῳ καὶ ἐν 
 
 spiritual foes with all the defensive portions of Christian armor and the sword οὐ the Spirit. Pray that we 
 
 may be bold, 
 
 τὴν ἀπειλήν] ‘giving up your threat- 
 ening, ‘the too habitual threatening,’ 
 “quemadmodum vulgus dominorum so- 
 let,’ Erasm. Paraphr. (cited by Meyer) ; 
 explanatory participial clause (De W., 
 here wholly miscited by Eadie), specify- 
 ing a course of action, or rather of non- 
 action, in which the feeling was to be 
 particularly exhibited. As ἀπειλὴ ex- 
 presses, by the nature of the case, a cer- 
 tain and single course of action, the 
 article does not appear to be used, as 
 with ἀδικία, ἀκολασία, al., to specify the 
 particular acts (Middleton, Art. v. 1. 1), 
 but to hint at the common occurrence of 
 ἀπειλὴ, see ib. v. 1. 4. It is thus not 
 necessary to modify the meaning of ἀπ. 
 (‘hardness of heart,’ Olsh.); St. Paul 
 singles out the prevailing vice, and most 
 customary exhibition of bad feeling on 
 the part of the master, and in forbidding 
 this, naturally includes every similar 
 form of harshness. εἰδότες ὅτι 
 κι τ. λ.] ‘seeing ye know that both their and 
 your master is in heaven ;’ causal particip- 
 ial member exactly similar to that in 
 ver. 8; see notes in loc. The reading 
 is somewhat doubtful; the order in the 
 text is adopted by Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf, and long since by Simon Colin- 
 zeus (ed. N. T. 1534) with ABD! (sup- 
 ported partially by L; 6 mss., al., καὶ 
 bu. καὶ αὐτ.) ; mss., Vulg., Goth., Copt., 
 al.; Clem., al.,—but designated by 
 Mill, Prolegom. p. 115, as ‘argutius 
 quam verius.’ This is not a judicious 
 criticism, for the probability of an omis- 
 sion of καὶ ὑμῶν, owing to homeeoteleu- 
 ton, is far from small, and seems very 
 satisfactorily to account for the various 
 readings ; see Mey. zn (oc. (Crit. Notes), 
 p. 239. προσωπολημψία!] 
 ‘respect of persons ;’ personarum accep- 
 
 tio, Clarom., Vulg., ‘ vilja hatpei,’ Goth. ; 
 on the meaning of this word, see notes 
 on Gal. ii. 6, and on the orthography, 
 Tisch. Prolegom. in N. T. p. Xivit. 
 
 10. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘Finally, ‘as to 
 what remains for you to do ;’ μετὰ τὸ δια- 
 τάξαι, φησί, τὰ εἰκότα τοῦτο ἀκόλουϑον 
 καὶ ὑπόλοιπον, Cicum.; ‘formula con- 
 cludendi [see Chrys.], et ut ad magnam 
 rem excitandi,’ Beng.; see 2 Cor. xiii. 
 11, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and 
 compare notes on Phil. l.c. On the dis- 
 tinction between τὸ λοιπὸν and τοῦ λοι- 
 ποῦ [adopted here by Lachm. with AB ; 
 3 mss.; Cyr., Dam.,—evidence obvi- 
 ously insufficient], see notes on Gal. vi. 
 17; and between it and τὸ μέλλον 
 (merely ‘in posterum’) the brief dis- 
 tinctions of Tittmann, Synon. p. 175. 
 The insertion of ἀδελφοί μου before 
 ἐνδυν. [Rec., Wordsw. with KL (FG, al. 
 omit μου) ; most mss.; Syr., Copt., al. ; 
 Theod., al.| has the further support of 
 A, which adds ἀδελφοὶ after évd., —but is 
 appy. rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., 
 al. on good external authority [BDE; 
 Clarom., Sang., Goth., th. (both) 
 Arm.; Cyr., al.], and as appy. alien to 
 the style of an Epistle in which the 
 readers do not elsewhere appear so 
 addressed ; see Olsh. and Alf. zn loc. 
 
 “be 
 
 ἐνδυναμοῦσϑ εἸ strengthened ; ᾿ 
 
 ἜΣ ΑΨ 2| [corroboremini] Syr., — less 
 ahs NY 
 
 definitely, ‘be strong,’ Auth.; not mid- 
 dle, ‘corroborate vos,’ Pisc., but (as 
 always in the N. T.) passive ; compare 
 Acts ix. 22, Rom. iv. 20,2 Tim. i. 1, 
 Heb. xi. 34, and see Fritz. Rom. 1. c. 
 Vol. 1. p. 245. The active occurs, Phil. 
 iva 19. 1 ΠΡ 1. ΤΩΣ ὃ. ΤΊ ταν: 17. 1π 
 each case in reference to Christ. The 
 simple form [here adopted by B; 17; 
 
148 
 
 Lad , iol ’ a 
 τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 11, 12. 
 
 ’ 7 \ rn 
 1 ἐνδύσασδε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ 
 
 Θεοῦ, πρὸς τὸ δύνασαι ὑμᾶς στῆναι πρὸς τὰς μεδοδείας τοῦ 
 
 διαβόλου: 
 
 Orig. Cat.] is only found once, Col. i. 
 11, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605. 
 
 καὶ ἐν τῷ κ. τ. A.| ‘and in the power 
 of His might ;’ not an ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, Beng., 
 but with a preservation of the proper 
 sense of each substantive; see notes on 
 ch. i. 19. This appended clause (καὶ) 
 serves to explain and specify the princi- 
 ple in which our strength was to be 
 sought for, and in which it abided ; com- 
 pare 2 Cor. xii. 9, ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ 
 ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. On the familiar 
 ἐν Κυρίῳ (‘in the Lord,’ our only element 
 of spiritual life), see notes ch. iv. 1. 
 
 ll. ἐνδύσ. τὴν πανοπλίαν] ‘Put 
 The 
 emphasis rests on this latter word (Mey.) 
 as the repetition in ver. 13 still more 
 clearly shows, not τοῦ Θεοῦ (Harless) ; 
 ‘significat debere nos ex omm parte 
 instructos esse, ne quid desit,’ Calv. ; 
 the term here clearly denoting not 
 merely the ‘armatura,’ Vulg., but the 
 ‘universa armatura,’ Beza, the armor in 
 all its parts, offensive and defensive ; 
 ‘omnia armorum genera, quibus totum 
 militis corpus tegitur,’ Raphel, Annot. 
 Vol. 11. 491; see Judith, xiv. 4, mavo- 
 πλίας, compared with ver. 2, τὰ σκεύη τὰ 
 
 on the whole armor, the panoply.’ 
 
 πολεμικά, and comp. παντελὴς πανοπλία, 
 Plato, Legg. ναι. 796 B. It has been 
 doubted whether St. Paul is here allud- 
 ing to the armor of the Hebrew or the 
 Roman soldier; the latter is most proba- 
 ble, but both were substantially the 
 same; see esp. Polyb. Hist. v1. 23, a 
 good Art. in Kitto, Cyclop. (‘ Arms, 
 Armour’), and Winer, RWB. Art. 
 ‘Waffen, Vol. 11. p. 667. For a ser- 
 mon on this text see Latimer, Serm. 111. 
 p. 25 (ed. Corrie). Θεοῦ] ‘of God;’ 
 ‘que a Deo donantur,’ Zanch.; gen. of 
 the source, origin, whence the arms came 
 (Hartung, Casus, p. 23, notes, on 1 Thess. 
 
 195 ὦ » » ἘΝ τοὶ - ΄ \ Ξε x / 
 OTL οὐκ ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα Kal σάρκα, 
 
 i. 6), well expressed by Theod. ἅπασιν 
 διανέμει τὴν βασιλικὴν παντευχίαν. 
 
 πρὸς τὸ δύνασϑαι κ. τ. λ.] ‘in order 
 that ye may be able to stand ασαϊηβὶ ;’ 
 object and purpose contemplated in the 
 equipment ; compare notes on ch, iii. 4 
 with those on iv. 12. The verb στῆναι, 
 as Raphel (Annot. Vol. 11. p. 493) shows, 
 is a military expression, ‘to stand one’s 
 ground,’ opp. to φεύγειν ; see esp. Kypke, 
 Obs. Vol. 11. p. 801. The second πρὸς 
 in this connection has thus the meaning 
 ‘adversus’ (Clarom., Vulg.), with the 
 implied notion of hostility (‘contra’) 
 which is otherwise less usual, unless it 
 is involved in the verb; see Winer, G7. 
 § 49. h, p. 361 note. τὰς μεδο- 
 δείας τοῦ διαβ.} ‘the wiles of the 
 Devil, — or perhaps, as more in har- 
 mony with the context, ‘the stratagems” 
 (Eadie; μεϑοδεῦσαί ἐστι τὸ ἀπατῆσαι καὶ 
 διὰ μηχανῆς ἑλεῖν, Chrysost.); the 
 plural denoting the various concrete 
 forms of the abstract singular; see notes 
 on Gal. vy. 20. On the form pedodias, 
 which it must be admitted is here 
 very strongly supported [AB'DIEGKL ; 
 many mss.], see notes on ch. iy. 14. 
 The only reason for not accepting it is, 
 that in cases of apparent tfacism caution 
 is always required in estimating the 
 value of external evidence. 
 
 12. ἡμῖν 7 
 πάλ ἡ] ‘because our struggle is not,’ ‘the 
 struggle in which we are engaged ;’ rea- 
 son for the special mention of the pedo- 
 defas τοῦ διαβόλου, ver. 11. It is com- 
 monly asserted that the metaphor is not 
 here fully sustained, on the ground that 
 πάλη (πάλλω) is properly ‘lucta;’ see 
 Plato, Legg. ναι. 795 p. As, however, 
 we find πάλη δορός (Eur. Heracl. 160), 
 πάλην μίξαντες λόγχης (Lycophron, Cas- 
 sand, 1358), it is clear such a usage as 
 
 «“ > » 
 οτι ουκ eoTly 
 
Cuap. VI. 12. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 149 
 
 2 \ \ \ >) , Ν Ν > , ‘ Mt / 
 ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς Tas ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτο- 
 
 the present can be justified ; indeed it is 
 not unlikely that the word (an ἅπ. λεγόμ. 
 in New Test., not found in LXX) was 
 designedly adopted to convey the idea of 
 the personal, individualizing nature of 
 the encounter. The reading ὑμῖν 
 adopted by Lachm. is well supported 
 [BD!IFG; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., 
 Aug., Boern., Syr., Goth., al.; Lucif., 
 Ambrst.], but appy. less probable than 
 ἡμῖν [AD®EKL; nearly all mss. ; Vulg., 
 Copt., Syr.-Phil., al.; Clem., Orig., al.], 
 for which it might have been easily sub- 
 stituted as a more individualizing ad- 
 dress. πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα] 
 “against flesh and blood, mere feeble man ; 
 ov πρὸς τοὺς τυχόντας ἔχομέν φησιν, οὐδὲ 
 πρὸς ἀνδρώπους ὁμοιοπαδϑεῖς ἡμῖν καὶ ἰσο- 
 δυνάμους, Theophyl.; comp. Polylenus, 
 Strateg. 111. 11, μὴ ὡς πολεμίοις συμβάλ- 
 λοντες ἀλλ᾽ ἄνϑρώποις αἷμα καὶ σάρκα 
 ἔχουσι [the exhortation of Chabrias to 
 his soldiers], and see notes on Gal. i. 16, 
 where the formula is more fully ex- 
 plained. aAAd| There is here no 
 ground for translating οὐκ ἀλλά, ‘non 
 tam....quam;’ comp. Glass. Philolog. 
 1. 5. 22, Vol. 1. p. 420 sq. (ed. Dathe). 
 The negation and affirmation are both 
 absolute ; ‘non contra homines [‘ vasa 
 sunt, alins utitur,’ August.], sed contra 
 dzmones,’ Cornel. a Lap.; see esp. 
 Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p. 439, where this 
 formula is very satisfactorily discussed, 
 and comp. Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. τ. 
 6. 2, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 8. In 
 those exx. where the negation cannot, 
 by the nature of the case, be considered 
 completely absolute, it will be observed, 
 as Winer ably shows, that the negation 
 has_ designedly 
 which, in a faithful and forcible transla- 
 tion, ought always to be preserved with- 
 out any toning down; see Fritz. Mark, 
 Excurs. τ᾿. p. 773 sq., Klotz, Devar. 
 Vol. 11. p. 9, 10. 
 
 a rhetorical coloring, 
 
 πρὸς Tas 
 
 &pxas| ‘against the principalities ;’ see 
 esp. notes on ch. i. 23, and observe that 
 the same terms which are there used to 
 denote the classes and orders of good, 
 are here similarly applied to evi! angels 
 and spirits; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 
 B, p. 355. 
 pas x. τ. A.] ‘the world-rulers of this 
 
 TOUS KOT MOKPaTo- 
 
 darkness ;’ those who extend their world- 
 wide sway oyer the present (comp. ch. 
 ii. 1) spiritual and moral darkness ; 
 ποίου σκότους ; apa τῆς νυκτός [compare 
 Wetst.|; οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ τῆς πονηρίας, 
 Chrys., see ch. v. 8. Meyer rightly 
 maintains (against Harless) the full 
 meaning of κοσμοκρ, as not merely 
 ‘rulers’ (‘magnates,’ /Eth.), ‘ fairwuha- 
 bandans,’ Goth. (comp. Syr.), but ‘rulers 
 over the world,’ munditenentes, Tertull. 
 (Mare. v. 18), κόσμος preserving its 
 natural and proper force. So even in 
 the second of the three exx. cited by 
 Schoetgg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 790, out of 
 Rabbinical writers (‘qui vocem hance, 
 ΚΕ ΤΡ civitate donarunt’), 
 which Harl. here adduces, — ‘ Abraham 
 persecutus est quatuor JNU PWT, 50. 
 reges,’— the word appears used design- 
 edly with a rhetorical force; ex. 3 is 
 perfectly distinct. 
 later writers are cited by Elsner, Obs. 
 Vol. 1. p. 219. The dogmatical mean- 
 ing is correctly explained by the Greek 
 commentators ; the evil spirits exercise 
 
 sua 
 
 Further exx. from 
 
 dominion over the κόσμος, not in its 
 mere material nature (οὐχὶ τῆς κτίσεως 
 κρατοῦντες, Theophyl.), but in its ethical 
 and perhaps intellectual character and 
 relations (ὡς κατακρατοῦντες τῶν τὰ κοσ- 
 μικὰ φρονούντων, Cicumen.), the depra- 
 vation of which is expressed by τοῦ ox. 
 τούτου ; see John xvi. 11, 6 
 τούτου, I. ib. v. 
 Πονηρῷ [see notes, ver. 16] κεῖται, 2 Cor. 
 iv. 4, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, compare 
 John xiy. 30. On the meanings of κόσ- 
 
 ἄρχων τοῦ kK. 
 
 19, 6 κ' ὅλος ἐν τῷ 
 
150 
 pas τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ 
 
 pos, see Bauer, de Regno Divino, 111. 2, 8 
 (Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 144, 154), 
 and comp. notes on Gal. iv.3. The in- 
 sertion of τοῦ αἰῶνος before τούτου | Rec. 
 with D®EKL; majority of mss.; Syr.- 
 Phil. with an ast. ; Orig., Chrys., Theod., 
 al.] seems clearly explanatory, and is 
 rightly rejected by nearly all modern 
 editors. 
 πονηρία 5] ‘the spiritual hosts, communi- 
 ties, of wickedness,’ sc. characterized by 
 essential πονηρία ; gen. of ‘the character- 
 istic quality’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 
 115, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 211) ; ἐπ- 
 εἰδὴ γάρ εἰσι καὶ of ἄγγελοι πνεύματα, 
 
 τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς 
 
 προσέϑηκε τῆς πονηρίας, Theoph., comp. 
 (Ecumen. zn loc. 
 however, merely τὰ πνεύματα (Hlsn. 1, 
 comp. Syr., dith.), but, in accordance 
 with the force of the collective neut. ad- 
 ject. (Bern. Synt. v1. 2, p. 326, Jelf, Gr. 
 § 436, 1. δ.), denote the bands, hosts, or 
 confraternities of evil spirits: Winer 
 and Meyer aptly cite τὰ λῃστρικά (‘rob- 
 ber-hordes), Polyzn. Strateg. v. 14. 1 
 ἱτὰ δοῦλα, τὰ αἰχμάλωτα, cited by Mey. 
 after Bernhardy, are not fully appropri- 
 ate ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 378]; comp. 
 τὰ δαιμόνια, and see esp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 
 3. Ὁ. obs. 8, p. 213. The gloss of Auth. 
 ‘spiritual wickedness,’ does not seem 
 tenable, for if τὰ πνευματικὰ be taken as 
 the abstract neuter (so perhaps Copt., — 
 which adopts the singular πνευματικὸν) 
 
 Τὰ πνευματικὰ are not, 
 
 expressive of the properties or attributes 
 (the ‘dynamic neut. adj.’ of Kvriiger, 
 Sprachl. ὃ 43. 4.27; comp. Stier), the 
 meaning must be, not ‘spiritales malig- 
 nitates,’ Beza, but ‘ spiritualia nequitie,’ 
 Vulg., Clarom. (comp. Goth.), ἡ. 6. 
 “spiritual elements, properties, of wick- 
 edness’ (see Jelf, Gr. § 436, obs. 2), — 
 an abstract meaning which obviously 
 does not harmonize with the context ; 
 see Meyer in loc. The concrete interpre- 
 tation, on the other hand, is grammati- 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 12. 
 
 πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς 
 
 cally correct, and far from unsuitable 
 after the definite τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας. 
 
 ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοιΞ)] ‘in the heav- 
 enly regions,’ ‘in the sky or air ;’ Dobree, 
 Adv. Vol. 1. p. 574: see notes ch. i. 20, 
 11. θ. Here again we have at least three 
 interpretations ; (a) that of Chrys. and 
 the Greek commentators, who give τὰ 
 ἐπουρ. an ethical reference, ‘ heavenly 
 blessings ;”’ (b) that of Riick., Matth., 
 Eadie, al., who refer the expression to 
 the scene, the locality of the combat, 
 ‘the celestial spots occupied by the 
 chureh;’ (6) the ancient interpr. (see 
 Jerome zn loc.; comp. Tertull. Mare. v. 
 18, where, however, the application is 
 too limited) according to which ἐν τοῖς 
 ἐπ. is to be joined with τὰ mv. τῆς πον. as 
 specifying the abode or rather haunt of 
 the τὰ πνευματ. ; ‘qui infra celum, 
 /ith. (both). Of these (a) is opposed 
 to the previous local interpretations of 
 the words, and involves an explan. of ἐν 
 (= ὑπέρ, Chrys., or περί, Theod., wholly 
 untenable; (b) seems vague and not 
 fully intelligible ; (6) on the contrary is 
 both grammatically admissible (as the 
 clause thus presents a single conception, 
 ‘supernal spirits of evil,’ see notes on 
 ch. i. 19) and exegetically satisfactory. 
 The haunt of the evil spirits was indi- 
 rectly specified in ch. ii. 2 as being in the 
 regions τοῦ ἀέρος ; here the latent oppo- 
 sition, αἷμα καὶ σὰρξ (on earth) and τὰ 
 πνευμ. (in supernal regions), suggests a 
 word of greater antithetical force, which 
 still can include the same lexical mean- 
 
 ing; comp. Matth. vi. 26, τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ 
 ovpavod. As in ch. 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 specifi- 
 cation of locality; see notes zn loc., and 
 comp. generally Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. 
 p. 401 sq. The repetition of πρὸς before 
 each of the substantives is somewhat of 
 
Cuap. VI. 18, 14. 
 
 ἐπουρανίοις. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 151 
 
 δ nr » / \ fal lal 
 8 διὰ τοῦτο ἀναλάβετε THY πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 
 ivf fol > lel > nA an A ee 
 ἵνα δυνηδῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ TH πονηρᾷ Kal ἅπαντα κατερ- 
 
 γασάμενοι στῆναι. 
 
 a rhetorical nature, designed to give em- 
 phasis to the enumeration; see Winer, 
 Gr. § 50. 7. obs. p. 374. 
 
 13. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘On this account,’ 
 ‘wherefore ;’ since we have such power- 
 ful adversaries to contend with; ἐπειδή 
 φησι, χαλεποὶ οἱ ἐχϑροί, Gicum. 
 ἀναλάβετε] ‘assume,’ ‘take up,’ not 
 necessarily ‘to the field of battle,’ 
 Conyb., but with simple local reference, 
 as opposed to κατατίϑεσϑαι ; ἀναλαμβ. τὰ 
 ὕπλα k.7.A. being the technical expres- 
 sion : see Deut. i. 41, Jer.xxvi.3, Judith 
 Σὶν ἃ; 9, δος. x. 97, x1..7, and exx.an 
 Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 302, Elsner, Obs. 
 Vol. 1. p. 231, and Wetst. zn loc. 
 ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ TH πονηρᾷ] ‘in the 
 evil day — of violent temptation,’ Fell, 
 Coce. : ἡμέραν πονηρὰν τῆν τῆς παρατάξ- 
 εως ἡμέραν καλεῖ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος 
 αὐτῇ διαβόλου τὸ ὄνομα τεϑεικώς, Theod. ; 
 Schoettg. compares 72" ΠΣῸΞ ‘in hora 
 mala, quando periculum nobis immi- 
 net,’ Hor. Hebr. ΝΟ]. τ. p. 793. The use 
 of ἡμέρᾳ rather than αἰῶνι (Gal. i. 4) is 
 opposed to the interpr. of Chrys., 
 CEcum., Theophyl., τὸν παρόντα βίον 
 φησί; and the foregoing earnest tone of 
 exhortation to the idea that any consola- 
 tion (scil. ro βραχὺ ἐδήλωσε, Theophyl., 
 comp. Chrys.) was implied in the use of 
 ἡμέρᾳ. Still more untenable is the view 
 of Meyer, that St. Paul is here specify- 
 ing the day when the last great Satanic 
 outbreak was to take place (comp. notes 
 on Gal. i. 4); the Apostle has at heart 
 what he knew was much more present 
 and more constantly impending ; ‘bel- 
 lum est perpetuum; pugna alio die 
 minus, alio die magis fervet,’ Beng. 
 ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι] ‘having 
 accomplished, fully done all,’ not merely 
 before the fight, Beng., but as στῆναι (‘to 
 stand your ground’) obviously suggests, 
 
 14 a 5 ΄ τ ἘΠ ον ὦ 
 στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν ἐν 
 
 in and appertaining to the fight ; all things 
 that the exigences of the conflict re- 
 quired. The special interpr. of Gicum. 
 (comp. Chrys.) κατεργασ. = καταπολεμή- 
 σαντες, 1. 6. ‘having overcome all,’ Auth. 
 in Marg. (comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 3, 
 Esdr. iy. 4), though adopted by Harl., is 
 very doubtful ; for, in the first place, the 
 masc. would have seemed more natural 
 than the neut. ἅπαντα (Est., contr. De 
 W.); and secondly, though katepya¢. 
 occurs 20 times in St. Paul’s Epp., it is 
 only in one of two senses, either perficere 
 (‘notat rem arduam,’ Fritz.), as here, 
 Rom. vii. 18, Phil. ii. 12, al., or perpe- 
 trare (‘de rebus que fiunt non honeste’), 
 Rom. i. 27, ii. 9, al. ; see Fritz. Rom. 11. 
 9, Vol. τ. p. 109, and the numerous exx. 
 cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. τι. p. 495 
 sq. The concluding στῆναι is, then, not 
 ‘stare tanquam triumphatores’ (Zanch. 
 ap. Pol. Syn., comp. even Meyer), but 
 as in ver. 11, ‘to stand firm’ (the battle 
 is life-long), ‘ut non cadatis aut loco 
 cedere cogamini,’ Est. 
 
 14. στῆτε οὖν] ‘Stand then,’ not as 
 in ver. 13, in the fight, but, as the con- 
 text obviously requires, ready for the 
 fight; ‘kampffertig,’ De Wette. The 
 several portions of the πανοπλία are then 
 specified in regular order ; παραϑαρσύνας 
 αὐτούς, λοιπὸν αὐτούς καδοπλίζει, 
 Chrys. περιζωσάμενοι THY 
 ὀσφύν] ‘having girt your loins about ;’ 
 comp. Isaiah, xi. 
 
 kat 
 
 5, ἔσται δικαιοσύνῃ ἐξ: 
 ὡσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀληδείᾳ εἰ- 
 λημένος τὰς πλευράς. The remark of 
 Holz., that the aorists are improperly 
 used for presents, is wholly mistaken ; 
 the different acts specified by the partici- 
 ples were all completed before the soldier 
 took up his position ; comp. notes on ch. 
 iv. 8. It may be observed that the 
 girdle was no mere ornament (Harless, 
 
152 
 
 ἀληϑεία, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν ώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύ 
 ηδϑείᾳ, νδυσάμ ὸ ρ ἧς νῆς; 
 
 compare Eadie), but the first and most 
 necessary part of the equipment; a o7pa- 
 τιώτης ἄζωστος was, as Meyer observes, 
 Inde- 
 pendently of serving to keep the armor 
 
 a very ‘contradictio in adjecto.’ 
 
 in its proper place, it appears also, — 
 except in the Homeric age, when it 
 formed a part of the cuirass, and in 
 later times, when ornamented ‘baltei’ 
 came into use (Smith, Dict. of Antiq. 
 Art. ‘Balteus ’), to have been commonly 
 used to support the sword ; see plates in 
 Montfaucon, L’ Antig. Expl. Vol. rv. 1, 
 p. 19 sq. and Suppl. Vol. rv. p. 14 sq., 
 Smith, Dict. Art. ‘Zona,’ and Winer, 
 RWB. Att. ‘ Giirtel,’ Vol. 1. p. 448. 
 
 ἐν ἀληδ εἰᾳ] ‘with truth, as the girdle 
 which bound all together, and served to 
 make the Christian soldier expedite and 
 unencumbered for the fight; é being 
 instrumental, or perhaps rather semi- 
 local, with a ref. to the cincture and 
 equipment; see Isaiah xi. 5 quoted 
 above, Psalm Ixiv. 7, περιεζωσμένος ἐν 
 δυναστείᾳ, and comp. Green, Gramm. p. 
 289. It has been doubted (see Gicumen. 
 in loc.) whether by ἀλήϑεια is meant 
 what is termed objective truth (ἀλήϑεια 
 δογμάτων Cicum. 1), 1. 6. ‘the orthodox 
 profession of the Gospel’ (Hamm. on 
 Luke, xii. 35), or subjective truth; the 
 latter is most probable, provided it is 
 not unduly limited to mere ‘truthful- 
 ness’ (Chrysost. 1) or sincerity (Calv., 
 Olsh.). It must be taken in its widest 
 sense ἀλήϑ. ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ch. iv. 21, the 
 inward practical acknowledgment of the 
 truth as it is in Him; δύνῃ δὲ ὡς πρὸς 
 Xp. 
 (Ecum.; comp. Reuss, Thél. Chret. rv. 
 16, Vol. 11. p. 169. 
 σύνη 5] ‘of righteousness ;’ gen. of appo- 
 sition or identity ; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, 
 p- 470, comp. Scheuerl. Synt, § 12. 1, p. 
 82; so similarly in regard of sentiment, 
 
 τὸν νοῆσαι, τὸν ὄντως ἀλήϑειαν, 
 
 τῆς δικαιο- 
 ) 
 
 Isaiah, lix. 17, καὶ ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην 
 
 E P-HES PANS 
 
 Cuap. VI. 15. 
 
 15 . 
 
 Kal 
 
 ὡς ϑώρακα, Wisdom, v. 19, ἐνδύσεται 
 This δικαιοσύνη is 
 not ‘righteousness’ in its deeper scrip- 
 tural sense, 5011, by faith in Christ (Har- 
 less), as πίστις is mentioned indepen- 
 dently in ver. 16, but rather Christian 
 moral rectitude (Meyer, Olsh., Usteri, 
 Lehrb. 11.1. 2, p. 190; τὸν καϑολικὸν καὶ 
 ἐνάρετον βίον, Chrys.), or, more correctly 
 speaking, the righteousness which is the 
 result of the renovation of the heart by 
 the Holy Spirit; see Waterl. Regen. Vol. 
 Iv. p. 434. Eadie presses the article, 
 but without grammatical grounds; its 
 insertion is merely due to the common 
 principle of correlation ; see Middl. Art. 
 TR τ 0. 5.68 
 
 15. ὑποδησάμενοι τοὺς Todas] 
 ‘having shod your feet,’ ‘calceati pedes,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg. It does not seem neces- 
 sary to refer this specially to the Roman 
 ‘ealiga’ (Mey.; see Joseph. Bell. Jud. 
 vi. 1. 8), as the reference to the Roman 
 soldier, though probable, is not certain ; 
 any strong military sandal (Heb. -4s>, 
 Isaiah ix. 4, see Gesen. Lex. s. v.) is 
 perhaps all that is imphed; compare 
 Lydus, Synt. Sacr. 111. 2, p. 46 sq. 
 ἐν ἑτοιμασίᾳ) ‘with the readiness ;’ 
 
 ϑώρακα δικαιοσύνην. 
 
 not ‘in preeparationem,’ Clarom, but ‘in 
 preeparatione,’ Amit., Copt.; ἐν being 
 instrumental, or semi-local, as in ver, 
 14. The somewhat peculiar form ἕτοι- 
 facia, used principally in the LXX and 
 eccl. writers, denotes properly ‘ prepara- 
 tion’ in an active sense (Wisdom xiil. 
 12, érom. τροφῆς, Mart. Polye. § 18, 
 ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμ.), then ‘a state of 
 readiness,’ whether outwardly consid- 
 ered (Joseph. Antig. x. 1. 2, ἵππους εἰς 
 ἕτοιμ. παρέχεϊν) or inwardly estimated 
 (Hippoer. de Dee. Hubitu. Vols 1. p. 74, 
 ed. Kiihn ; compare Psalm ix. 38, érom. 
 καρδίας, 7. 6. τὸ ἐμπαράσκευον, Chrys.), 
 and thence by a conceivable transition 
 (esp. as 5°27 admits both meanings, sce 
 
Cuapr. VI. 16. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 159 
 
 e / \ ἐᾷ > e 7 lo) b} / lal 3 , 
 ὑποδησάμενοι τους πόδας εν ετούμασιᾳ του εὐαγγελίου Τῆς εἰρηνὴς 
 
 bie lal ’ , \ \ an ee ΄ 
 * ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀναλαβόντες τὸν δυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως, ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεσδε 
 
 Gesen. Ler. s. y.), ‘something fixed, 
 settled * (compare Theodot. Prov. iy. 18, 
 ἑτοιμασία ἡμέρας = σταϑερὰ μεσημβρία), 
 and further even ‘a basis, a foundation,’ 
 Heb. y4573 (Dan. xi. 7, τῆς ῥίζης αὐτῆς, 
 τῆς ἑτοιμασίας αὐτοῦ, compare Esra ii. 
 14). This last 
 meaning, however, may possibly have 
 originated from a misconception of the 
 translator (see Holzh. and Meyer in loc.), 
 but at any rate is very inappropriate in 
 this place. There is then no reason to 
 depart from the more correct meaning, 
 πῶ» 
 ‘readiness,’ ‘ preparedness ἢ (σι.5....α.}9 
 Syr., ‘manviba,’ Goth.), not, however, 
 ὥστε ἑτοίμους εἶναι πρὸς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
 (Chrys.), but, as the context and meta- 
 phor suggest, ‘ad militiam, impedimentis 
 omnibus soluti,’ Calvy. 
 
 68, Psalm 1xxxviii. 
 
 TOU 
 evayy. τῆς εἰρήνη 9] ‘of the Gospel 
 of peace ;’ 501]. caused by the ebayy. τῆς 
 εἰρήνης ; the first gen. εὐαγγελίου being 
 that of the source or agent (see notes on 1 
 Thess. i. 6, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126), 
 the second, εἰρήνης, that of the purport 
 and contents ; comp. ch. i. 13, τὸ εὐαγγέλ. 
 τῆς σωτηρίας, where see notes, and Bern- 
 hardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 161. The sum 
 and substance of the Gospel was ἡ 
 εἰρήνη, Peace, not with one another 
 merely, but with God (Est.), a peace that 
 can only be enjoyed and secured if we 
 war against His enemies ; ἂν τῷ διαβόλῳ 
 πολεμῶμεν eipnvevouey πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 
 Chrys. On the different terms with 
 which evayy. is associated in the N. T., 
 see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 8, Vol. 11. 
 p- 81. 
 
 16. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν] ‘in addition to all ;’ 
 not, with local ref., ‘super omnibus, quee- 
 cumque induistis,’ Beng. (comp. Goth. 
 ‘ufar all’), nor, with ethical ref., ‘above 
 all,’ Auth.,— but simply in ref. to the 
 
 Jast accompaniment; comp. Luke iii. 20, 
 9 
 
 προσέϑηκε τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσι, and sce Winer, 
 Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 850. Eadie cites Col. 
 iil. 14, ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις, but neither this 
 passage nor Luke xvi. 26 are strictly 
 similar, as the addition of τούτοις implies 
 a reference to what has preceded, while 
 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is general and unrestricted, 
 and more nearly approaches a ‘formula 
 concludendi ; see Harless, and exx. col- 
 lected by Wetst. on Luke xvi. 26. In 
 both the force of ἐπὶ is the same, ‘ acces- 
 sion,’ ‘superaddition ;’ comp. Donalds. 
 Gr. § 483. aa. The reading ἐν 
 πᾶσιν, adopted by Lachm., with B; a 
 few mss; Clarom.; Vulgate (appy.) ; 
 Method., Greg.-Naz.; al., has not sufti- 
 cient external support, and may have 
 been a correction for the ambiguous ἐπί. 
 τὸν ϑυρεόν! ‘the shield,’ ‘scutum,’ 
 Clarom., Vulg. The term Supeds, as its 
 derivation suggests, is properly anything, 
 ‘quod vicem janue prstat’ (Homer, 
 Od. 1x. 240, 313, 340), thence in later 
 writers (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 366) a 
 large oblong or oval shield (οἷά tis Stipa 
 φυλάττων τὸ σῶμα, Theophyl.), differing 
 both in form and dimensions from the 
 round and lighter ἀσπίς (‘clypeus’); see 
 esp. Polyb. Hist. v1. 23. 2, comp. Lips. 
 de Milit. Rom. 111. 2, and exx. in Kypke, 
 Elsner, and Alberti zn loc. ΠῚ]. doubts 
 whether ϑυρεὸς was intentionally used 
 instead of ἀσπίς, and cites the very sim- 
 ilar passage, Wisdom v. 20, λήψεται 
 ἀσπίδα ὁσιότητα; it is not, however, 
 improbable that in the time of St. Paul 
 (perhaps 150 years later) the distinction 
 had become more commonly recognized ; 
 see Plutarch, Plamin. § 12. 
 miatews| ‘of faith; appositional gen. 
 similar to δικαιοσύνης, ver. 14. 
 ᾧ δυνήσεσϑ εἸ ‘with which ye will be 
 able ;’ scil. as protected by and under 
 cover of which (comp. ver. 16), or, with 
 a still more definite instrumental force 
 
 THS 
 
 > 
 εν 
 
154 
 
 , \ , fod a \ 7 , 
 πάντα Ta βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι: 
 
 (Goth., Arm.), as specifying the defen- 
 sive implement by which the extinction 
 of the fire-tipped darts will be facilitated 
 and effected ; 7 πίστις οὖν ταῦτα σβέννυ- 
 σιν, Theoph. The future must not be 
 unduly pressed (Mey.) ; it points simply 
 and generally to the time of the contest, 
 whenever that might be: the future is 
 only ‘a conditioned present ; see Bern- 
 hardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 877. 
 
 τοῦ Tovnpod| ‘the wicked One ;’ ‘ne- 
 quissimi,’ Clarom., Vulg.; not ‘evil,’ τὸ 
 πονηρόν, but in accordance with the indi- 
 vidualizing and personal nature of the 
 conflict which the context so forcibly de- 
 picts, — the Devil; μόνον ἐκεῖνος πονηρὸς 
 κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν λέγεται, Chrys. de Diab. 11. 
 Vol. 11. p. 309 (ed. Ben. 1834), comp. 2 
 Thess. iii. 3, 1 John y. 18, probably 
 Matth. v. 37, John xvii. 15, al., and see 
 Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 807, 
 notes on 1 Thess. J. c., and on the conflict 
 generally, the instructive remarks of 
 Mayer, Hist. Diab. § 7, p. 681 sq. comp. 
 also Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. 
 p- 226 sq. τὰ βέλη τὰ 
 memup.| ‘the fire-tipt, or fiery darts ;’ 
 the addition of the epithet serving to 
 mark the fell nature of the attack, and 
 to warn the combatant ; πεπ. δὲ αὐτὰ κέκ- 
 ληκεν διεγείρων τοὺς στρατιώτας, καὶ κελ- 
 εύὐων ἀσφαλῶς περιφράττεσϑαι, Theodoret. 
 Allusion is here distinctly made to the 
 πυρφόροι ὀϊστοί, arrows, darts, etc., tipped 
 with some imflammable substance, which 
 were used both by the Hebrews (Psalm 
 vii. 14), Greeks (Herodotus, vir. 52, 
 Thucyd. 11. 75, Arrian, Alex. 11. 18), 
 and Romans (‘ malleoli,’ Cicero pro Mi- 
 lone, 24: ‘falarice,’ Livy xx1. 8, were 
 much larger), in sieges, or, under certain 
 circumstances, against the enemy in the 
 field; see Vegetius,de Re Mil. αν. 18, 
 Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Bogen,’ Vol. 1. p. 
 190. Any reference to ‘ poisoned ’ 
 darts (Hamm. al.) is not in accordance 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Οσμαρ. ΥἹ. 17. 
 
 17 Ἅ \ 
 Kal τὴν 
 
 with the meaning and tense of the part. 
 πεπυρωμένα. It may be remarked that 
 the art. is not found in BD!FG, and is 
 rejected by Lachm.; in which case πεπυρ. 
 will become a ‘tertiary’ predicate, and 
 must be translated ‘fire-tipt as they 
 are,’ see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq., 
 and comp. Winer, Gr. § 20, 1. obs. p. 
 122. It seems, however, much more 
 probable that the art. was omitted by an 
 oversight, than that the transcriber felt 
 any grammatical difficulty, and sought 
 to remedy it by insertion. 
 “to quench.’ 
 
 σβέσαι) 
 It seems too much to say 
 That 
 the use of σβέσαι was suggested by 
 
 with Caly., ‘improprie loquitur.’ 
 
 πεπυρ. is not improbable; as, however, 
 it is certain that the larger shields, which 
 for lightness were made of wood, were 
 covered with hides (μοσχείῳ δέρματι, 
 Polyb. Hist. v1. 23. 3, Lips. de Milit. 
 111. 2) and similar materials designed to 
 prevent the full effect of the βέλη πεπυρ., 
 the particular verb cannot in any way be 
 considered here as inappropriate ; comp. 
 Arrian, Alex, 11. 18. 
 
 17. καὶ τὴν K.7.A.] Meyer rightly 
 objects to the punctuation of ZLachm. 
 and Tisch.: a comma, or perhaps rather 
 a colon (Wordsw.), is here far more suit- 
 able than a period. We have here only 
 one of St. Paul’s rapid transitions from 
 the participial structure to that of the 
 finite verb ; see Col.i. 6, and notes ch. i. 
 20. δέξα σὃ εἸ ‘receive, as from 
 Him who furnishes the armor (ver. 13), 
 and whose Spirit puts in our hands the 
 sword ; ‘accipite, oblatam a Domino,’ 
 Beng. The verb is omitted by D! 
 FG; Clarom.; Cypr., Tertull., al., and 
 converted into δέξασϑαι by Matth. with 
 AD? (E?) KL; mss.; Cypr. (1), — but 
 in neither case on sufficient external evi- 
 dence. τοῦ σωτηρίου) ‘of sal- 
 vation ;’ gen. of apposition, as in ver. 14, 
 16. The use of this abstract neuter is, 
 
CoaPrrvV E18: 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 155 
 
 περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασϑε, καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ Πνεύ- 
 
 ματος, ὅ ἐστι ῥῆμα Θεοῦ: 
 
 * διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως 
 
 a \ ’ \ 
 προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν Πνεύματι, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπ- 
 
 with the exception of this place, confined 
 to St. Luke (see Luke ii. 80, iii. 6, Acts 
 XXvili. 28), though sufficiently common 
 in the LXX; compare Isaiah lix. 17, 
 meptkep. σωτηρίου, --- a passage to which 
 its present occurrence may perhaps be 
 referred. There is no ground for sup- 
 posing that τοῦ owt. is masculine (‘salu- 
 taris, sc. Christi,’ Beng.), either here or 
 Acts /. c., nor can we say with Mey. that 
 τὸ σωτήριον is ‘any ideal possession :’ 
 in 1 Thess. vy. 8, the περικεφαλαία is the 
 ἐλπὶς σωτηρίας, in the present case there 
 is no such limitation. Salvation in 
 Christ, as Harl. remarks, forms the sub- 
 ject of faith; in faith (by grace, ch. ii. 5) 
 it is apprehended, and becomes even, in a 
 certain sense, a present possession ; see 
 notes, ch. ii. 8. τοῦ Mvevuaros| 
 ‘of the Spirit ;’ sc. given by, supplied by 
 the Spirit; the gen. of the source or 
 origin, as in verse 13, τὴν πανοπλ. τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. The gen. is clearly not apposi- 
 tional (Cicum. 1., Theophyl. 1., and even 
 Harl., Olsh.), as the explanatory clause 
 would thus be wholly out of place. Still 
 less probable is a gen. of quality, ἡ μά- 
 χαιρα πνευματική (Chrys. 2), or a simple 
 gen. of possession, in reference to the 
 τιμωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια (Sever. ap. Cram. 
 Cat.) of the Spirit, both of which seem 
 at variance with the general tenor of the 
 passage, which represents the ‘arma- 
 tura’ as furnished to us by God. Thus 
 then it is from the Spirit that we receive 
 the sword, that sword being the Word 
 of God, the Gospel (ver. 15), which is 
 the δύναμις Θεοῦ (Rom. i. 16,1 Cor. i. 
 18) to every one who believeth; comp. 
 Heb. iv. 12. 
 
 18. διὰ πάσης κ.τ.λ.} ‘with all 
 (every form of) prayer and supplication 
 praying ;’ participial clause expressive 
 of the manner and accompaniments of 
 
 the action, dependent on the principal 
 imperative στῆτε οὖν (Mey.), not on the 
 subordinate aor. imper. δέξασϑε, which is 
 only a variation of the participial struc- 
 ture, and with which the idea of dura- 
 tion expressed in πάσης and παντὶ καιρῷ 
 would not be consistent. The seeming 
 tautology and an imaginary logical difti- 
 culty in προσεύχεσϑαι διὰ πάσης προσ. ἐν 
 παντὶ καιρῷ have induced Mey. to discon- 
 nect διὰ πάσης k.7.A. and προσευχόμενοι. 
 This, though not inconsistent with the 
 use of διὰ (‘conditio in qua locatus ali- 
 quid facias,’ Fritz. Rom. ii. 27, Vol. τ. p. 
 138), is still neither necessary nor satis- 
 factory: διὰ πάσης κ. τ. A. simply and 
 correctly denotes the earnest (because 
 varied) character of the prayer (see 
 Theophyl.) ; ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, the con- 
 stancy of it (ἐνδελεχῶς, Theod., comp. 
 Luke xviii. 1, 1 Thess. v. 17, 2 Thess. i. 
 11); ἐν Πνεύματι (see infra), the holy 
 sphere of it. Conyb. (comp. Syr., but 
 not /&th., Syr.-Phil.) translates the part. 
 as a simple imperat., and makes ver. 18 
 the beginning of a new paragraph ; this, 
 however, cannot be justified ; see Winer, 
 Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313. It has been 
 doubted whether there is here any exact 
 
 distinction between προσευχὴ (τ 3Ξ) and 
 
 δέησις (2mm). Chrys. and Theodoret 
 on 1 Tim. ii. 1 explain προσ. as αἴτησις 
 ayasay (see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 1) 
 δέησ. as ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία 
 (so Grot., as ἀπὸ τοῦ δεοῦς, but see 2 
 Cor. i. 11) ; comp. Origen, de Orat. § 33, 
 Vol. xvi1. p. 292 (ed. Lomm.). Alii 
 alia. The most natural and obvious dis- 
 tinction is that adopted by nearly all re- 
 cent commentators, viz. that προσευχὴ is 
 a ‘vocabulum sacrum’ (see Harl.) de- 
 noting ‘prayer’ in general, precatio, 5é- 
 nots, a vocabulum commune,’ denoting 
 a special character or form of it, ‘pe- 
 
 J 
 
150 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 19. 
 
 r \ Ν nr 
 voovtes ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει Kal δεήσει περὶ πάντων τῶν 
 
 if id 19 \ δ \ > la) σ΄ ὃ an , BJ > / Lo) 
 aylLov, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, Wa μοι δοδῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ 
 
 tition,’ rogatio; see Fritz. Rom. x. 1, 
 Vol. 11. p. 372, and notes on 1 Tim. 1. c. 
 ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ] ‘in every season.’ 
 There is no necessity to restrict this to 
 ‘every fitting season,’ Eadie; the mind 
 of prayer (τὸ ὁμιλεῖν τῷ Θεῷ, Theophyl. 
 on 1 Thess. ν. 17) is alluded to as much 
 as the outward act; see Alford on Luke 
 Xvill. 1. ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘in the 
 Spirit ;’ certainly not the human spirit 
 (‘cum devoto cordis etfectu,’ Est.), nor 
 as in contrast to βαττολογεῖν (Chrys.), 
 but, the Holy Spirit (Jude 20), ὧν whose 
 blessed and indwelling influence, and by 
 whose merciful aid we are enabled to 
 pray (Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6), yea, and 
 who Himself intercedes for us (Rom. 
 viii. 26). eis αὐτό] ‘for this,’ 
 thereunto; scil. τὸ προσεύχεσϑαι ἐν παντὶ 
 καιρῷ ἐν Πνεύματι. The reference is 
 obviously not to what follows (Holzh.), 
 but to what precedes. It was ‘for this’ 
 (scarcely more than ‘in respect of this,’ 
 Mey.) that the Ephesians were to be 
 watchful; not that αἰΐ should abide in 
 continual prayer (Olsh., Harl.), for the 
 prayer for the Apostle (ver. 19) is to be 
 for a different spiritual grace, but that 
 they themselves might have that grace 
 (‘ut quotidie oretis,’ Est.), and exercise 
 it in general, persistent, and appropriate 
 supplications for all saints. The 
 addition of τοῦτο after αὐτὸ [Rec. with 
 D3EKL; mss.; Chrys.-text, Theod., 
 al.] is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., 
 al., with AB (DIFG; αὐτὸν) ; Clarom., 
 Vulg., Copt., al., as a mere explanatory 
 addition : ‘avrds szepius dicitur de eo de 
 quo cummaxime sermo est,’ Kiihner 
 Xen. Mem. 111. 10, 14, comp. Matth. Gr. 
 § 469. 7. 
 προσκαρτ. k. τ. A.| ‘watching in all 
 perseverance and supplication,’ ‘im omni 
 instantid et observatione,’ Vulg.; sup- 
 plementary clause, specifying a particu- 
 
 ἀγρυπ. ἐν πάσῃ 
 
 lar accompaniment to their prayer and 
 watchfulness in regard to themselves, 
 and a particular phase and aspect which 
 it was to assume; ‘in praying for them- 
 selves, they were uniformly to blend 
 petitions for all the saints,’ Eadie ; com- 
 pare Col. iv. 2, γρηγοροῦντες ev αὐτῇ 
 (προσευχῇ) ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, Where ἐν evx. 
 denotes the attendant, concomitant act, 
 one of the forms which προσευχὴ was to 
 assume. The two substantives 
 προσκαρτ. καὶ δεήσ., though not merely 
 equivalent to ‘precantes sedulo’ (Syr. 
 comp. /Eth.), still practically amount to 
 a ‘hendiadys.’ According to the regu- 
 lar rule, the substantive which contains 
 the ‘accidens’ ought to follow rather 
 than precede (see Winer, de Hypall. et 
 Hendiad. p. 19), still here προσκ. so 
 clearly receives its explanation from καὶ 
 δεήσει, that the expression, though not a 
 strict and grammatical, is yet a virtual, 
 or what might be termed a contextual ἐν 
 διὰ δυοῖν ; see esp. Fritz. Matth. p. 857. 
 On προσκαρτ. comp. notes on Col. iv. 2. 
 19. καί] ‘and, to add a particular 
 ease ;’ on this use of καὶ in appending a 
 special example to a general classifica- 
 tion, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, 
 notes on ch. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 21. 
 ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] ‘for me,’ ‘in behalf of me.’ 
 Eadie (after Harl.) endeavors to trace a 
 distinction between ὑπὲρ here, and περὶ 
 ver. 18, as if the former was more spe- 
 cial and individualizing, the latter more 
 general and indefinite ; ‘sorgt wn Alle, 
 auch fir mich,’ Harl. This, in the pres- 
 ent case, where the two prepp. are so 
 contiguous, is plausible, but, as a general 
 rule, little more can be said than that 
 ὑπὲρ in its ethical sense perhaps retains 
 some stronger trace of its local meaning 
 than περί; see notes on Gal. i. 4, on 
 Phil. i. 7, and compare Kriiger, Sprachl. 
 
 § 08, 28. 3. ἵνα μοι δοδῇ 
 
 - 
 
Cnap. VI. 20. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 157 
 
 + , la) 
 στόματός μου ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι TO μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 
 
 20 ἐς \ ia 7 > e ΄ 4 > SA 4 ΄ ς 
 ὑπέρ οὐ πρεσβεύω ἐν αλύσει, WA ἐν αὕτῳ παρρησιάσωμαι ὡς 
 
 δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 
 
 Adbyos| ‘that there may be given to me ;’ 
 particular object of the ἀγρυπν. ἐν mpoo- 
 kapt., with an included reference to the 
 subject of the prayer; comp. notes on 
 ch. i. 17. The 6097, as its position 
 seems to indicate, is emphatic : it was a 
 special gift of God, and felt to be so by 
 the Apostle, ‘non nitebatur Paulus ha- 
 bitu suo,’ Beng. The reading of Rec., 
 δοϑείη (which rests only on the authority 
 of a few cursive mss.), would give the 
 purpose a more subjective reference, and 
 represent the feeling of a more dependent 
 realization ; comp. ch. i. 17, and see esp. 
 Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 622, Herm. 
 Soph. Elect. 57. ἐν ἀνοίξει 
 στόμ.] ‘in the opening of my mouth ; 
 act in which and occasion at which the 
 gift was to be realized, the connection 
 clearly being with the preceding (Syr., 
 Chrysost., al.), not with the following 
 words (Auth., Kypke), and the meaning 
 not ‘ad apertionem,’ 7. 6. ‘ut os aperiam’ 
 (Beza), or, in passive reference to him- 
 self, and active to God, ‘ut Deus aperiat 
 os meum’ (comp. Aith.), 7. e. ‘that my 
 mouth may be opened’ (a Lap., Olsh. ; 
 comp. Psalm 1. 17), but simply ‘in the 
 opening of my mouth’ (‘occasione 
 data,’ Grot.), ‘dum os aperio,’ Est.; so 
 Mey., Eadie, al.; see esp. Fritz. Dissert. 
 11. ad 2 Cor. p. 99 sq. The expres- 
 sion ἀνοίγειν στόμα may be briefly no- 
 ticed. When not specially modified or 
 explained by the context (comp. 2 Cor. 
 vi. 11), it does not, on the one hand, 
 appear to have any prelusive reference 
 to the nature or quality of the discourse 
 (οὐκ ἄρα ἐμελέτα ἅπερ ἔλεγεν, Chysost., 
 ‘ore semiclauso proferuntur ambigua,’ 
 Calv.), nor, on the other, is to be consid- 
 ered as merely graphic and unemphatic 
 (Fritz. loc. cit., and on Matth. v. 2), but 
 nearly always appears to specify the 
 
 solemnity of the act and the occasion ; 
 compare Matth. v. 2, Job ili. 1, Dan. x. 
 16, Acts viii. 35, and appy. xviii. 14 [1 
 was a grave answer before a tribunal], 
 and see Tholuck, Bergpr. p. 60 sq. 
 
 ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι] ‘with bold- 
 ness (of speech) to make known,’ ‘cum 
 fiducia, notum facere,’ Clarom., Vulg. ; 
 specification of the result contemplated 
 in the gift (‘ut mihi contingat Adyos, 
 inde autem nascatur τὸ ἐν app. γνωρί- 
 oa,’ Fritz. ad 2 Cor. p. 100), and of the 
 spirit by which it was to be marked. 
 As ἐν ἀνοιξ. Tod στόμ. hinted at the sol- 
 emn and responsible nature οἵ the act, 
 so ἐν mapp. refers qualitatively to the 
 character and spirit of the preaching ; 
 Sdpoos καὶ λόγου χορηγίαν ἵνα κατὰ τὸν 
 ϑεῖον λύγον πληρώσω τὸν δρόμον, Theo- 
 doret. On the meaning οἵ παῤῥησία, see 
 notes on 1 Tim. iii. 13. τὸ μυστ. 
 τοῦ εὐαγγελ.] ‘the mystery of the Gos- 
 pel.’ The gen. is somewhat different to 
 τὸ μυστήρ. τοῦ ϑελήματος, ch. i. 9; there 
 it was ‘the mystery in the matter of, 
 concerning the SéAnua,’— gen. objecti ; 
 here it is rather ‘the mystery which the 
 εὐαγγέλ. has, involves,’ — gen. subjecti. 
 The distinction between these two forms 
 of gen. is briefly but ably stated by 
 Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7. On the mean- 
 ing of μυστήριον, comp. notes on ch. v. 
 32. The concluding words τοῦ 
 εὐαγγελ. are omitted by BFG; Boern. ; 
 Tert., Ambrst., and bracketed by Lach- 
 mann, but rightly retained by Tvsch., 
 Alf., Wordsw. on distinctly preponderat- 
 ing evidence. 
 
 20. ὑπὲρ οὗ] ‘in commodum cujus,’ 
 ‘to preach which.’ The reference of οὗ 
 is doubtful ; it can, however, scarcely be 
 ‘to the preceding clause,’ Eadie; for as 
 this involves two moments of thought, 
 ἐν παῤῥ. and -yvwp., and as αὐτὸ would 
 
108 
 
 I have sent Tychicus to 
 tell you of my state and to 
 comfort you, 
 
 certainly seem to have the same refer- 
 ence as 6, there would be an inevitable 
 tautology in ἐν αὐτῷ (scil. τὸ ἐν Trapp. 
 κι 7. A+) παῤῥησιάσωμαι. The reference 
 must then be either simply to τὸ εὐαγγέλ. 
 (Harl.) or more probably to τὸ μυστ. 
 τοῦ evayyeA. (Mey.), as this was what 
 the Apostle ἐγνώρισεν, and in the matter 
 of which he prayed for the grace of παῤ- 
 ῥησία. πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει) 
 ‘Tam an ambassador in a chain,’ ‘in ca- 
 
 tend,’ Clarom., Vulg., but JAXzas 
 Ὁ [4 --Ξ 
 
 [in caten’s] Syr., and similarly Copt., 
 Goth., Arm. [gabdnok, no sing.|; ἃ 
 noticeable and appy. designedly antitheti- 
 cal collocation, ‘I am an ambassador — 
 in chains;’ ‘alias legati jure gentium 
 sancti et inviolabiles,’ Wetst., compare 
 Theoph. It seems doubtful whether 
 any historical allusion to a ‘custodia 
 militaris’ (Beza, Grot.; on which see 
 esp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 394, note) is 
 actually involved in the present use of 
 the singular; comp. Acts xxviii. 20, 2 
 Tim. i. 16, Joseph. Antig. xviii. 6, 10, 
 and see Paley, Hor. Paul. v1. 5, Wie- 
 seler, Synops. p. 420. As the singular 
 is not conclusive, being often used, es- 
 pecially in the case of material objects, 
 in a collective sense (see Kriiger, Sprach. 
 ὃ 44. 1, 1, Bernhardy, Synt. 11.1, p. 58), 
 and as the use of the word in St. Paul’s 
 Epp. (here and 2 Tim. i. 16) is confined 
 to the singular, it seems uncritical to 
 press the allusion, though it still may be 
 regarded as by no means improbable : 
 ἅλυσις is used in the singular (eis τὴν 
 ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν), but with the article 
 and in a more general sense, in Polyb. 
 Tish XG δας «16. Ὁ, ἵνα 
 κι τ. λ.} ‘in order that I may speak boldly ;’ 
 second purpose and object of the ἀγρυπν. 
 K. τ. A., ver. 18. There seems no rea- 
 son to depart from the ordinary interpr. ; 
 the second ἵνα x. τ. A. is not dependent 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Guar. Vino 
 
 92] ¢ \ IDA \ ig o \ ΕΣ 5 , r 
 Iva δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ Kat ἐμέ, τί 
 
 on πρεσβ. ἐν ἁλύσει (Beng.), nor subor- 
 dinate to {Harl.), but codrdinate with ἵνα 
 5087 (comp. Rom. vii. 13, Gal. iii. 14), 
 and involves no tautology. The first of 
 the two final sentences relates to the gift 
 of utterance and app. generally, the 
 second, to the gift of a conditioned 
 mapp., — 5011. ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in it, ‘therein;’ scil. ἐν τῷ 
 μυστ. τοῦ εὐαγγελ. ---- ‘occupied with it, 
 engaged in preaching it.’ Ἔν here 
 marks, not so much the (official) sphere 
 in Which (see Rom. i. 9, λατρεύω ἐν εὐ- 
 ayyeAlw), as the substratum on which 
 the παῤῥησία was to be displayed and 
 exercised; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 
 12.6, and notes on Gal. i. 23. It can 
 scarcely denote the source or ground of 
 the παῤῥ.. Harl.; for, as 1 Thess. 11. 2, 
 ἐπαῤῥησιασάμεδϑα ἐν τῷ Θεῷ x. τ. A. (cited 
 by Harless) clearly shows, God was the 
 source and causal sphere of the παρῤῥ. 
 (see notes zn loc.) ; the Gospel (here ‘the 
 mystery of the Gosp.’) the object in 
 which and about which it was to be 
 manifested : see exx. in Bernhardy, Synt. 
 v. 8. b, p. 212. 
 
 21. ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμ.] ‘ But 
 in order that ye also may know ;’ transi- 
 tion by means of the δὲ μεταβατικόν, 
 see notes on Gal. i. 11, to the last and 
 valedictory portion of the Epistle. In 
 the words καὶ ὑμεῖς the καὶ is certainly 
 something more than a mere ‘particle 
 of transition’ (Eadie, Ruck.). It indis- 
 putably refers to others besides the Ephe- 
 sians, but who they were cannot be satis- 
 factorily determined. If the Epistle to 
 the Colossians was written first, καὶ 
 might point to the Colossians (Harl , 
 Einleit. p. 60, Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. 
 1841, p. 453, Meyer, Hinleit. p. 17, Wie- 
 seler, Synops. p. 432), but as the priority 
 of that Ep., though by no means improb- 
 able both from internal (Neander, Plant- 
 ing, Vol.1, p. 339 Bohn, comp. Schleierm. 
 
Cuap. VI. 99, 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 159 
 
 7 ΄’΄ δ A / UA € 3 \ , \ \ 
 
 πράσσω, πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσει Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ 
 ΄ 99 ¢ , rn ᾽ \ a 
 
 πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ, “ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, 
 
 uj lal “ “ 
 ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. 
 
 Stud. τι. Krit. 1832, p. 500) and perhaps 
 external considerations (see Wieseler, 
 Syn. p. 450 sq.), is still very doubtful 
 (see Credner, Finleit. § 157, Reuss, 
 Gesch. des N. T. § 119), this seems all 
 that can be said, — that the use of καὶ is 
 certainly noticeable, and not to be ex- 
 plained away, and that though per se it 
 cannot safely be relied upon as an argu- 
 ment in favor of the priority of the Ep. 
 to the Colossians, it still, on that hypoth- 
 esis, admits of an easy and natural ex- 
 planation. The article by Wiggers, 
 above referred to, though in several 
 points far from conclusive, deserves 
 perusal. The reading is somewhat 
 doubtful: ZLachm. adopts the order καὶ 
 ὑμεῖς εἰδ. with ADEFG (AD'FG id.) ; 
 Clarom., Vulg., al. ; Theod., Lat. Ff.,— 
 but appy. with less probability than the 
 text, which is found in BKL; great 
 majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Basm. ; 
 Chrys., Dam., Jerome, al., and adopted 
 by Tisch., and most recent editors. 
 
 τί πράσσω] ‘how 7 fure;’ not ‘quid 
 (in carcere) agam’ (Wolf), but simply 
 ‘quid agam,’ Clarom., Vulg., — in 
 simple explanation of τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ; see 
 Arrian, E’pict. τ. 19, τί πράσσει Φηλικίων, 
 lian, Var. Hist. 11. 35, ἥρετο, τί πράτ- 
 τοι [ὃ ὑπὸ ἀσϑενείας καταληφδϑ είς], comp. 
 Hor. Sat.1.9.4. Illustrations of τὰ κατ᾽ 
 ἐμέ, ‘res meas’ (Phil. i. 12, Col. iv. 7), 
 are cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234: 
 see Wetst. and Kypke. ΤύχικοΞϑ) 
 Not Τυχικός ( Griesb.. Tisch. ed. 7), see Wi- 
 ner, ΟὟ. ὃ 6,p.49. Tychicus was an ’Agi- 
 avds, and is mentioned Acts xx. 4, Col. 
 Lye ὦ. 2) Dimiviv. 12, Tit. iii. 12. Tradi- 
 tion represents him as afterwards bishop 
 of Chalcedon in Bithynia, of Colophon, or 
 of Neapolis in Cyprus; see Acta Sanet. 
 April 29, Vol. 111. p. 613. The 
 order γνωρίσει ὑμῖν, though found in BD 
 
 EFG ; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm. Aug., 
 Boern., Goth., al; Ambrst. (Lachm.), is 
 rightly reversed by Tisch., Alf., Wordsw., 
 on fair evidence [AKL ; nearly all mss. ; 
 Vulg. (Amit., Demid , — not Fuld), 
 Syr.-Phil., ἃ]. ; Chrys., Theod., al.], be- 
 ing not unlikely a conformation to Col. 
 i πιστό 5] ‘faithful, ‘trusty ;’ 
 not ἀξιόπιστος, scil. οὐδὲν ψεύσεται ἀλλὰ 
 πάντα ἀληϑεύσει, Chrys., Beng. ; for, as 
 Mey. remarks, he was probably known 
 to the Ephesians (comp. Acts xx. 4), 
 though probably not to the Colossians. 
 
 διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘minister in the 
 Lord;’ Christ was the sphere of his 
 ministrations, Christ’s Spirit animated 
 and actuated his labors. It does not 
 seem necessary to refer the term διάκονος 
 to any special (‘sacra ordinatione dia- 
 conum fuisse,’ Est.), or any general of- 
 fice (‘qui Evangelio navat operam,’ 
 Grot.) in relation to the Gospel, but 
 merely in reference to his services to St. 
 Paul; see Col. iv. 7, πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ 
 σύνδουλος, where, as Meyer and De W. 
 observe, the latter term is intended to 
 heighten and dignify the former ; comp. 
 
 » 
 
 also 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
 
 heedie 
 
 22.0v ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾷ 5] ‘whom 
 T have sent to you ;’ not ‘Isend’ ( Words.) 
 —which, though not appy. inconsistent 
 with the usage of the New Testament 
 (see Winer, Gir. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249), does 
 not seem accordant with the probable 
 circumstances. Tychicus appears to 
 have been sent with Onesimus to Colos- 
 se on a special mission (Col. iv. 8), of 
 which the Apostle availed himself so far 
 as to send this letter by him; this mis- 
 sion, however, the Apostle naturally re- 
 gards as‘an act belonging to the past, 
 and so probably uses ἔπεμψα in its ordi- 
 nary sense. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] 
 ‘for this very purpose, and no other,’ 
 
100 
 
 Peace be to the brethren, 
 and grace to all true Chris- 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 28,24. 
 
 ἢ Εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ 
 
 d , 5. ἃ a \ \ / 5) a 
 tians. πίστεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 a na 94 «ς 7 \ / “ ’ Ne 
 ριστοῦ. Η χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων 
 viz, in reference to, and further ex- 18, Vol. 11. p. 200 sq. τοῖς 
 
 plained by what follows; not ‘for the 
 same purpose,’ Auth.; comp. Phil. 1. 28, 
 Col. iv. 8, and notes in loc. The prepo- 
 sition is sometimes omitted; see Plat. 
 Sympos. 204 a, and Stalb. in loc. ; comp. 
 ib. Legg. 111. 686 c, Protag. 310 Ε. 
 
 ἵνα γνῶτε κ. τ. A.| ‘in order that ye 
 may know the things concerning us ;’ obvi- 
 ously similar in meaning to εἰδῆτε τὰ 
 κατ᾽ ἐμέ, but perhaps with a more inclu- 
 sive reference both to himself and those 
 with him. Tapakarkéan| ‘com- 
 fort, ‘consoletur,’ Vulg. (comp. Goth. 
 ‘eabvasstjai’), here judiciously changed 
 from the ‘exhorte[n|tur’ of Clarom.; 
 see Col. iv. 7. The subject of the παρά- 
 κλησις may have been ‘ne offenderetis in 
 meis vinculis’ (Bengel), or ‘ne animis 
 deficiatis ob meas tribulationes’ (Est. ; 
 compare ch. ili. 13); so also Gicum., 
 Theophyl.; it is better, however, from 
 our ignorance of the exact state of the 
 church to leave the precise reference 
 undefined, and to extend it generally to 
 all particulars in which they needed it. 
 On the meaning of the word, see notes 
 on ch. iv. 1, and on 1 Thess. y. 11. 
 
 23. εἰρήνη] ‘Peace, simply; not 
 ‘concordia,’ Calvin, ‘peaceableness,’ 
 ‘Hamm. (comp. εἰρηνεύετε, 2 Cor. xiii. 
 11), as the Epistle, though εἰρηνικὸς (De 
 Wette) in relation to the doctrinal as- 
 pects of the union of Jews and Gentiles 
 (see ch. 11.}, contains no special exhorta- 
 tions on the subject of concord gener- 
 ally. Εἰρήνη is however no mere parting 
 salutation (comp. notes ch. i. 3, and on 
 Gal. i. 8), but is in effect a valedictory 
 prayer for that γαληνὴ καὶ εὐδία ψυχῆς 
 (Orig. ap. Cram. Cat.) which was the 
 blessed result of reconciliation with God, 
 and His Spirit’s special gift ; see Steiger 
 on 1 Pet, i. 2, Reuss, Theol. Chreét. αὐ. 
 
 ἀδελφοῖς] ‘the brethren at Ephesus.’ 
 Wieseler (Synops. p. 444) refers ἀδελφ. 
 specially to the Jewish Christians, πάν- 
 των to the Gentile Christians. This is 
 surely a very doubtful, and even improb- 
 able interpretation ; for is it likely that, 
 in an epistle so opposed in its tenor to 
 all national distinctions, any such special 
 recognition of their existence weuld be 
 found? Clearly of ἀδελφοὶ can only 
 mean ‘the whole Christian brotherhood.’ 
 ἀγάπη μετὰ mwiatews| ‘love with 
 Juith, not ἀγάπη καὶ πίστις ; the Apostle 
 does not simply pray for the presence of 
 each of these graces in his converts, for, 
 as Olsh. correctly observes, he assumed 
 πίστις to be there already; what he 
 As love 
 (not here the divine love, Beng.) is the 
 characteristic of a true faith, the medium 
 by which its energy is displayed (Gal. v. 
 6), so here faith is represented as the 
 perpetual concomitant of a true love. If 
 it had been ἀγάπ. σὺν πίστει it would 
 
 prays for is their coézxistence. 
 
 rather have conyeyed the here scarcely 
 realizable conception of their coherence ; 
 compare ch. iv. 31, πικρία... ἡ «τος σὺν 
 κακίᾳ [badness of heart was the ‘fer- 
 mentum,’ the active principle]; 1 Cor. 
 x. 13, σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ Kal τὴν ἔκβασιν 
 [ποῦ the one without the other]; see 
 Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1. On the 
 connection of love and faith, compare 
 Reuss, Theol. Chreét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p. 
 205, and on the whole verse, a short but 
 not very connected sermon of Augus- 
 tine, Serm. ctxviit. Vol. vy. p. 911 (ed. 
 Migne). 
 
 24. ἡ χάρι] “ Grace,’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ; 
 the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Mey.). 
 The use of the article is in harmony 
 with the immediately preceding and suc- 
 ceeding mention of Him through whom 
 
Cuap. VI. 94, 
 
 tov Κύριον ἡμῶν 
 (John i. 17) ἣ χάρις ἐγένετο. 
 μετὰ πάντων x. τ. λ.] ‘with all that 
 love our Lord, J. C.;’ second and more 
 general and comprehensive form of ben- 
 ediction. Meyer compares the similar 
 maledictory form in 1 Cor, xvi. 22. 
 
 ἀφϑαρσίᾳ)]ἅ ‘in incorruption,’ 
 
 ἐν 
 Neen ΠῚ [sine corruptione] Syr., ‘in 
 σ σ᾽ 
 
 incorruptione,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘incorrup- 
 tione,’ Clarom., Arm., ‘in unriurcin,’ 
 Goth., ‘in non-interitu,’ Ath.-Platt. 
 The connection of this clause and the 
 meaning of the words are both some- 
 what doubtful, and must be noticed sepa- 
 rately. (1) AMfeaning; excluding all 
 arbitrary interpretations of the preposi- 
 tion, 6. 9. ὑπέρ (Chrys. 2), διά The- 
 ophyl.), μετά (Theod.), eis (Beza), and 
 all doubtful explanations of ἀφϑαρσίᾳ, 
 whether temporal (sc. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 
 Matth.), brachylogical (iva ζωὴν ἔχωσιν 
 ἐν aps., Olsh.), abstr. for concrete — 
 really (ἐν ἀφϑάρτοις, Chrys. 2) or virtu- 
 ally (‘in unvergiinglichem Wesen,’ Har- 
 less), — we have three probable interpr. ; 
 (a) ethical, ‘sincerity, Auth. Version, 
 Chrys., compare 1 Pet. iii. 4; (b) quasi- 
 local, in reference to the sphere of the 
 ἀγάπη ; comp. ἐν ἐπουρανίοις ; (6) simply 
 qualitative, i. e. ‘imperishableness,’ Gicum., 
 Mey., al. To (a) the lexical meaning 
 of the word is seriously opposed ; see 
 Meyer. St. Paul’s use of ἀφϑαρσίᾳ is 
 perhaps rather in favor of (b), as in all 
 the six other passages where it occurs 
 (Tit. ii. 3 |Rec.] is very doubtful) aps. 
 refers directly or indirectly to a higher 
 sphere than the present; still as aps. is 
 
 21 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν 
 
 101 
 
 Χριστν ἐν ἀφδϑαρσίᾳ. 
 anarthrous, and the explanation difficult, 
 unless the unsatisfactory construction 
 (8), see below, be adopted, we decide in 
 favor of (c), and regard ἐν as marking 
 the manner, or rather conditioning sphere, 
 in which the action takes place ; comp. 
 esp. Tit. iii. 15. (2) Connection; three 
 constructions have been suggested; (a) 
 with "Ino. Xp., scil. ‘ Christum immorta- 
 lem non humilem,’ Wetst.;— (8) with 
 ἡ χάρις, Harl., Stier; —(y) with ἀγα- 
 πώντων, Chrys., Theod. Of these (a) is 
 inadmissible, being exegetically unsatis- 
 factory, and, on account of the absence 
 of the article, grammatically suspicious ; 
 (8) is harsh, especially in a simple bene- 
 diction, on account of the intercalation 
 of so many words between the nom. and 
 the modal factor of the sentence; (γ) is 
 adopted by all the Greek commentators, 
 and seems most simple and satisfactory ; 
 we translate, therefore, ‘grace be with 
 all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in 
 incorruption, 7. 6. in & manner and in an 
 element that knows neither change, dim- 
 inution, nor decay ;’ 4 yap eis τὸν Xp. 
 ἀγάπη ἄφϑαρτος καὶ ἀμείωτος μᾶλλον δὲ 
 καϑ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιδιδοῦσα τὴν ἡμέραν ὥφε- 
 λεν εἶναι, CEcumen. Thus, then, this 
 significant clause not only defines what 
 the essence of the ἀγάπη is, but indicates 
 what it ought to be, — perennial, immu- 
 table, incorruptible. The concluding 
 ἀμὴν [Rec. with DEKL; most Vv. and 
 Ff.] is perhaps rightly rejected by 
 Lachm., Tish., al. [with ABFG ; 2 mss., 
 Aug., Boern., Amit*., Tol., Basm., 
 JEth.-Pol., and some Ff.], as a liturgical 
 addition. 
 
TRANSLATION. 
 
IN- OP VC Al. 
 
 Tue principles on which this translation is based are explained in the 
 general Preface to the commentary on the Galatians, and in the notice 
 prefixed to the translation of that Epistle. The English Versions with 
 which the translation is compared, and the editions which have been used, 
 are the same as those used in the Translation of the former Epistle, with this 
 exception, that I have also made extracts from the second edition (if indeed 
 that be a right title) of the Genevan Version published in 1560. My atten- 
 tion has been particularly called to this Version by a kind correspondent 
 (Mr. H. Craik), who appears to me to have so far successfully confirmed the 
 statements in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia (Art. ‘ Versions’), relative to this 
 Version, as to make it seem very doubtful whether the edition of 1557, 
 reprinted by Messrs. Bagster, has in any degree the same claims to be con- 
 sidered Tae GENEVAN VERSION, as that published three years later. 
 Without venturing to come to a positive decision on a question which 
 requires much investigation, I have still thought it highly desirable to 
 place before the student, under the title of Gen. 2, extracts from this later 
 and for a long time popular edition, and to call attention to the apparently 
 slender authority of the edition of 1557 as a formal representation of the 
 views of the translators of Geneva. Fresh citations from the other Ver- 
 sions have in a few cases been added, and some errors detected and rectified. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER. 1.1. 
 
 AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the 
 saints which are in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ 
 Jesus. *Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father and 
 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 ὃ Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 blessed us with every blessing of the Spirit in the heavenly regions 
 
 1. Christ Jesus] *‘ Jesus Christ,’ 
 Auth. In Ephesus| ‘ At 
 Ephesus,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 
 
 2. And the Lord] So Wiel., Cov., 
 Rhem.: ‘and from the Lord,’ Auth. and 
 remaining Vv. ‘The prep. in such cases 
 as the present should certainly be omit- 
 ted, as tending to make that unity of 
 source from whence the grace and peace 
 come less apparent than the Greek ; 
 comp. notes on Phil. i. 2. God and the 
 Father] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: 
 ‘the God and Father,’ Auth.; ‘God the 
 Father,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv. ex- 
 cept Gen. 2, ‘God even the Father.’ 
 
 3. Blessed us| ‘ Hath blessed us,’ Auth. 
 and all the other Vv. The aorist here 
 ought certainly to be maintained in trans- 
 lation, as the allusion is to the past act 
 of the Redemption. The idiom of our 
 language frequently interferes with the 
 regular application of the rule, but it 
 
 is still no less certain that the English 
 preterite is the nearest equivalent of the 
 Greek aor., see Latham, Engl. Lang. § 
 360, 361, and compare Schoief. Hints 
 (Pref.), p. xi. It is possible that there 
 are cases when the English present, 
 owing to its expressing an habitual action 
 (Latham, § 573), might seem to corre- 
 spond to the Greek aor., but as the itera- 
 tive force of the latter tense, even if ad- 
 mitted (see notes on Gal. v. 24), seems 
 radically to differ from that of the Engl. 
 pres. (the one expressing indefinite recur- 
 rence in the past, see Jelf, Gr. § 402, 1, 
 the other indef. recurrence in the present), 
 it will seem best not to venture on any 
 such translation. Every blessing] 
 So Cov. (Test), and sim. Tynd., Cov., 
 Cran., Gen. 1: ‘all,’ Auth. and the re- 
 maining Vy. Of the Spirit] ‘ Spir- 
 itual,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.; see 
 notes. The heavenly regions] 
 
166 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cnap. I. 4—8. 
 
 in Christ: * even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of 
 the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him ; * hay- 
 ing foreordained us IN LOVE for adoption through Jesus Christ into 
 Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, ° to the praise 
 of the glory of His grace, wherein He bestowed grace on us in the 
 Beloved ; ‘im whom we are having redemption through His blood, 
 the forgiveness of our transgressions, according to the richness of 
 His grace, * which He made to abound towards us in all wisdom 
 
 ‘ Heavenly places,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
 except Rhem., ‘in ceelestials.’ 
 
 4. Even as] ‘ According as,’ Auth, 
 Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘as,’ 
 Wicl., Cov. (Test), Gen. 2, Rhem. 
 Chose] So Rhem.: ‘hath chosen,’ Auth., 
 Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Gen. 2; ‘had 
 chosen,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. Blame- 
 less] ‘ Without blame,’ Auth., Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘without 
 wemme,’ Wiel. ; ‘unspotted,’ Cov. (Test.); 
 ‘immaculate,’ Rhem. The slight change 
 has been made for the sake of retaining 
 the same translation both here and ch. v. 
 27. On the distinction between ἄμωμος 
 (‘in quo nihil est quod reprehendas’) 
 and ἄμεμπτος (‘in quo nihil desiderari 
 potest’), see Tittm, Synon. p. 29. 
 
 5. Having, ete.| Auth. and all the other 
 Vv. connect with the preceding verse; 
 see notes. The participle expresses prob- 
 ably a temporal relation, ‘after He had, 
 ete.,’ but in so profound a subject it 
 seems best to retain the more undefined 
 transl. of Auth. Fore-ordained| 
 Sim. Wiel., ‘bifore ordeyned ;’ Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., ‘ ordeyned before ;’ ‘ predes- 
 tinated, Auth., and sim. the remaining 
 Vv. ‘Unto the 
 adoption of children, Auth., sim. hem. : 
 well translated by Gen. (both), ‘to be 
 adopted through J. C.,’ but perhaps 
 scarcely sufficiently literal. Through| 
 So Tynd.and the other Vy. except Auth., 
 Wicl., Bish., Rhem., “by? Into 
 Himself| ‘To Himself? Auth. ; ‘into 
 Him,’ Wicl., ‘uuto Him silfe,’ Tynd., 
 
 For adoption] 
 
 Cran., Gen. (both), Bish., Rhem.; * in 
 Hymselfe,’ Cov. (Test.). Whether we 
 adopt the translation ‘into’ or ‘unto’ 
 matters but little, both approximating 
 to, but neither /i/y expressing the mean- 
 ing of the inclusive eis, perhaps English 
 idiom (‘adopt into’) is slightly in fivor 
 of the former. It seems also best in 
 English, for the sake of perspicuity, to 
 return to the reflexive form : ‘into Him’ 
 (ed. 1), though literal, perhaps may seem 
 ambiguous. 
 
 6. Bestowed grace on us| ‘ Hath made 
 us accepted,’ Auth. and all Vv. except 
 Wiel., ‘hath glorified us,’ Rhem., ‘hath 
 eratified us.’ 
 
 7. Weare having] Auth. and all Vv., 
 ‘we have.’ In the next words we must 
 appy- be content to omit (with all the 
 Vv.) the expressive article ‘the redemp- 
 tion;’ our idiom seeming to require 
 some adject., e.g. ‘the promised red.,’ to 
 make the article perfectly intelligible. 
 
 Our transgressions] ‘ Sins,’ Auth. and 
 all Vv. 
 
 8. Which He made to abound] ‘Hath 
 abounded,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘He shed on 
 us abundantly,’ Zynd., and sim. Cor. ; 
 ‘ He hath ministered unto us abundantly,’ 
 Cran.; ‘ He hath been abundant towarde 
 us,’ Gen. 2; ‘He abounded toward us,’ 
 Gen. On this clause a friend and accu- 
 rate scholar has made the observation, 
 that as all verbs of the character of 
 περισσεύω may practically be resolved 
 into a ‘verbum faciendi’ with an ap- 
 pended accus. elicited from the verb 
 
Cuap. I. 9—12. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 167 
 
 and discernment ; ° having made known unto us the mystery of His 
 will, according to the good pleasure which He purposed in Himself 
 * in reference to the dispensation of the fulness of times, to gather 
 up again together all things in Christ, the things that are in heaven 
 and the things that are on earth, even in Him; "in whom we were 
 also chosen as Mis inheritance, having been foreordained according 
 to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of 
 His will ; τ᾿ that we should be to the praise of His glory, who have 
 
 (‘make an abundance of’) the gen. ἧς 
 may here receive a simple explanation 
 without reference to the principles of 
 attraction. This remark appears to 
 deserve consideration. Discernment] 
 ‘Prudence,’ Auth., Wiel., Cov. (both), 
 Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ perceavaunce,’ 
 Tynd.; ‘understanding,’ Gen. (both). 
 The transl. ‘prudence’ appears to give 
 the word a more decided reference to 
 practice than the context will admit ; 
 ‘understanding, on the other hand, is 
 too abstract, and fails to recognize the 
 distinction between σύνεσις and φρόνησις. 
 Perhaps the transl. in the text, or ‘ intel- 
 ligence,’ as indicating an application 
 and exercise of the φρήν, and a result of 
 (spiritual) σοφία (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 13), 
 approaches more nearly to the true 
 meaning of the word in this passage 
 9. The good, etc.) ‘ His,’ Auth. 
 Purposed| So Wicel., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), 
 Rhem.: ‘hath purposed,’ Auth.; ‘had 
 purp.,’ Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. 
 10. In reference to] ‘That in the dis- 
 pens.,’ ete., Auth., sim. Gen. (both) Bish. ; 
 ‘to have it declared when the tyme were 
 full come,’ Tynd., Cran., sim. Cov. ; ‘in 
 the dispens.,’ Cov. (Test.) Rhem. The 
 translation in the text, or ‘ with a view 
 to’ (see notes), seems to make the mean- 
 ing a little more distinct than the more 
 usual ‘ for.’ To gather up again 
 together] So Gen., omitting ‘up,’ but 
 with a different turn of sentence: ‘ He 
 might gather together in one,’ Auth., 
 Gen. 2, Bish. ; ‘shuld be gaddered toge- 
 
 ther,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘to enstore,’ Wicl. ; 
 ‘to set up all things perfectly,’ Cov. 
 (Test.), sim. Oran. The things, etc. | 
 So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Cov., Tynd., 
 Cran., ‘both which are in heaven, and 
 which are,’ Auth., Bish.: the repetition 
 which the older translators thus preserve 
 is perhaps not without force in this 
 solemn enunciation of the eternal pur- 
 pese of God. 
 
 11. We were also, etc.] ‘Also we have 
 
 obtained an,’ Auth., ‘we ben clepid bi 
 sorte,’ Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), hem. ; 
 ‘we are made heyres,’ Tynd., sim. Cran. ; 
 ‘by whom also we are come to the in- 
 heritaunce,’ Cov.; ‘in whom also we 
 are chosen,’ Gen. (both), Bish. 
 Having been fore-ordained| ‘ Being pre- 
 destinated,? Auth. Some of the Vv. 
 resolve the part. into a finite verb with 
 the copula (‘and were thereto predesti- 
 nate,’ Tynd., Cran.), others, as Gen. 1, 
 express more fully the temporal meaning 
 (‘when we were’): the simpler transla- 
 tion of the text (comp. Wiel., Rhem.) is 
 appy. to be preferred. His will} 
 So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘His own will, Auth. 
 and remaining Vv. 
 
 12. Who have, etc.] ‘ Who first trusted,’ 
 Auth., sim. Gen. (both) ; ‘ that had hoped 
 bifor,’ Wicl.; ‘even we whyche afore 
 have hoped,’ Cov. (Test.),; sim. /Rhem. ; 
 ‘ we which before believed,’ Tynd., Cran., 
 sim. Bish. The force of the perf: part. 
 should be retained in transl., esp. as this 
 can so easily be done by the inserted 
 ‘have,’ as Cov., Rhem.; the English 
 
168 EPHESIANS. Cnar. 1. 13—17, 
 
 before hoped in Christ: “in whom ye too, having heard the word 
 of truth, the gospel of your salvation,—in whom, J say, having 
 a'so believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, 
 “which is the earnest of our inheritance, for the redemption of the 
 purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory. 
 
 * For this cause I also, having heard of the faith which is 
 among you in the Lord Jesus, and the love which ye have unto 
 all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention 
 of you in my prayers; ” that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of glory, would give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and 
 
 perfect expresses the past in connection, 
 by its efforts or consequences, with the 
 present: see Latham, μηρί. Lang. ὃ 579 
 (ed. 3). 
 
 13. Ye too having, etc.| So with a 
 similarly suspended member, Rhem., ‘in 
 whom you also, when you had heard,’ 
 ete.: ‘ye also trusted after that, ete.,’ 
 Auth., sim. Gen. (both) ; ‘in whom ye 
 also (after that, ete , wherein ye beleved) 
 were sealed,’ Tynd. ; ‘on whom also ye 
 beleved after that,’ Coverd., similarly Cov. 
 (Test.) ; ‘we also believe forasmoch as 
 we have,’ Cran. ; ‘in whom also ye hoped 
 after that ye heard,’ Bish. 1 say, 
 having, etc.] ‘Also after that ye,’ Auth. 
 The change to the particip. structure in 
 both members seems to make the sen- 
 tence a little more distinct, and to pre- 
 serve in the latter, the close connection 
 of καὶ with πιστεύσαντες ; see notes. 
 The| So all the Vv. except Auth., ‘that 
 holy Spirit.’ 
 
 14. Which] On the form ‘ which,’ see 
 notes on Gal. i. 2 ( Transl.). ‘or | 
 So Cov. (Qest.), sim. Cran.:~* until,’ 
 Auth., Gen. 2 ( Gen. 1, paraphrases, ‘ that 
 we might be fully restored to libertie’) ; 
 ‘into the red.,’ Wiel. ; ‘to redeme the,’ 
 Tynd.; ‘unto the χοᾶ, Bish. ; ‘to the 
 red. of,’ hem. The translation of 
 Turnbull, Hpp. of Paul, p. 92, ‘in the 
 redeemed possession,’ is very insufficient 
 and inexact. 
 
 15. For this cause, etc.| ‘Wherefore I 
 also after I heard,’ Auth., sim. Tynd., 
 Bish. ; ‘wherefore,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), 
 Cran., Gen. 1, Bish. ; ‘therefore,’ Wicl., 
 Gen. 2, Rhem. The transl. ‘for this 
 cause’ is more consonant with the gen- 
 eral style of Auth than the equally literal 
 and correct ‘on this account,’ and so 
 substituted accordingly. ‘ Wherefore ’ 
 (Auth. ) is rather the transl. of διό. 
 
 The faith which ts among you| ‘Your 
 faith,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
 ‘the fayth which ye have,’ Tynd., Cov., 
 Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. And the 
 love which ye have| ‘And love,’ Auth., 
 
 Tynd., Cran., Gen., and similarly Bish., 
 
 Gen. 2, Rhem.; ‘the love into,’ Wiel. 
 
 17. Would give] ‘May give,’ Auth., 
 Cov. (both), Cran., Bish. ; ‘myght geve,’ 
 Tynd., Gen. (both), Bish. The change 
 in the text is made as an attempt to ex- 
 press the conditioned, hoped for, realiza- 
 tion (‘would please to give’) expressed 
 by the opt. δῴη; comp. Latham, Engl. 
 Lang. ὃ 592, Wallis, Gramm. Angl. p.107- 
 Hermann (Soph. lect. 57) asserts that 
 in German the distinction may be ob- 
 served by translating the Greek subj. by 
 the German ind. pres., the opt. by the 
 German imperf. subjunctive. The transl. 
 of Tynd.,ete., though practically preserv- 
 ing the correct shade of meaning, vio- 
 lates the law of ‘ the succession of tenses ;’ 
 see Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616. 
 
Cuap. I. 18—22. EPHESIANS. 
 
 169 
 
 revelation in true knowledge of Him; ™ having the eyes of your 
 heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of His call- 
 ing, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance are 
 among the saints, “and what the surpassing greatness of His 
 power zs to us-ward who believe, according to the operation of the 
 power of His might, * which He wrought in Christ, when He 
 raised Him from the dead,—and He set Him on His right hand 
 in the heavenly regions, * over above all Principality, and Power, 
 and Might, and Dominion, and indeed every name that is named 
 not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; ”and 
 put all things under His feet, and gave Him as Head over all 
 
 True knowledge) ‘ The knowledge,’ Auth., 
 and all the other Vy. 
 
 18. Having the eyes, etc.| ‘The eyes of 
 your* understanding being enlightened,’ 
 Auth., sim. Bish. (‘lightened’); ‘and 
 lighten the eyes of youre myndes,’ Tynd., 
 Cran., Gen. 1, sim. Cov.; ‘the eyes of 
 youre harte beynge lyghtened,’ Cov. 
 (Test ): ‘the eies of your hart illumin- 
 nated,’ Fhem. Are among| 
 ‘In,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
 Tynd., Cov., Cran., ‘apon the sainctes.’ 
 It may be observed that Tynd., Cov., 
 Cran., Gen. (both), similarly insert the 
 verb immediately before the  prep., 
 showing that they did not consider 
 ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις as merely κληρονομ. αὐτοῦ ; 
 see notes. 
 
 19. What] ‘What is,’ Auth. and the’ 
 
 other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘whyche 
 is.” Surpassing] ‘ Excellent,’ 
 Wicl.: ‘passing,’ Rhem.; ‘exceeding,’ 
 Auth. and other Vv. 15 to us-ward| 
 “To us-ward, Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen. 
 1, Bish. ; ‘in to us,’ Wiel. ; ‘toward us,’ 
 Cov. (Test.), Gen. 2, Rhem. 
 
 Operation] So Rhem.: ‘working, Auth. 
 and the remaining Vy.; see notes on 
 ch. iii. 7. The power of His might] 
 ‘His mighty power,’ Auth., Cov., Bish., 
 sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen. ; ‘the myght of 
 His vertu,’ Wicl.; ‘the myght of His 
 power,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
 
 22 
 
 20. And He set] ‘And set,’ Auth. : the 
 change in the original from the participial 
 structure to that of the aor. indic. is bet- 
 ter preserved by inserting the pronoun. 
 
 On His right hand| So Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem., sim. Wiel. : 
 “at His own right hand,’ Auth.; so also 
 Cov. (Test.), Gen. (both), but omit 
 ‘own,’ Fleavenly regions| ‘ Heavenly 
 places,’ Auth., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘ heav- 
 enli thingis,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), 
 Cran. ; ‘celestials,’ Rhem. 
 
 21. Over above] ‘Far above,’ Auth., 
 Gen. (both), Bish. : ‘above,’ Wiel. and 
 remaining Vy. And indeed] ‘And,’ 
 Auth., see notes. 
 
 22. Put] ‘Hath put,’ Auth. Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem.: ‘hath ap- 
 pointed,’ Gen. (both: Ἀεὶ. alone omits 
 the auxiliary verb, ‘and made alle 
 thingis,’ ete. And gave Him, etc.] 
 ‘And gave Him to be head over all 
 things to, etc.,’ Auth., Bish. (‘the 
 head’) ; ‘and hath made Him above all 
 thynges, the heed of, ete.,’ Tynd., Cov., 
 Cran. ; ‘and made Hym heade over all 
 the congr.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘hath ap- 
 pointed Him aboue all thinges, the heade 
 of, etc.,’ Gen. 1; ‘to be the heade of,’ 
 Gen. 2; ‘and hath made Him head ouer 
 al the church,’ Rhem. The emphatic 
 position of αὐτόν in the original should 
 not be left unnoticed. 
 
170 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 CHAP 1. 93..11. 1--.-5. 
 
 things to the church, * which indeed is His body, the fulness of 
 
 Him that filleth all with all. 
 
 CuaPTer II. 
 
 AND you also being dead by your trespasses and your sins, — 
 * wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, 
 according to the prince of the empire of the air, of the spirit that 
 now worketh in the sons of disobedience ; * among whom even we 
 
 23. Which indeed] ‘Which,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vv. except Wreel., ‘ that 
 is.” If the distinction usually made 
 between ‘that’ and ‘ which’ is correct, 
 viz., that the former is restrictive, the 
 latter resumptive (see Brown, Gramm. of 
 Grammars, II. 5, p. 293, and notes on 
 Col. iii. 1, Transl.), ‘ that’ will often be 
 a correct translation of ἥτις when used 
 differentially (see notes on Gal. iv. 24), 
 6. g., ἣ πόλις ἥτις ἐν Δέλφοις κτίζεται ; in 
 the present case, however, Wiel. is not 
 correct, as ἥτις appears here used ez- 
 plicatively. With all] ‘In all,’ 
 Auth., Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem., and 
 similarly the remaining Vv. 
 
 Cuap. 11. 1. And you also who, etc.) 
 ‘And you hath He quickened who, etc.,’ 
 Auth. The participle ὄντας has been 
 differently translated : ‘whereas ye were,’ 
 Cran.: ‘when ye were,’ Cov. (probably 
 following Vulg.); ‘that were,’ Tynd., 
 Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘who were,’ Auth. 
 Of these, the first two, though more cor- 
 rect in point of grammar than 7 γπα., 
 al., which tacitly apply an article, seem 
 searcely so satisfactory as the more sim- 
 ple translation in the text, esp. if the 
 present verse be compared with verse 5. 
 The part. ὄντας obviously marks the 
 state in which they were at the time 
 when God quickened them. While in 
 verse 5 this is brought prominently for- 
 ward by the caf; here, on the contrary, 
 
 the καὶ is joined with, and gives promi- 
 nence to buds. Inthe present case, then, 
 a simple indication of their state without 
 any temporal or causal adjunct, ‘ when,’ 
 ‘whereas,’ etc., seems most suitable to 
 the context, as less calling away the 
 attention from the more emphatic ὑμᾶς. 
 
 By| So Rhem.; ‘in,’ Auth. and 
 other Vv. Your trespasses, etc.] 
 “Trespasses and sins’ Auth., Cov., Cran., 
 Gen. (both), Bish., similarly Tynd. : 
 Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. insert ‘ your’ 
 before the first substantive only. 
 
 2. Once walked] ‘In time past ye 
 walked,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
 Wicl., ‘ye wandriden sumtyme, and 
 sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Empire} 
 “Power,” Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 Rhem.; ‘the governor that ruleth in,’ 
 Tynd., Cran., Gen., sim. Cov. This 
 somewhat modern form of expression 
 seems the only one that exactly repre- 
 sents the view taken in the notes of the 
 collective term ἐξουσία. Of the 
 spirit] So Wiel., Rhem.: ‘the spirit,’ 
 Auth., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; 
 ‘namely after the sp.,’ Cov.; ‘and the 
 sp., Gen. 1; ‘even the sp.,’ Gen. 2. 
 Sons] So Wicl.; ‘children,’ Auth. and 
 the other Vv. 
 
 3. Even we all] ‘ Also we all,’ Auth. ; 
 ‘we also had,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. (both) ; 
 ‘we ali had,’ Bish. Once had our 
 convers.| ‘Had our conyers. in times 
 past,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vv. 
 
Cuap: II. 3—6. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 171 
 
 all once had our conversation in’ the lusts of our flesh, doing the 
 desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and we were children by 
 nature — of wrath, even as the rest: — *but God, being rich in 
 mercy, because of His great love wherewith He loved us, ὅ even 
 while we were dead by our trespasses, quickened us together with 
 Christ (by grace have ye been saved), ° and raised ws up with Him, 
 
 except Wicl., ‘lyueden sumtyme ; Cov. 
 (Test.), ‘somtyme;’ Rhem., ‘conversed 
 sometime.’ This lighter translation of 
 mote seems preferable both here and in 
 ver. 2. The order of the Greek would 
 seem to require ‘had our conversation 
 once,’ but this would lead to ambiguity 
 when read in connection with the suc- 
 ceeding words. Doing| So Wiel., 
 Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Cov. : 
 ‘fulfilling,’ Auth., and sim. the remain- 
 ing Vv. Thoughts! Wiel., Cov. 
 (Test.), Fhem.; ‘mind,’ Auth. and re- 
 maining Vv. We were} ‘ Were,’ 
 Auth. Children| ‘The children,’ 
 Auth. and all other Vv. except Wicl., 
 “the sons.’ By nature — of wrath| 
 ‘By nature the children of wrath,’ Auth. 
 and sim. all other Vy. All attempts to 
 explain away the simple and ordinary 
 meaning of these words must be, some- 
 what summarily, pronounced as both 
 futile and untenable. Such a transla- 
 tion as ‘children of impulse ’ (Maurice, 
 Unity, p. 538), has only to be noticed to 
 be rejected. The substantive ὀργὴ is 
 used in thirty-four other places in the N. 
 T., and in none does it appear even to 
 approach to the meaning thus arbitrarily 
 assigned to it. The rest] So 
 Rhem.: ‘others,’ Auth., Gen. 2; ‘other 
 men,’ Wicl.; ‘other,’ Tynd. and the re- 
 maining Vv. 
 
 4. Being rich] ‘Who is rich,’ Auth. ; 
 “that is,’ Wiel. ; ‘which is,’ Tynd. and 
 the remaining Vy. Because of | 
 ‘For,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
 Bish.. Rhem.; ‘through,’ Tynd., Cov., 
 Gen. (both). 
 
 5. While] ‘When,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
 The change is only made to express 
 more forcibly the existing state; see 
 notes. By our trespasses| Similarly 
 Tynd., ‘by sinne ;’ Cran. Gen. (both), 
 Bish., Rhem., ‘by synnes ;’ Cov. (Test.), 
 ‘thorow synnes:’ ‘in sins,’ Auth., Wicl., 
 Cov. Quickened| So Wicl., Cran., 
 Rhem. ; ‘hath quickened,’ Auth. and the 
 remaining Vy. Have ye been] 
 “Ye are,’ Auth. On the simplest practi- 
 cal rule of choosing between ‘am’ and 
 ‘have been’ in the translation of the 
 Greek perf. pass., see notes on Col. i. 16 
 (Trans!.). ‘Are’ might indeed still be 
 retained on the ground that ‘am’ with 
 the part. does involve an essentially past 
 element (Latham, Engl. Lang. ὃ 568), 
 still the change seems a little more in 
 harmony with the context. 
 
 6. Raised] So Wicel., Cran., Rhem. : 
 ‘hath raised,’ Auth. and the remaining 
 Vv. Up with him] So Cov. (both), 
 Rhem.: ‘up together,’ Auth. and the re- 
 maining Vv. except Wicl., which omits 
 ‘up.’ Sit with him] So Cov. 
 (Test.), Rhem.; ‘sit together,’ Auth. and 
 the remaining Vv. except Cov. ; ‘set us 
 with Him.’ The heavenly regions| 
 ‘Heavenly places,’ <Auth.; sim. Gen. 
 (both), ‘the heavenly places :’ ‘hevenly 
 thingis,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Bish. ; 
 “among them of heaven,’ Cran.; ‘the 
 celestials,’ Rhem. 
 
 7. That He might, etc.| So as to order, 
 Wicl., Tynd., Gen. (both), Rhem. ; ‘that 
 in the ages to come He might,’ Auth., 
 and sim. Cov. (both), Cran., Bish. 
 
 That are coming] ‘To come,’ Auth. and 
 
112 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cosas, 11]. 7..-:1. 
 
 and made us sit with Him in the*heavenly regions, in Christ Jesus ; 
 “that He might show forth in the ages that are coming the exceed- 
 ing riches of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. 
 * For by GRACE have ye been saved through faith; and this cometh 
 not of yourselves, the gift is Gop’s ; ὃ not of works, that no man 
 should boast: ' for His workmanship are we, created in Christ 
 Jesus for good works, which God before prepared that we should 
 
 walk in them. 
 
 “ Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye, Gentiles in the flesh, 
 who are called the Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision, 
 
 the other Vv. except Wiclif, ‘ above 
 comyng,’ hem. ‘succeeding.’ Shew 
 Jorth| ‘Shew,’ Auth., and all the other 
 Vv. In kindness] So Tynd., Cov., 
 Cran.; ‘in His kindness,’ Auth., Gen. 
 (both), Bish. ; ‘in goodness,’ Wiel., Cov. 
 (Test.) ; ‘in bountie,’ Rhem. Inj 
 So all the Vv. except Auth. Cran., Bish., 
 ‘through.’ 
 
 8. Have ye been| ‘Are ye,’ Auth.: see 
 notes on ver. 5. And this cometh] 
 Sim. Wiel.: ‘and that not,’ Auth. and 
 remaining Vy. It does not seem neces- 
 sary to change ‘of’ into ‘from,’ the 
 former being frequently a very suitable 
 translation of ἐκ ; see notes on Gal. ii. 
 16. The gift is God’s| ‘It is the 
 gift of God,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
 The emphasis is maintained, appy. more 
 in accordance with English idiom, by 
 placing the gen. at the end rather than 
 at the beginning. 
 
 9. That no man] So Wicl., Rhem.: 
 ‘lest any man.’ Auth. and the remain- 
 ing Vv. 
 
 10. His workmanship are we] ‘ We are 
 His workmanship,’ Auth, Tynd., Cov. 
 (both), Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘we 
 ben the makynge of Hym,’ Wicl.; ‘we 
 are His work,’ Rhem. The emphatic 
 position of αὐτοῦ should not be neglected. 
 For good, etc.| ‘Unto,’ Auth., and the 
 other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 Rhem., ‘in.’ Prepared] So Cov. 
 
 (Test.), but omits ‘ before ;’ sim. Rhem., 
 but inserts ‘hath:’ ‘hath before or- 
 dained,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vy., 
 some of which, Wicl., Gen. (both), omit 
 “before” some ‘hath,’ Tynd., Cov., some 
 both words, as Cran., Gen. 
 
 11. That aforetime]| **That ye being 
 in time past,’ Auth. This translation of 
 ποτὲ (Cov.) is perhaps a little simpler 
 than that of Auth. (and remaining Vy. 
 except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., “ sum- 
 tyme’), and serves equally well to keep 
 up the antithesis between ποτὲ and τῷ 
 καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ in yer. 12. By the 
 so-called, etc.| ‘ By that which is called 
 the circumcision,’ Auth., and similarly 
 all Vv. Performed by hand] So, 
 as to order, Wiel., ‘made bi hand in 
 fleisch ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘made wyth the 
 hande in the flesh ;” ‘in the flesh made 
 by hands,’ Auwth., sim. Gen. 2, Bish.; 
 ‘which circumcision is made by hondes,’ 
 Tynd., Cran., sim. Cov.; ‘and which is 
 made by handes,’ Gen. 1. The trans- 
 position in the text seems desirable as 
 precluding any connection of ἐν σαρκὶ 
 with λεγομένης, the error of Tynd., Cran., 
 and most of the other Vy.; ‘made with 
 the hande,’ Cov., and sim. remaining Vy. 
 
 12. Ye were at that time] So Tynd., 
 Gen. (both), sim. Wicl., Rhem.: ‘at that 
 time ye were,’ Auth. and the remaining 
 Vv. except Cov., ‘that ye at the time 
 were.’ The promise] So Cran., 
 
Cuap. II. 12—18. EPHESIANS. 
 
 173 
 
 performed by hand in the flesh, — that ye were at that time 
 without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
 strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and 
 without God in the world, ® but now in Christ Jesus ye who once 
 were far off are become nigh by the blood of Christ. “ For He is 
 our Peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of 
 the partition — " ¢o wit, the enmity — in His flesh, having abolished 
 the law of commandments expressed in decrees; that he might 
 make the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace, 
 16 and might reconcile again both of us in one body unto God by 
 the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. “ And He came and 
 preached peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them that 
 were nigh; “since through Him we both in one Spirit have our 
 
 *Coverd. (Test.), *Rhem.: ‘ promise,’ 
 Auth, and the remaining Vv. 
 
 13. Once were] So Gen. (both) : “some- 
 times,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
 cept Tynd., ‘a while agoo ;’ Cov., ‘afore- 
 tyme.’ Are become] ‘ Are made,’ 
 Auth. and allthe other Vv. The change, 
 however, seems desirable, if only to ob- 
 viate the supposition that ἐγενήθητε is 
 here used with a passive force ; see notes 
 on ch. iii. 7. The aorist cannot be pre- 
 served in English when in association 
 with the particle of present time (νυνί) ; 
 comp. notes on ch. ill. 5. 
 
 14. Maude — broke] ‘ Hath made..... 
 hath broken,’ Auth. and sim. the other 
 Vv. except Wicl.,‘made..... and un- 
 bindynge;’ Fhem., ‘hath made..... 
 and dissolving.’ The partition] 
 So Rhem., and sim. Gen. (both) : ‘ parti- 
 tion,’ Auth. ; ‘the myddel-walle,’ Wiel. ; 
 “that was a stoppe bitwene us,’ Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., Bish. 
 
 15. To wit, the enmity, etc.| ‘ Having 
 abolished in His flesh the enmity even,’ 
 Auth., and similarly as to connection the 
 other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 Rhem, which separate ἐν σαρκὶ from 
 καταργήσας, and appy. connect it with 
 τὴν ἔχϑραν ; see notes. Expressed 
 in decrees| Similarly Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: 
 
 “contained in ordinances,’ Auth., Bish. ; 
 “maundementis, bidomes,’ Wiel. ;‘ which 
 standeth in ordinances,’ Gen. 2. 
 
 That he might make, etc.| Similarly Cov. 
 (both), Rhem.; ‘for to make in Himself 
 of twain,’ Auth., and similarly Tynd., 
 Cran., Gen. (both); ‘that he make two 
 in Hym Silf into a newe man,’ Wicl. ; 
 ‘for to make of twaine one new man in 
 Hymeselfe,’ Bish. 
 
 16. And might] ‘And that He might,’ 
 Auth. Reconcile again| ‘ Recon- 
 cile,’ Auth. and the other Vv.; see 
 notes in loc. Both of us| ‘Both, 
 Auth. In one body unto God] 
 Similarly Wrel., Cov. (Test), ERhem. : 
 “unto God in one body,’ Auth. and re- 
 maining Vv. 
 
 17. And He came] ‘And came,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. 
 (Test.), ‘and He comynge ;’ Shem., 
 “and coming He.’ And peace to| 
 * “And to,’ Auth. 
 
 18. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the 
 other Vy. We both, etc.] ‘We 
 both have access by one Spirit,’ Auth. ; 
 ‘han nyg comynge,’ Wicl.; ‘have an 
 open waye,’ Tynd. Gen. 1; ‘an in- 
 traunce,’ Cov. (Test.) Cran., Gen. 2, 
 similarly Cov.; ‘we have both an en- 
 trance,’ Bish. ; ‘have access,’ them. 
 
114 EPHESIANS. Ὅπαρ. Π, 19---99, ΠΠ. 1---4. 
 
 admission unto the Father. "So then ye are no more strangers 
 and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of 
 the household of God, ” built up upon the foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ; 
 in whom all the building being fitly framed together groweth into 
 an holy temple in the Lord ; *in whom ye also are builded together 
 for an habitation of God in the Spirit. 
 
 Cuapter III. 
 
 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you 
 Gentiles, — *if indeed ye have heard of the dispensation of the 
 grace of God which was given me to you-ward; *how that By 
 REVELATION the mystery was made known unto me, as I have 
 before written in few words ; * agreeably to which, when ye read, 
 ye can perceive my understandmg in the mystery of Christ, 
 
 19. So then] ‘ Now therefore,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ there- 
 for now ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘therefore ;’ 
 Rhem., ‘now then.’ Sojourners] 
 ‘Foreigners,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
 except Wicl., Cov. (both), ‘ straungers.’ 
 But ye are] *‘ But, Auth. 
 
 20. Built up| ‘And are built,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vy. except Wiel., ‘aboue 
 bildid ;’ Cov. (both), Rhem., ‘built.’ 
 
 21. All the building] So Auth., Gen. 
 (both), Bish. ; ‘eche bildynge,’ Wicl. ; 
 ‘every bildynge,’ Tynd., Cov. (both) ; 
 ‘what buildyng so ever,’ Cran.: see 
 notes. Being fitly| ‘ Fitly,’ Auth. 
 
 22. In the Spirit] So Wiel., Tynd., 
 Coverd. (both), Rhem.: ‘ through the 
 Spirit,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘by the 
 Spirit,’ Gen. (both). 
 
 Cuap. III. 1. Christ Jesus] ‘ Jesus 
 Christ,’ Auth. and other Vv., but with- 
 out any difference of reading in the Rec. 
 Text. 
 
 2. If indeed] ‘If ye, Auth., Tynd., 
 Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘ if netheless,’ 
 
 Wicl. ; ‘aceordinge as,’ Cov. ; ‘if so be 
 that,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘if yet,’ Rhem. 
 Which, etc.| It is nearly impossible 
 (without paraphrase) to imply that 
 ‘which ’ refers to ‘ grace : in the original 
 edition ‘ God’ was followed by a comma. 
 Was given] ‘Is given,’ Auth. and all the 
 other Vy. 
 
 3. The mystery, etc.| *‘ He made 
 known unto me the mystery,’ Auth. 
 As 1 have before written] ‘As I wrote 
 afore,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘ wrote 
 above,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. (both), and 
 similarly Wiel. 
 
 4. Agreeably to which] ‘ Whereby,’ 
 Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
 ‘as;’ Cov., (Test.), ‘like as;’ Rhem., 
 ‘according as.’ Can] ‘May,’ 
 Auth. and all the other Vv., but perhaps 
 not with perfect exactness ; the rule ap- 
 parently being, ‘may et can potentiam 
 innuunt, cum hoc tamen discrimine, may 
 et might vel de jure vel saltem de rei 
 possibilitate dicuntur, at can et could de 
 viribus agentis,’ Wallis, Gramm. Angl. 
 p- 107. Perceive my understanding} 
 
Cuapr. III. 5—9. EPHESIANS. 
 
 175 
 
 * which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of 
 men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and 
 prophets by the Spirit; ° ¢o wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, 
 and of the same body, and joint-partakers of the promise, in Christ 
 Jesus, through the Gospel ; ’ whereof I became a minister, accord- 
 ing to the gift of the grace of God which was given unto me 
 according to the operation of His power. ἥ Unto me, who am less 
 than the least of all saints, was this grace given, —to preach 
 among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, ° and to 
 make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which 
 from the ages hath been hid in God, who created ALL THINGS ; 
 
 So Cov.: ‘understand my knowledge,’ 
 Auth., Cran., Bish. ; “know myne under- 
 stondynge, Zynd., Gen. (both) ; undur- 
 stonde my prudence,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 “und. my wisdom,’ hem. 
 
 5. Generations] So Wiclif, Cov. 
 (Test.), Ithem.: ‘ages,’ Auth., Gen. 2, 
 Bish. ; ‘tymes passed,’ Tynd., and re- 
 maining Vy. It hath now been| 
 “It is now,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
 cept Rhem., ‘now it is.” This is a case 
 where the strict translation cannot be 
 maintained ; in English the aorist has 
 no connection with pres. time (Latham, 
 Engl. Lang. ὃ 579), and therefore cannot 
 here properly be connected with νῦν ; in 
 Greek this is possible, from the greater 
 temporal latitude of the tense; comp. 
 notes on 1 Tim. ch. ν. 15 ( Transl. ). 
 
 6. To wit, that] Similarly Coverd., 
 ‘namely, that:’ ‘that,’ Auth. and the 
 remaining Vy. except Rhem. (which is 
 excessively harsh), ‘the Gentiles to be, 
 eter Are] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.) : 
 ‘should be,’ Auth. and the remaining 
 Vv. except Fhem., supr. ‘cit. Joint- 
 partakers| Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘lyke par- 
 takers :’ ‘partakers,’ Auth. and the re- 
 maining Vv. exeept Wicl., ‘ parteneris 
 to gidre ;” Rhem., ‘comparticipant.’ 
 
 The promise] * ‘ His promise,’ Auth. 
 Christ Jesus] * ‘ Christ,’ Auth. 
 Through] So Cov. (Test): ‘by,’ Auth, 
 
 Wicl., Cov., Gen. 2, Bish., Rhem.; ‘by 
 the means of,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. 1. 
 
 7. 1 became] * ‘I was made,’ Auth. 
 Which was given] Sim. Wicl., Coverd. 
 (both), Cran., Rhem., ‘which is given :’ 
 Auth. and remaining Vv., ‘ given.’ 
 According to] So Cov., Rhem.: ‘by,’ 
 Auth., Wicl.: ‘thorow,’ Tynd., Gen. 
 (both) : ‘after the,’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
 Bish. Operation] So Rhem.: 
 ‘effectual working,’ Auth. ; ‘worchynge,’ 
 Wiel. and all the remaining Vy. This 
 word is always difficult to “translate : 
 ‘effectual working’ is perhaps too strong; 
 ‘working’ alone is appy. too weak. 
 Perhaps the term in the text as marking 
 a more formal nature of working is 
 slightly preferable; comp. notes on 2 
 Thess. ii. 12, where, however, the present 
 translation would seem less suitable. 
 
 8. Was this] ‘Is this,’ Auth. and all 
 the other Vv. To preach] So 
 Wicl., Cov. (Test.), sim. Rhem. ; ‘ that I 
 should preach,’ Auth. and all the remain- 
 ing Vv. The change is made to pre- 
 serve a similar translation of the two in- 
 finitives ; see Scholef. Hints, p. 190. 
 
 9. Dispensation] * ‘ Fellowship,’ Auth. 
 From the ages| ‘From the beginning of 
 the world,’ Auth. and the other Vy. ex- 
 cept Wiel., Rhem., ‘fro worldis,’ and 
 Cov. (Test.), ‘sence the worlde beganne.’ 
 All things} * ‘ All things by J. C., Auth. 
 
EPHESIANS. Cuapr. III. 10—18 
 
 176 
 
 * to the intent that now unto the Principalities and the Powers in 
 the heavenly regions, might be made known through the church 
 the manifold wisdom of God, ™ according to the purpose of the 
 ages which he wrought in Christ Jesus our Lord; “in whom we 
 have our boldness and our admission, in confidence, through the 
 faith in Him. “ Wherefore I entreat you not to lose heart in my 
 tribulations for you, seeing it is your glory. 
 
 “ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, ” from whom 
 every race in heaven and on earth is thus named, ™ that he would 
 grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened 
 with might through His Spirit into the inner man, ” so that Christ 
 may dwell in your hearts by faith, —’’ ye having been rooted and 
 
 10. The powers] ‘ Powers,’ Auth. and 
 the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ po- 
 testatis.’ 
 ‘Heavenly places,’ Auth., Gen. (both) ; 
 ‘hevenly thingis,’ Wécl., Cov. (Test.), 
 Cran., Bish.: ‘in heven,’ Tynd., Cov. : 
 ‘in the celestials,’ Rhem. Might 
 be made known] ‘ Might be known,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘be 
 knowun ;’ Jthem., ‘may be notified.’ 
 Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the other 
 ἅν. 
 
 11. Purpose of the ages] ‘ Eternal pur- 
 pose,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
 Wiel., ‘ordenaunce of worldis,’ and 
 Rhem., ‘prefinition of worldes.’ 
 Wrought] So Cran., Gen. (both), Bish: 
 ‘purposed,’ Auth., Tynd. : ‘made,’ Wicl., 
 —Rhem.: ‘hath shewed,’ Cov. (both). 
 
 12. Our boldness| ‘Boldness,’ Auth. 
 Our admission| ‘ Access,’ Auth., Rhem. ; 
 ‘intraunce,’ (both), Cran., Gen. 
 (both), Bish. In confidence| So, 
 as regards the prep., Wicl., Cov. (both), 
 Rhem., Bish. ; ‘with,’ Auth., Cran., Gen. 
 (both). The words προσαγωγὴν ἐν 
 πεποιϑήσει are joined together by Tynd. 
 and appy. all Vy. except Wécl., and 
 Auth. (orig. ed.). 
 
 13. 7 entreat you, etc.) ‘I desire that 
 ye faint not,’ Auth., Gen. 2, Bish., and 
 similarly the remaining Vy. except Wicl., 
 
 The heavenly regions} 
 
 Jov. 
 
 ‘axe that ye faile not.’ Seeing it is, 
 etc.] ‘Which is,’ Auth. and all the other 
 Vv. 
 
 14. The Father] ‘The Father* of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 
 
 15. From] ‘Of, Auth., Gen., Bish, 
 Rhem. Every race| ‘The whole 
 family,’ Auth., Gen. (both), ‘ eche fadir- 
 heed,’ Wrel., similarly Coverd. (Test.) ; 
 “which is father over all that ys called 
 father,’ Tynd , Cran., sim. Cov. : ‘all the 
 familie,’ Bish.; ‘al paternitie, Rhem. 
 On the difficulty of properly translating 
 this clause, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. 
 ii. p>, 26) (68.921 And on earth| 
 ‘And earth,’ Auth. Is thus 
 named| ‘Is named,’ Auth. The word 
 thus is introduced only to make the 
 paronomasia in the original a little more 
 apparent. 
 
 16. Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the 
 other Vy. Into| ‘In, Auth. and 
 all the other Vv. 
 
 17. So that] 
 other Vy. except Rhem., 
 dwel, etc.’ ; 
 
 18. Yehaving been, ete.| Similarly Cov. 
 (Test.), Rhem.: ‘that ye being,’ Auth. 
 and the remaining Vy. except Wiel. 
 which omits ‘being.’ That ye may 
 be fully able] ‘May be able,’ Auth. and 
 sim. all the other Vy. 
 
 ‘That,’ Auth., and the 
 ‘Christ to 
 
Cuap. IV. 1—2I. EPHESIANS. 177 
 
 grounded in love, — that ye may be fully able to comprehend with 
 all saints what zs the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, 
 “and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye 
 may be filled up to all the fulness of God. 
 
 ” Now unto Him that is able to do beyond all things, abundantly 
 beyond what we ask or think, according to the power that worketh 
 in us, “unto Him be glory in the church, in Christ Jesus, to all 
 the generations of the age of the ages. Amen. 
 
 Cuapter IV. 
 
 I ExnorT you, therefore, I the prisoner in the Lord, that ye 
 walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye were called, ° with 
 all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one 
 another in love ; *striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
 bond of peace. * U’here is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye 
 
 19. May] So Cov. (both), Gen. (both), that,’ Auth., and in similar order all the 
 Rhem.: ‘might,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., other Vv. It seems, however, desirable 
 Bish. ; change made to avoid the violation to maintain the emphatic collocation 
 of the law of ‘succession of tenses;’ see (‘ad excitandum affectum, quo cit effi- 
 Latham Engl. Lang. § 616. Up cacior exhortatio,’ Est.) of the original. 
 10] ‘With,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- There is some variation in the translation 
 cept Wicl., ‘in;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘into;’ of παρακαλῶ. The translation in the text 
 
 Rhem., ‘ unto.’ is found in Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. : 
 20. To do beyond, etc.| ‘Todo exceed- ‘beseech,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 ing abundantly above all that, etc., Auth. Rhem.; ‘ praye,’ Gen. (both), In the 
 
 and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘more Lord] So Coverd. (both), Gen. (both), 
 plenteously than we axen ;’ Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘of the Lord,’ Auth., Cran. ; 
 Rhem., ‘more abundantly than we ‘for the Lord,’ Wiel. ; ‘for the Lordes 
 desire.’ sake,’ Tynd. Were called| ‘Are 
 
 21. In Christ Jesus] ‘By J.C.,’ Auth. called,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
 Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘and in J. 3. Striving] ‘Endeavouring,’ Auth. 
 C., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘which The present current use of the verb 
 is in,’ Cov. To all the generation, ‘endeavour’ seems to fall so short of the 
 etc.| ‘ Throughout all ages, world with- real meaning of the σπουδάζειν as to war- 
 out end,’ Auth., Bish., sim. Rhem.; ‘to rant the change in the text or the adop- 
 alle the generaciouns of the worldis,’ tion of ‘being diligent’ (Tynd., Cran.), 
 Wicl. ; ‘thorow out all gen. from tyme ‘using diligence,’ — terms more clearly 
 to tyme,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘throughout all indicative of the σπουδὴ and zeal that 
 gen. for ever,’ Gen. (both). was evinced in the matter; see Trench 
 
 on Auth. Ver. ch. iii. p. 43. 
 
 Cuar. IV. 1. 7 exhort you, etc.| “1, 4. There is, etc.| It can scarcely be 
 
 therefore, the prisoner, ete. beseech you doubted that the Auth. is right in retain- 
 23 
 
PPIUIESTANS- Cnap. IV. 5—12. 
 
 178 
 
 were called in one hope of your calling ; ° one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism ; ° one God and Father of all, who ¢s over all, and through 
 all, and in all. 
 
 7 But unto each one of us the grace which he has was given ac- 
 cording to the measure of the gift of Christ. ° Wherefore He saith, 
 When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave 
 gifts unto men. ° Now that Ile ascended, what doth it imply but 
 that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth. ' He 
 THAT DESCENDED, He it is that ascended up above all the heavens, 
 that He might fill all things. “And Himself gave some to be 
 Apostles ; and some, Prophets ; and some, Evangelists ; and some 
 Pastors and Teachers ; ” with a view to the perfecting of the saints, 
 
 ing (after Gen. i. 2) this assertory form. 
 Some of the older Vv., Wicl., Cov. (both), 
 Bish., supply nothing; others, Tynd., 
 Cran., supply the participle ‘being one 
 body, etc.,’ both of which forms fail to 
 convey the force of the original; see 
 notes. Were called] ‘Are called,’ 
 Auth. and all the other Vy. 
 
 6. Over] So Rhem.: ‘above all,’ Auth. 
 and all the remaining Vv. In all] 
 ‘In *you all,’ Auth. 
 
 7. Each one] Sim. Wicl. : ‘ every one,’ 
 Auth. and the remaining Vv. This 
 change seems desirable to avoid a con- 
 fusion with the usual translation of παντί. 
 The grace which, etc.| ‘Is given grace,’ 
 Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
 ‘grace is gouun.,’ 
 
 8. He gave] ‘ *And gave,’ Auth. 
 What doth it imply] ‘ What is it,’ Auth., 
 Cov. (both), Gen. ii., Rhem.; ‘what 
 meaneth it,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. i. 
 Descended| ‘Descended *first,’ Auth. 
 
 10. He it is] So Wicl.: ‘is the same 
 also that,’ Auth. Above] ‘Far 
 above,’ Auth. The heavens] So 
 Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘heavens,’ Auth. 
 and the remaining Vv. 
 
 11. Himself] ‘He,’ Auth. Wiel., 
 Rhem. ; ‘and the very same,’ Tynd., Cran. ; 
 “and the same,’ Cov. (both) ; ‘ He there- 
 fore,’ Gen. (both). To be Apostles | 
 
 So Cov. (both), Gen. (both); ‘some,’ 
 Auth. Wicel., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ made 
 some,’ Tynd. Cran. The insertion of 
 the words in italics seems necessary to 
 make the sense perfectly clear. 
 
 12. With a view to] ‘For,’ Auth., Cov. 
 (Test.), Gen. ii.; ‘to the ful endynge,’ 
 Wicl., ; ‘ that the sainctes might have all 
 things,’ Tynd.; ‘whereby the sayntes 
 mighte be coupled together,’ Cov. ; ‘to 
 the edifyeng,’ Cran. ; ‘that the sainctes 
 might be gathered together,’ Gen. i. ; ‘to 
 the gathering togeather,’ Bish. ; ‘to the 
 Of minis- 
 tration| So Bish.; ‘of the ministry,’ 
 Auth. ; ‘of mynsteri,’ Wicl. ; ‘work and 
 minystracyon,’ Cran. For the build- 
 ing up| ‘For the edifying,’ Auth., Cov. 
 (Test.) ; ‘to the edifying,’ Tynd, Cov. ; 
 ‘even to the edifying,’ Gen. i.; ‘edi- 
 fication,’ Gen. ii.; ‘unto the edifying,’ 
 Bish., Rhem. This translation is perhaps 
 slightly preferable to that of Auth., and 
 to that adopted in ed. i. (‘edification’), 
 as both verb and substantive are now 
 commonly associated with what is simply 
 instructive or improving, without neces- 
 sarily suggesting the wider sense which 
 seems to prevail in the present passage. 
 The article is required by the principles 
 of English idiom, though confessedly thus 
 not in exact harmony with the Greek. 
 
 consummation,’ Rhem, 
 
77 
 
 Cnap. LV. 13—16. EPHESIANS. 179 
 
 for the work of mimistration, for the building up of the body of 
 Christ ; * till we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the 
 true knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto 
 the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: “ that we may 
 no longer be children, tossed to and fro and borne about by every 
 wind of doctrine, in the sleight of men, in craftiness tending to 
 the settled system of Error; “ἢ but holding the truth may in love 
 grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Curist: 
 "ἢ from whom the whole body being fitly framed together and com- 
 pacted by means of every joint of the spiritual supply, according 
 
 13. Arrive at] ‘Come in,’ Auth. ; 
 “rennen into,’ Wiel. ; ‘growe up unto,’ 
 Tynd., Gen. 1; ‘come to,’ Cran.; ‘al 
 meete together (in the etc.), unto,’ Gen. 
 2; ‘meete together into,’ Bish. ; ‘ meete 
 al into,’ Rhem. The true knowl- 
 edge| ‘ The knowledge,’ Auth.: the other 
 Vv. omit the article. Full-grown] 
 ‘ Perfect,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
 
 14. May, etc.] ‘Henceforth be no more,’ 
 Auth. Borne about by| “ Carried 
 about with,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
 except Wiel., ‘borun aboute with ;’ 
 Tynd., “ caryed with.’ In—in] So 
 Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.: ‘by 
 —and, Auth., Tynd.; ‘by — through,’ 
 Cran. In craftiness, etc.] ‘And 
 cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in 
 wait to deceive,’ Auth. and the other 
 Vv. except Wicl., ‘to the disceyuynge 
 of errour;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘to the de- 
 ceatfulness of errour;’ Bish., ‘in crafti- 
 ness to the laying in wayte of errour;’ 
 Rhem., ‘ to the circumvention of errour.’ 
 10 is by no means easy to devise a literal 
 and at the same time perfectly intelligi- 
 ble translation of the last clause of this 
 verse. The difficulty is mainly in the 
 brief and almost elliptical form of ex- 
 pression introduced by the prep.: of the 
 translations that have hitherto been pro- 
 posed, that in the text, or ‘furthering, 
 promoting the system, etc.’ (but see 
 notes on Phil. iv. 17 Transl.), or more 
 
 simply, ‘ with a view to the system,’ etc., 
 seems the most suitable. 
 
 15. Holding the truth] ‘Speaking the 
 truth, Auth. ; ‘folowe the truth,’ Tynd., 
 Coverd., Cran., Gen. (both), ‘do truthe ;’ 
 Wicl., ‘perfourmyng ye truth,’ Coverd. 
 (Test.); ‘folowing the truth,’ Bish. ; 
 ‘doing the truth,’ Rhem. May in 
 love] ‘In love may,’ Auth. 
 
 16. Being fitly framed together| “ Fitly 
 joined together,’ Auth. It seems desira- 
 ble to retain the same translation here 
 and ch. ii. 21. The translation of sev- 
 eral of the older Vy. e. g. ‘coupled and 
 knet togedder,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.},Cran., 
 Gen. (both), is not unsatisfactory ; ‘com- 
 pacted ’ has, however, the advantage of 
 preserving the σὺν in each verb without 
 repetition; otherwise, ‘knit together’ 
 would perhaps have been a more genu- 
 inely English translation. Ac- 
 tive working| ‘The effectual working,’ 
 Auth. ; ‘worchynge,’ Wiel. ; ‘the opera- 
 cion,’ Tynd., Cran., Rhem. ; ‘the effectual 
 power,’ Gen. 1, The addition of the 
 epithet ‘active’ or ‘vital,’ Alf.,—if in 
 italics (see notes on ch. iii. 7, and on 
 2 Thess. ii. 11), may perhaps here be 
 rightly admitted as serying slightly to 
 elear up the meaning. By 
 means of, ete.| ‘By that which every 
 joint supplieth,’ Auwth.; ‘in every joint 
 wherwith one ministreth to another,’ 
 Tynd., Gen. 1, and similarly Cov., Cran. ; 
 
180 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuapr. IV, 17—19. 
 
 to active working in the measure of each single part, promoteth 
 the increase of the body for the building up of itself in love. 
 “This then I say and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer 
 walk as the other Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, 
 15 being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life 
 of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the 
 hardness of their heart: ” who as men past feeling have given 
 
 ‘bi eche joynture of undir seruynge,’ 
 Wiel. ; ‘every joynt of subministration,’ 
 Cov. (Test.), and sim. Rhem. ; ‘by every 
 joint for the furniture thereof,’ Gen. 2; 
 ‘by every joint yeelding nourishment,’ 
 Bish. Each single] Sim. Wiel., 
 ‘each:’ ‘every,’ Auth. and all the re- 
 maining Vy.; see notes on ver. 7. 
 Promoteth the inerease| ‘Maketh in- 
 crease,’ Auth.; ‘makith encreesynge,’ 
 Wicl.; ‘maketh the increase,’ [hem. ; 
 Tynd., al. paraphrase. The more mod- 
 ern term ‘promoteth,’ seems admissible 
 as both literal, and also tending to clear 
 up the sense. For the building 
 up of itself | ‘ Unto the edifying,’ Auth. : 
 it seems desirable, for the sake of uni- 
 formity, to preserve the same translation 
 as in ver. 12; the simplest (paraphras- 
 tic) translation would be ‘so as to build 
 itself up in love. 
 
 17. This then I say] ‘This I say 
 therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
 cept Rhem., ‘ this therefore I say.’ The 
 resumptive character of the address is 
 appy. here best preserved by the more 
 literal translation of ody; comp. notes 
 on 1 Tim, ch. ii. 1. Ye must no 
 longer| ‘Ye henceforth walk not,’ Auth., 
 Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘ye 
 walke not now,’ Wiel., Cov. (Test.), sim. 
 Rhem. As the other. ... also] 
 Sim. Cov.: ‘as other,’ Auth. and the other 
 Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., 
 which omit τὰ λοιπὰ in translation. 
 
 18. Being darkened, ete.| ‘Having the 
 understanding darkened,’ Auth., Cov. 
 Test. (‘an und.’ ete.) ; ‘that han undir- 
 
 stondynge derkned with derknesses,’ 
 Wicl.; ‘blynded in their und” Tynd., 
 Cov.; ‘whyle they are blinded, ete.’ 
 Cran.; ‘having their cogitation dark- 
 ened,’ Gen. (both) ; ‘ darkened in cogita- 
 tion,’ Bish. ; “haying their und. obscured 
 with darkness,’ Rhem. Alienated} 
 ‘Being alienated,’ Auth. On account of 
 the absence of ὄντες in the second mem- 
 ber, it seems best to omit the part. of the 
 verb substantive. Because of } 
 So Tynd., Cran., Gen. 1: ‘ through,’ 
 Auth., Cov. (both), Gen. 2; ‘bi,’ Wicl., 
 Bish,, Rhem. Hardness] So 
 Gen. (both) : ‘blindness,’ Auth. and re- 
 maining Vv.; see Trench on Auth. Ver. 
 ch. vii. p. 117. 
 
 19. Who as men] ‘ Who being,’ Auth., 
 and sim., as to the translation of the 
 relative, all the other Vv. Wan- 
 tonness] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
 (both), Bish.; ‘lasciviousness,’ Auth. ; 
 ‘unchastite,’ Wiel. ; ‘unclennesse,’ Cov. 
 (Test.) ; ‘impudicitie,’ Rhem. The ar- 
 ticle joined with it tends almost to per- 
 sonify it, hence the capital. For 
 the working] Sim. Wiel.,‘ in to the worch- 
 ynge ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘in the workinge ;’ 
 ‘unto the operation,’ Rhem.: ‘to work,’ 
 Auth. and the remaining Vy. 
 
 All manner of | So Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
 Gen. 1: ‘all, Auth. and the remaining 
 Vy.; see notes on ver. 31. 
 
 In greediness] ‘ With greediness,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘in 
 coueitise ;? Cov. (Test.), ‘unto gr.;’ 
 Rhem., ‘unto avarice.’ This translation 
 of πλεονεξία may be retained if qualified 
 
Cuap. IV. 20—25. EPHESIANS. 
 
 181 
 
 THEMSELVES over unto Wantonness, for the working of all man- 
 ner of uncleanness in greediness. ™ But YE did not so learn 
 Christ ; “if indeed ye heard Him, and were taught in Hi, as is 
 truth in Jesus * that ye must put off, as concerns your former con- 
 versation, the old man, which waxeth corrupt according to the lusts 
 of Deceit, “and rather become renewed by the Spirit of your 
 
 mind, “and put on the new man, which after God’s image hath 
 
 been created in righteousness and holiness of Truth. 
 » Wherefore, having put away Falsehood, speak truth each man 
 with his neighbor ; because we are members one of another. 
 
 by the remarks zn loc., and not under- 
 stood as indicating a mere general 
 ἀμετρία. The true idea of πλεονεξία is 
 “amor habendi:’ the objects to which it 
 is directed will be defined by the context. 
 
 20. Did not so learn] ‘ Have not so 
 learned Christ,’ Auth. and all the other 
 Vv. 
 
 21. If indeed} ‘Tf so be that,’ Auth., 
 Bish., and sim. other Vv. except Wicl., 
 ‘if nethless ;’ Lthem., ‘if yet.’ 
 
 Ye heard him] Sim. Wicl.: ‘have heard 
 Him,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vv. 
 Were taught in Him] ‘ Have been taught 
 by Him,’ Auth., Gen. (both); ‘ben 
 taugte in Him,’ Wiel., Tynd., Cov.; ‘be 
 instructe in Him,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘haue 
 bene taught in Him,’ Cran. and the re- 
 maining Vv. As is, etc.| So 
 Wiel. ; ‘as the truth is in Jesus,’ Auth., 
 Bish., and sim. remaining Vy. 
 
 22. That ye must] ‘That ye,’ Auth. 
 As concerns your former] ‘Concerning 
 the former, etc.’ Auth. Which 
 waxeth, etc.| ‘Which is corrupt,’ Auth., 
 and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘which 
 marreth himselfe. The lusts of 
 Deceit} ‘The deceitful lusts,’ Auth. ; ‘bi 
 the desiris of errour,’ Wicl., sim. Cov. 
 (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘ the deceavable lustes,’ 
 Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (both); ‘the 
 lustes of errour,’ Bish. 
 
 23. And rather] ‘ And, Auth. 
 
 Become renewed] ‘Be renewed,’ Auth. 
 
 This change is made as an attempt to 
 express the contrast between the pres. 
 ἀνανεοῦσϑαι and the aor. ἐνδύσασϑαι. 
 
 By the Spirit] ‘In the spirit,’ Auth. and 
 all the other Vv. 
 
 24. And put on] ‘And that ye put on,’ 
 Auth. After the image of God} 
 So Tynd., ‘after the ymage of God :’ 
 “after God,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
 except Rhem., ‘according to God.’ The 
 order of the Greek τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισῶ. 
 is similarly retained by all the Vv. 
 except Wicl., Cov. (both). It may be 
 observed that the transl. of Rhem., ‘ac- 
 cording to,’ has the advantage of pre- 
 serving the antithesis κατὰ τὰς ἐπιῶ. 
 k. T. A.(ver. 23), and κατὰ Θεόν, but fails 
 in bringing out clearly the great doc- 
 trinal truth appy. implied in the latter 
 words. Hath been created] ‘ Is 
 created,’ Auth., and similarly all the 
 other Vv. The transl. ‘hath been,’ is 
 perhaps here slightly preferable to ‘ was,’ 
 as the latter tends to throw the κτίσις 
 further back than is actually intended ; 
 the ref. being to the new κτίσις in Christ. 
 Holiness of Truth] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 Bish., similarly Rhem.: ‘true holiness,’ 
 Auth, and the other Vv. except Cov., 
 where it is more correctly, ‘ true righteous- 
 ness and holynes.’ 
 
 25. Having put away] ‘Putting away,’ 
 Auth. Falsehood] ‘ Lying,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘lesynge.’ 
 
182 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. IV. 26—31. 
 
 * Be angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your 
 
 angered mood; “nor yet give 
 
 place to the devil. ™ Let the 
 
 stealer steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his 
 
 own hands the thing that is good, 
 
 that needeth. 
 
 that he may have to give to him 
 
 * Let no corrupt communication proceed out of 
 
 your mouth, but that which is good for edification of the need, 
 that it may minister a blessing unto the hearers ; Ἢ and grieve not 
 the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed for the day of 
 
 redemption. 
 
 Truth each man| So Wiel.; ‘every man 
 truth,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
 Cov. (Test-), Rhem. (omits ‘the’), ‘the 
 truth every man.’ Because] ‘ For,’ 
 Auth., Gen. 1, al. ; ‘for as moch,’ Tynd., 
 Cran. ; ‘because,’ Rhem. 
 
 26. Be angry] So the other Vv. ex- 
 
 cept Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., ‘be ye 
 angry ;’ Wicl., ‘be ye wrooth.’ 
 Angered mood] ‘ Wrath,’ Auth. and all 
 the other Vv. The change may per- 
 haps be considered scarcely necessary, 
 as the expression has become so familiar ; 
 still παροργισμός, ‘exacerbatio,’ ‘exas- 
 peration,’ cannot strictly be translated 
 ‘wrath.’ 
 
 27. Nor yet] *‘Neither,’ Auth. ; see 
 notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3 ( Transl.) 
 
 28. The stealer| ‘Him that stole,’ 
 
 Auth., Bish., and sim. all other Vy. ex- 
 cept Cov., ‘he that hath stollen;’ Cov. 
 (Test.), ‘he that dyd steale.’ The 
 Auth. in ver. 29 supplies a precedent for 
 this idiomatic translation of the present 
 part. with the article. Eis own] 
 ‘His,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
 The thing that) ‘The thing which,’ 
 Auth., Cran., Bish. ; ‘that that,’ Weel. ; 
 ‘some good,’ Cov.; ‘some good thing,’ 
 Tynd.; ‘that which,’ Bish., Rhem. The 
 slight change to ‘that’ is perhaps more 
 critically exact; see Brown, Gram. of 
 Gramm. 11. 5, p. 293, and notes on ch. i. 
 23. 
 
 29. For edification] ‘To the use of 
 edifying,’ Auth., Gen (both); ‘good to 
 
 * Let all bitterness, and wrath and anger, and 
 
 edefye with all,’ ete., Zynd., Cov., Cran., 
 Bish.; ‘to the edificatioun of feith,’ 
 Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. On the 
 difficulty of properly translating these 
 words, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. x. 
 p. 178. A blessing] ‘ Grace,’ 
 Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., 
 ‘that it be gracious to hear;’ Tynd., 
 ‘that it may have faveour.’ 
 
 30. In whom] Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘in 
 whiche:’ ‘whereby,’ Auth. ; ‘by whom,’ 
 Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish; " 
 ‘wherewith,’ Cov. (both). Ye 
 were] ‘Ye are,’ Auth. and all the other 
 Vv. For| ‘Unto,’ Auth., Cov., 
 Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘in 
 the,’ Wiel. : ‘agaynst the,’ Cov. (Test). 
 
 31. All bitterness] So Auth. It is not 
 always desirable to preserve the more 
 literal transl. of πᾶς (‘all manner of’), 
 esp. when it is prefixed to more than 
 one abstract substantive, as it tends to 
 load. the sentence without being much 
 more expressive. When the adj. fol- 
 lows, as in ver. 19, the longer translation 
 will often be found more admissible. 
 Wrath} So Auth., Wicl., Coverd. ('Test.), 
 ‘fearsness,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; 
 ‘anger,’ Rish., Rhem. The translation 
 may be retained, whenever Supds and 
 ὀργὴ occur together, as sufficiently exact, 
 provided that by ‘ wrath’ we understand 
 rather the outbreak (‘excandescentia,’ 
 Cicero, Tusc. Disput. αν. 9), by ‘anger’ 
 the more settled and abiding habit. It 
 is perhaps doubtful whether ‘wrath ” 
 
Cuap. V. 1—3. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 183 
 
 clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice ; 
 ” but become kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one’ 
 another, as God also in Christ forgave you. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Become then followers of God, as beloved children; * and walk 
 in love, even as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an 
 offering and a sacrifice to God, for a savour of sweet smell. 
 
 * But fornication, and all manner of uncleanness or covetousness, 
 
 does not imply a greater permanence 
 than Suuds, see Cogan on the Passions, 1. 
 1, 2. 3, p. 111, still as it is several times 
 applied to God as well as man, it seems 
 generally the most proper and satisfac- 
 tory translation. Malice] So 
 Auth. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘ma- 
 liciousness,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv. 
 except Bish., ‘noughtiness. As κακία 
 points rather to the evil habit of the 
 mind, as distinguished from πονηρία, the 
 outcoming of the same (Trench, Synon. 
 ὃ x1.),— ‘malice,’ which is defined by 
 Crabb (Synon. s. v.) as ‘the essence of 
 badness lying in the heart,’ would appear 
 a correct translation ; see Cogan on the 
 Passions, 1. 3. 2, 1, p. 159. 
 
 32. But] ‘ And,’ Auth. Be- 
 
 come kind] ‘Be ye,’ Auth. and other 
 Vv. ; corresponding to ἀρϑήτω ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, 
 ver. 31. As God also in Christ] 
 Similarly Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
 “even as God for Christ’s sake,’ Auth., 
 Tynd., and the remaining Vv. 
 Forgave] So Wicl., Tynd., Gen. (both), 
 Bish.; ‘hath forgiven,’ Auth. and the 
 remaining Vv. The aorist seems more 
 exact, as pointing to the past act of 
 God’s mercy and forgiveness displayed 
 in ‘ Christ,’ ἡ. 6. in giving Him to die for 
 the sins of the world. 
 
 Cuarter V. 1. Become then followers] 
 
 ‘Be ye therefore followers,’ Auth. and 
 the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘therfor be 
 ye folowers;’ Cov., ‘be ye the folowers 
 therefore ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be ye therfore 
 the folowers.’ The more literal transl. 
 of γίνεσθε might perhaps be here dis- 
 pensed with, as necessarily involved in 
 the action implied in μιμηταί; as, how- 
 ever, it seems an echo and resumption 
 of the preceding γίνεσϑε (ch. iv. 32), it 
 will be most exact to retain this more 
 literal translation. Beloved] 
 ‘Dear,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
 Wicl., ‘dereworthe ;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
 “most deare.’ 
 
 2. Even as] So all the other Vv. except 
 Wicl., Rhem., Auth., ‘as;’ Cov. (Test.), 
 “‘lyke as;’ see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5 
 ( Transl.). Loved us, etc.| So 
 all Vy. except Auth, Gen. 2, Bish. 
 (similarly Cov.), ‘hath loved us and 
 hath given.’ Savour of sweet 
 smell] ‘Sweet smelling savour,’ Auth., 
 Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘in to the odour of 
 swetnes,’ Wieel., sim. Cov. (Test.) ; “5800. 
 of a swete saver,’ T’ynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘in 
 an odour of sweteness,’ Rhem. 
 
 3. All manner of uncleanness] ** All 
 uncleanness,’ Auth. ; see notes on ch. iv. 
 31. Be even] ‘ Be once,’ Auth., 
 Cran., Gen. 2, Bish., sim. Tynd., Gen. 1; 
 “so much as be,’ Rhem.; Wicl. omits 
 καὶ in transl. 
 
184 EPHESIANS. Cuap. V. 4—13. 
 
 let it not be even named among you, as becometh saints ; ‘and no 
 filthiness, and foolish talking or jesting, — things which are unbe- 
 coming, — but rather giving of thanks. ° For this ye know, being 
 aware that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man 
 who is an idolater, hath an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ 
 and God. ° Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because 
 of these stns cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobe- 
 dience. ‘Do not then become partakers with them. *For ye 
 WERE once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as 
 children of light, —° for the fruit of the light zs in all goodness 
 and righteousness and truth,—7 proving what is well-pleasing 
 unto the Lord. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful 
 works of darkness, but rather even reprove them. ™ For the 
 things which are done by them in secret it is a shame even to 
 speak of. ™ But all these things, when they are reproved, are 
 made manifest BY THE LIGHT; for everything that is made mani- 
 
 4. And no—and} ‘ Neither— nor,’ 
 Auth. As several MSS., e.g. ADIEI 
 FG; 4 mss.; Vulg., ‘Clarom.,, al. 
 (Lachm., Meyer, al.), read #—%, it seems 
 desirable to mark in the translation the 
 reading adopted. Or] ‘ Nor,’ 
 Auth. Jesting| So Auth. and 
 the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ harlotrie ;’ 
 Rhem., ‘ scurrility.’ Things 
 which are, etc.| ‘Which are not con- 
 venient, Auth. ; ‘which are not comely,’ 
 Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘which are 
 things not comely,’ Gen. (both). 
 
 5. Ye know, being aware] *‘Ye know 
 that, etc.,’ Auth. An inheritance] 
 ‘ Any inheritance,’ Auth. and the other 
 Vy. except Wicel., ‘eritage;’ Cov. 
 (both), Rhem., ‘inheritaunce.’ 
 
 Of Christ and God| ‘Of Christ and of 
 God,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
 
 6. These sins] ‘ These things,’ Auth. 
 
 7. Do not then become] Sim. Rhem., 
 ‘become not therefore;” ‘be not ye 
 therefore,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran., 
 Gen, 2, Bish.; ‘therfor nyle ye be 
 made,’ Wicl.; ‘be not therefore,’ Tynd., 
 
 Gen. 1: the insertion of ‘ye’ is not in 
 accordance with the original. 
 
 8. Once| So Tynd., Gen. (both) : 
 ‘sometimes,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘sometime,’ 
 Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem. 
 
 9. The light] ‘ The * Spirit,’ Auth. 
 
 10. Well-pleasing] So Wicel., Cov. 
 (Test.), Rhem.; ‘acceptable,’ <Auth., 
 Bish. ; ‘ pleasinge,’ Tynd. and the re- 
 maining Vv. 
 
 11 But rather even] Similarly, but 
 rather awkwardly, Gen. 2, ‘but even 
 reprove them rather;’ ‘but rather,’ 
 Auth. and remaining Vy. except Wiel., 
 ‘but more ;’ Bish., ‘ but even rebuke.’ 
 
 12. For the things, etc.| ‘For it is a 
 shame even to speak of those things 
 which are done of them in secret,’ Auth. 
 and in similar order, the other Vy. ex- 
 cept Wicl., Rhem. 
 
 13, All these] ‘ All,’ Auth. 
 
 When they are] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
 Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘that are,’ Auth., 
 Wicl., Cov. (Test.) Rhem. 
 
 For everything, etc.| ‘For whatsoever 
 doth make manifest is light,’ Auth. ; ‘ for 
 
Sr 
 
 Cuap. V. 14—24. EPHESIANS. 185 
 
 fest is light. “ Wherefore He saith, Up! thou that sleepest, and 
 arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 
 
 * Take heed then how ye walk with strictness, not as fools, but 
 as wise, “buying up for yourselves the opportunity, because the 
 days are evil. ” For this cause do not become unwise, but under- 
 standing what the will of the Lord ἐ8. And be not made drunk 
 with wine, wherein is dissoluteness, but be filled with the Spirit ; 
 " speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 
 singmg and making melody in your heart to the Lord, ” giving 
 thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, “ submitting yourselves one to another 
 in the fear of Christ. 
 
 * Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the 
 Lord ; * for a husband is head of his wife, as Christ also is head of 
 the church ; He 7s the saviour of the body. * Nevertheless as the 
 church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives also be to their hus- 
 
 al thing that is schewed is light,’ Wiel. ; 
 ‘for whatsoever is manifest, that same 
 is light,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘for euery 
 thinge that is manifest is light,’ Cov. 
 (Test.) : ‘for it is light that discouereth 
 all things,’ Gen. 1; ‘for it is light that 
 makes all things manifest,’ Gen. 2; ‘for 
 all that which doeth make manifest is 
 light,’ Bish. ; ‘for al that is manifested 
 is light,’ Rhem. 
 
 14. Up! thou that sleepest] So Coverd. 
 (Test.): ‘awake thou that sleepest,’ 
 Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 
 Wicl., Rhem., ‘rise thou that,’ ete. 
 
 15. Tuke heed] So all the other Vv. 
 
 except Wicl., Rhem., Auth., ‘see.’ 
 How ye] So Cran., Cov. (both), Rhem., 
 similarly Wiel. ; ‘that ye,’ Auth. and the 
 remaining Vy. With strictness] 
 ‘Circumspectly,’ Avth. and the other 
 Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘warily.’ 
 
 16. Buying up, etc.| ‘Redeeming the 
 time,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), simi- 
 larly Cov., Gen. (both), Bish., Rhem.; 
 ‘agenbiynge tyme,’ Wrel.; ‘avoydyng 
 occasion,’ Cran. 
 
 17. For this cause] ‘Wherefore,’ Auth., 
 
 24 
 
 Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; 
 ‘therfor,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
 
 Do not become] Sim. Rhem.; ‘be ye not,’ 
 Auth. and the remaining Vy. 
 
 18. Made drunk] ‘Be not drunk,’ 
 Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
 ‘nyle ye be drunken;’ Cov., ‘be not 
 dronken ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be not ye 
 dronken,’ Dissoluteness| ‘ Ἐχ- 
 cess,’ Auth. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
 (both), Bish.;  ‘leccherie,’ Wiel. ; 
 “voluptuousnesse,’ Cov, (Test.) ; ‘riot- 
 ousness,’ Rhem. 
 
 19. One another] ‘ Yourselves,’ Auth. 
 and all the other Vv. 
 
 21. Of Christ] ‘ Of * God,’ Auth. 
 
 22. Submit yourselves] Italics ; but not 
 so in Auth. which adopts the insertion. 
 
 23. A husband] *‘The husband,’ 
 Auth. Head of his] ‘The head 
 of the,’ Auth. As Christ also] 
 ‘Even as Christ,’ Auth. and the other 
 Vv. except Wicl Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
 ‘ As Christ is.’ He is] *‘ And 
 he is,’ Auth. 
 
 24. Nevertheless] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. 
 
180 EPHESIANS. Crap. V. 25—32. 
 
 bands. ™ Husbands, love your own wives, even as Christ also loved 
 the church, and gave Himself for it; * that He might sanctify it, 
 having cleansed it by the laver of the water in the word, * that 
 He might Himself present to Himself the church in glorious 
 beauty, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that 
 it should be holy and blameless. * Thus ought husbands also to 
 love their own wives, as being their own bodies. He that loveth 
 his own wife loveth himself. “For no man ever hated his own 
 flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as Christ also doth 
 the church: ” because we are MEMBERS of His body, of His flesh, 
 and of His bones. ® For this cause shall a man leave his father 
 and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall 
 be one flesh. This mystery is a great one; I however am 
 
 (Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘ but.’ 
 Also be] ‘Be,’ Auth. Their hus- 
 bands] *‘ Their own husbands,’ Auth. 
 
 25. Your own] ‘ Your,’ Auth. and all 
 the other Vy. 
 
 26. Sanctify it, etc.] ‘Sanctify it and 
 cleanse it,’ Auth., Gen. 2; ‘to sanctifie 
 it, and clensed it,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
 1; ‘to sanctifie it, when he had clensed 
 it,’ Bish.; ‘sanctifie it, cleansing it,’ 
 Rhem. By the laver of the, etc.] 
 So Rhem. (‘of water’): ‘with the wash- 
 ing of water by the word,’ Auth. ; ‘with 
 the, etc., in the word,’ Wicl.: ‘in the 
 fountayne of water thorow the worde,’ 
 Tynd., Cran.; ‘in the f. of w. by the 
 worde,’ Cov. ; ‘with the f. of w. in the 
 worde,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘in the washing 
 of w. through the worde,’ Gen..1; ‘in 
 the fountain of water in the word,’ 
 Bish. 
 
 27. He might Himself, etc.] ‘He might 
 present it *to Himself a glorious church,’ 
 Auth., Bish. (‘unto’); ‘to make it unto 
 Himselfe a glorious congregacion,’ Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., similarly Gen. 1; ‘to geue 
 the chirche glorious to Him self,’ Wicl. 
 Blameless| ‘Without blemish,’ Auth. ; 
 ‘that it hadde no wemme,’ Wiel. ; ‘ with- 
 
 out blame,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
 (both), Bish. ; ‘ undefyled,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
 ‘unspotted,’ 2hem. ; see notes on ch. i. 4. 
 
 28. Thus also, etc.] *‘So ought men 
 to love,’ Auth. Own wife — 
 wives] Auth. omits ‘own.’ 
 
 As being] ‘ As,’ Auth. and all the other 
 Vv. 
 
 29. Ever] So Wicl., Rhem.; ‘ever 
 yet,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
 cept Cov. (Test.), ‘at ony tyme.’ 
 
 Christ also, etc.| *‘ The Lord, the 
 Church,’ Auth. 
 
 30. Because] So Rhem.: ‘for,’ Auth. 
 and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., 
 ‘and.’ 
 
 81. Father] *‘ His father,’ Auth. 
 
 82. This mystery, etc.| ‘This is a great 
 
 mystery,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.); ‘this 
 sacrament is great,’ Wicl.; ‘is a great 
 sacr.’ Rhem.; ‘is a great secrete,’ Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. 
 I however am, etc.| ‘ But I speak,’ Auth. 
 and the Vy. except Wicl., ‘ye I seie;’ 
 Cov. (Test.), ‘but I say;’ “1 speake,’ 
 Bish. In reference to| ‘ Con- 
 cerning,’ Auth, Gen. 2; ‘in,’ Wiel., 
 Cov. (Test.) Rhem.; ‘bitwene,’ Tynd. ; 
 ‘of,’ Cov., Cran., Gen. 
 
EPHESIANS. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 1—8. 187 
 
 speaking in reference to Christ and to the church. ἢ Nevertheless 
 ye also severally, let each one ef you thus love his own wife as 
 himself; and the wife, let her reverence her husband. 
 
 CuapTer VI. 
 
 CHILDREN, obey your parents, in the Lord; for this is mght. 
 * Honour thy father and thy mother, the which is the first com- 
 mandment in regard of promise; °* that it may be well with thee, 
 and that thou mayest live long upon the earth. * And, ye fathers, 
 provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the 
 discipline and admonition of the Lord. 
 
 ° Bond-servants, be obedient to your masters according to the 
 flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
 Christ; ° not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as bond-ser- 
 vants of Christ; doing the will of God from the heart; ‘ with 
 good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: ‘seeing 
 ye know that whatsoever good thing each man shall do, THIS shall 
 
 33. Ye also, εἰς. ‘Let every one of 
 
 you in particular,’ Auth.; ‘do ye so, 
 that every one,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; 
 ‘you also let every one loue,’ Cov. 
 (Test.); ‘every one of you, do ye so,’ 
 Gen. (both), Bish. The slight asynde- 
 ton in the original is perhaps best re- 
 tained. Thus love his own wife 
 as] ‘ So love his wife as,’ Auth. 
 Let her reverence] ‘See that she rever- 
 ence,’ Auth.; ‘and let the wife se that,’ 
 Tynd., Gen. (both) ; ‘but let,’ ete., Cov. 
 (both) ; ‘and let the wife feare,’ Cran., 
 Rhem.; ‘and let the wyfe reverence,’ 
 Bish. 
 
 Cuap. VI. 2. Thy mother] So Wicl., 
 Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘mother,’ Auth. and 
 the remaining Vv. The which] 
 ‘Which,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen. 2, 
 Bish., Rhem.; ‘that is, Wiel., Cov., 
 Tynd., Gen. 1; ‘the same is,’ Cran. 
 
 In regard of promise] ‘ With promise,’ 
 Auth., Gen. 2; ‘that hath eny promes,’ 
 16 
 
 Tynd., Cov., Gen. 1; ‘in the promyse,’ 
 Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. (omits ‘ the’) 
 Rhem.; ‘in behest,’ Wiel. 
 
 3. And that thou] ‘And thou,’ Auth. 
 Upon] ‘ On,’ Auth. 
 
 4. Discipline} So Rhem.; ‘nurture,’ 
 Auth., Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran. ; 
 ‘techynge,’ Wicl.; ‘instruction,’ Gen. 
 (both), Bish. 
 
 5. Bond-servants] ‘Servants,’ Auth. ; 
 change to maintain the opposition in 
 ver. 8. Your] ‘Them that 
 are,’ Auth. 
 
 6. Bond-servants] ‘The servants,’ Auth. 
 
 8. Seeing ye know] ‘ Knowing,’ Auth., 
 and similarly other Vv. except Tynd., 
 ‘and remember ;’ Cov., ‘and be sure;’ 
 Gen. (both, ‘and know ye.’ 
 
 Each man| So Wiel., ‘any man,’ 
 Auth. and the remaining Vy. except 
 Cov., “ἃ man;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘he doth; ’ 
 Rhem., ‘he shall do.’ Shall 
 do| So Wicl., Rhem.; ‘doeth,’ Auth. and 
 the remaining Vy. This| ‘The 
 
EPHESIANS. 
 
 188 Crap. VI. 9—14. 
 
 he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. " And, ye 
 masters, do the same things unto them, giving up your threat- 
 ening: seeing ye know that both their Master and yours is in 
 heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him. 
 
 ” Finally, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the power of His 
 might. “ Put on THE WHOLE ARMOUR of God, that ye may be 
 able to stand against the stratagems of the devil: ” because our 
 struggle is not against flesh and blood, but it is against Principalities, 
 against Powers, against the World-Rulers of this darkness, against 
 the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly regions. ™ For 
 this cause take up THE WHOLE AarMoUR of God, that ye may be 
 able to withstand in the evil day, and having fully done all, to 
 
 stand. 
 
 same,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran.; ‘that 
 same,’ Gren. (both) ; ‘that,’ Tynd., Bish. ; 
 “it,’ Cov. 
 
 9. Giving up your] ‘ Forbearing,’ Auth. ; 
 ‘puttinge awaye,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), 
 Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘remitting,’ 
 Rhem. Seeing ye know, etc.] 
 ‘Knowing that your * Master also is in 
 h. neither is there,’ Auth. 
 
 10. Finally] *‘ Finally my brethren,’ 
 Auth. Be strengthened| So 
 Rhem.; ‘be strong,’ Auth. and the re- 
 maining Vy. except Wicl., ‘be ye coun- 
 fortide.’ 
 
 11. Stratagems] ‘ Wiles,’ Auth.; ‘as- 
 piyngis,’ Wicl. ; ‘crafty assautes,’ Tynd., 
 Cov., Gen. 1 ; ‘assaultes,’ Cov. (Test.), 
 Cran., Gen. 2, Bish.; ‘deceites,’ Rhem. 
 The translation in the text seems best to 
 convey the idea of a fixed and settled 
 plan: see notes on ch. iy. 14. 
 
 12. Because our wrestling] ‘For we 
 wrestle not,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 
 
 except Wicl., ‘for why stryuynge ;’ 
 Rhem., ‘for our wrestling.’ But 
 itis] ‘But, Auth. The World- 
 Rulers| ‘The rulers,’ Auth.; ‘ govern- 
 
 ouris of the world,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
 ‘worldly rulers,’ Tynd., 
 Cran.; ‘the worldly gouernours,’ Gen. 
 (both), Bish. (omits ‘the’); ‘the rec- 
 
 sim. Cov. ; 
 
 * Stand therefore, having girt your loins about with truth, 
 
 tors of the world,’ Rhem. Of 
 this darkness} *‘ Of the darkness of 
 this world,’ Auth. The spiritual 
 hosts of wickedness] ‘Spiritual wicked- 
 ness,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘spiritual thingis of 
 w.’ Wicl., Cov. (Test); ‘spretual w.’ 
 Tynd. ; ‘ye spretes of w.’ Cov.: ‘ spret- 
 ual craftynes,’ Cran. ; ‘spiritual wicked- 
 nesses,’ Gen. (both); ‘the spirituals of 
 w. Rhem. In the heavenly 
 regions] ‘In high places,’ Auth.; ‘in 
 hevenli thingis,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
 Cran.; ‘for hevenly thinges,’ Tynd. : 
 ‘under the heauen,’ Cov.; ‘which are 
 above,’ Gen. 1; ‘which are in the hie 
 places,’ Gen. 2; ‘in heavenly places,’ 
 Bish.; ‘in the celestials,’ Rhem. 
 
 13. For this cause] So Tynd., Cov., 
 
 Gen. (both): ‘wherefore,’ Auth., Bish., 
 Cran.; ‘therfor,’ Wicl., Rhem. 
 Up] ‘Unto you,’ Auth. Fully 
 done] ‘Done,’ Auth.; ‘and in alle 
 thingis stonde parfigt, Wiel.: ‘havy- 
 ing finished all thynges,’ Gen. (both), 
 Bish. 
 
 14. Having girt, etc.] ‘Having your 
 loins girt about,’ Auth. Bish.; ‘and 
 your loynes gyrd aboute,’ Tynd., Cov., 
 Gen. (both), sim. Cran.; ‘having your 
 loins girded in,’ Rhem. Hav- 
 ing put on] ‘ Having on, Auth. 
 
ἢ 
 
 Cuar. VI. 15—22. EPHESIANS. 189 
 
 and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, ' and having 
 shod your feet with the preparedness of the gospel of peace; in 
 addition to all, having taken up the shield of faith, wherewith ye 
 shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked One ; 
 1 and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, 
 which is the word of God; “with all prayer and supplication 
 praying always in the Spirit, and watching thereunto, with all 
 perseverance and supplication for all the saints ; “ἢ and in particu- 
 lar for me, that utterance may be GIVEN unto me in the opening 
 of my mouth, so that with boldness 1 may make known the mys- 
 tery of the gospel, * for which I am an ambassador im a chain ; 
 that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. 
 
 *! But that ye also may know my condition, how I fare, Tychicus, 
 the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make 
 known to you all things: “whom I have sent unto you for this 
 
 15. And having shod] ‘ And your feet 
 shod,’ Auth. Preparedness] 
 ‘With the preparation,’ <Auth., Gen. 
 (both); ‘in makynge rede of,’ Wiel.; 
 ‘(showes) prepared by the, ete.’ Tynd. ; 
 ‘that ye may be prepared,’ Cov., simi- 
 larly Cran, ‘that ye may be prepared 
 for ;’ ‘in the preparation,’ Bish. ; ‘to the 
 prep.’ them. 
 
 16. In addition to] ‘ Above all,’ Auth. 
 and the other Vv. except Wieel., Cov. 
 (Test.), Rhem., ‘in alle thingis.’ 
 Having, etc.| ‘Taking, Auth., Bish, 
 Rhem.; ‘take to you,’ Tynd., Cran., 
 Gen. 1; ‘take holde of,’ Cov. 
 
 Wicked one] Sim. Rhem., ‘of the most 
 wicked one:’ ‘the wicked,’ Auth. and 
 the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘the 
 worst;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘the most wicked.’ 
 The addition in the text seems desirable as 
 marking the personality of τοῦ πονηροῦ. 
 
 17. Receive] ‘ Take,’ Auth. and all the 
 other Vv. 
 
 18. With all prayer, ete.| ‘ Praying 
 always with all, etc.’ Auth. 
 
 All the saints] So Rhem.; ‘all saints,’ 
 Auth, and the remaining Vv. except 
 Wicl., ‘ alle holi men.’ 
 
 19. And in particular] ‘And,’ Auth. : 
 
 use of καὶ to add the particular to the 
 general; see Fritz. on Mark, p. 11, 718, 
 and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. 
 In the opening, etc.| ‘That I may open 
 my mouth boldly to,’ etc., Auth., Tynd., 
 Cov., Cran., Gen. (both; ‘in openynge 
 of my mouth,’ Wiel., similarly Cov. 
 (Test.), Rhem.: ‘that I may open my 
 mouth freely to utter,’ etc., Bish. 
 
 20. A chain] So Wiel. ; ‘in this ch.,” 
 Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘in bonds,’ Auth. 
 and the remaining Vv. 
 
 21. Condition} Sim. Tynd., Cran. ; 
 ‘ affairs,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘what case I am 
 in,’ Cov.; change merely to avoid the 
 homeeoteleuton. How I fare| 
 ‘And how I do,’ Auth.: all the other 
 Vv., ‘what I do;’ but as this might be 
 misunderstood and referred to what the 
 Apostle was actually engaged in (see 
 Wolf in loc.), it seems best, with Harl., 
 to refer τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ to ‘meine Lage,’ τὶ 
 πράσσω to ‘mein Befinden.’ 
 The beloved] Sim. Cran., Cov. (Test.), 
 ‘the:’ ‘a beloved,’ Auth. ; ‘my,’ Wiel., 
 Tynd., Coverd., Gen., Rhem,; ‘a,’ Bish. 
 
 22. This very purpose} ‘The same,’ 
 
190 EPHESIANS. Cuar. VI. 23, 24. 
 
 very purpose, that ye may know our affairs, and that he may com- 
 fort your hearts. 
 
 * Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the 
 Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace de with all them that 
 
 love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption. 
 
 Auth. and all the other Vv. except 24. In incorruption] So Wicl., Rhem. ; 
 Wicel., ‘ this same.’ May —may] ‘in sincerity,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘in puernes,’ 
 ‘Might — might,’ Auth.: change in ac- Tynd.; ‘unfaynedly,’ Cov., Cran. ; ‘sin- 
 cordance with the law of the succession cerely,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ to the’r immor- 
 of tenses, Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616. talitie,’ Gen. (both). 
 
WARREN F. DRAPER, 
 
 PUBLISHER AND BOOKSELLER, 
 
 ANDOVER, MASS. 
 
 PUBLISHES AND OFFERS FOR SALE THE FOLLOWING, WHICH WILL 
 BE SENT POST PAID ON RECEIPT OF THE SUM AFFIXED. 
 
 GUERICKE’S CHURCH HISTORY. Translated by W. G. T. SHEDD, 
 Brown Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 438 pp. 8vo. $2.25. 
 This volume includes the period of the ANCIENT CHURCH (the first six centuries, A. C.). 
 
 DISCOURSES AND ESSAYS. By Pror. W G. T. SHEDD. 312 pp. 
 12mo. New Edition. $1.00. 
 ConTEeNtsS.— The Method and Influence of Theological Studies.— The True Nature of 
 the Beautiful, and its Relation to Culture. — The Characteristics and Importance of a Natural 
 Rhetoric. — The Nature and Influence of the Historic Spirit. — The Relation of Language and 
 
 Style to Thought.— The Doctrine of Original Sin.—'The Atonement, a Satisfaction for the 
 Ethical Nature of both God and Man. 
 
 LECTURES UPON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. By 
 Pror. W.G.T.SHEDD. 128 pp. 12mo. 60 cents. 
 
 ConTENTS.— The Abstract Idea of History. — The Nature and Definition of Secular History. 
 — The Nature and Definition of Church History.— The Verifying Test in Church History. 
 
 OUTLINES OF A SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC. From the German 
 of Dr. FRANCIS THEREMIN, by W G.T. SHEDD. Third and revised Edition, 
 with an Introductory Essay by the Translator. pp. 216. 12mo. 75 cts. 
 
 AUBERLEN ON DANIEL AND THE REVELATION. Trans- 
 lated by Rev. ADOLPH SAPHIR. 8vo. pp. 490. $1.50. 
 
 CALVIN’S COMMENTARIES. (CALVIN SOCIETY’S EDITION.) 
 Complete in 45 vols. 8vo. $55.00, with Postage added. 
 
 These works are new, accurate, and faithful translations, by the Society specially organized 
 for the purpose. The volumes average about 500 pages each, 8vo., are handsomely printed on 
 fine paper, in large type, and bound in black cloth. Copious Tables and Indices are appended. 
 
 CALVIN’S INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 3vols. 8vo. $5.00. with Postage added. 
 
 The volumes of this work contain upwards of 600 pages each. Besides a Table of Scripture 
 Passages, there is also a Table of Greek words explained, and a very copious General Index. 
 
 ELLICOTT’S COMMENTARY, CRITICAL AND GRAMMAT- 
 ICAL, on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. With an Introductory Notice 
 by CaLvin E. Stowe, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. 
 pp. 188. $1.50. 
 
 HENDERSON ON THE MINOR PROPHETS THE BOOK 
 OF THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. Translated from the Original 
 Hebrew. With a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical By 
 E. Henperson, D.D. With a Biographical Sketch of the Author, by E. P. 
 Barrows, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. pp. 490. $3.00. 
 
 (2) 
 
Publications of W. }ὶ Draper. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By 
 MosEs STuART, late Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological 
 Seminary at Andover. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D. 
 C. Ropsins. 12mo. pp. 544. $1.50. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 By Pror. M. Stuart. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D.C. 
 ἘΟΒΒΙΝΒ. 12mo. pp. 575. $1.75. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. By Pror. 
 M. Stuart. 12mo. pp. 482. $1.25. 
 
 STUART’S MISCELLANIES. pp. 369. 12mo. 75 cents. 
 
 ConTentTs.—I. Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity. — II. Two Sermons on the Atone- 
 ment.— III. Sacramental Sermon on the Lamb of God.—IV. Dedication Sermon. — Real 
 Christianity. — V. Letter to Dr. Channing on Religious Liberty. — VI. Supplementary Notes 
 and Postscripts. 
 
 STUART’S GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTA 
 MENT DIALECT. Second Edition. Corrected and rewritten. 8vo. $1.87. 
 
 STUART’S HINTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPH- 
 ECY. pp. 146. 12mo. 88 cents. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. Translated from the Latin 
 of J. A. Ernesti, and accompanied by Notes, with an Appendix containing 
 Extracts from Morus, Beck, Keil, and Henderson. By M. Sruarr. Fourth 
 Edition. 12mo. Half cloth. pp. 142. 60 cents. 
 
 STUART’S HEBREW CHRESTOMATHY. Designed as an Intro- 
 duction to a course of Hebrew Study. Third Edition, 8vo. pp. 281. 75 cents. 
 
 MESSIANIC PROPHECY AND THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 
 By Rev. W.S. KENNEDY. 12mo. pp. 484. $1.00. 
 
 SCHAUFFLER’S MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF 
 CHRIST. 12mo. pp. 439. $1.00. 
 
 BIBLE HISTORY OF PRAYER. By Ὁ. A. Goopricu. 12mo. 
 pp. 884. $1.00. 
 
 MONOD’S DISCOURSES ON THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL. 
 Translated from the French, by Rev. J. H. Myers, D.D. 12mo. pp. 191. 
 75 ets. 
 
 CARLYLE’S LATTER-DAY PAMPHLETS. 12mo. pp. 427. $1.00. 
 
 NEMESIS SACRA. A series of Inquiries, Philosophical and Critical, into 
 the Seripture Doctrine of Retribution on Earth. pp. 550. $2.75. 
 
 THEOLOGIA GERMANICA. Which setteth forth many fair linea- 
 ments of Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a 
 Perfect Life. Edited by Dr. Prre1rrer, from the only complete manuscript 
 yet known. Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH. 
 With a Preface by the Rev. CHARLES Kina@siery, Rector of Eversley; and 
 a Letter to the Translator, by the CHEVALIER BuNSEN, D.D., D.C.L., ete.; 
 and an Introduction by Pror. Catvin E. Stowxr, D.D. 16mo. pp. 275. 
 Cloth, $1.00; calf, $2.00. 
 
 THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Edited, with an 
 Introduction, by Prof. W. G. T. SHEpD. l16mo. pp. 458. $1.00. 
 (b) 
 
BS2695 .E46 
 commentary, critical and grammatical, 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 GAYLORD #3523PI — Printed in USA 
 
eve 
 
 ΓΝ ὁ 
 ἢ ny. . ἢ Py) j un, 
 : Ti 
 
if 
 i 
 
 tt